RESUMO
Background: Concomitant type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is frequent with a poor prognosis with high risk of comorbidities. Strict risk factor control reduces the risk for complications - yet many people do not achieve treatment targets. The complexity and fragmentation of the healthcare system may, together with the vulnerability of these patients, be a reason. Objective: The purpose of this paper is to describe the protocol of a non-randomized interventional pilot study testing the feasibility and effect of a multidisciplinary, shared care clinic using personalized medicine and coordinated care in people living with concomitant T2D and CVD. Methods: Participants were included from the Holbaek area in Denmark. People suffered from T2DM and CVD and were dysregulated regarding to HbA1c, cholesterol, micro/macroalbuminuaria or blood pressure. Participants went through a thorough evaluation to identify their needs and resources and received consultations every three months for one year. Results: A total of 63 participants with T2DM and CVD were enrolled in the clinic. The participants had a mean age of 69 years and a BMI of 30.9 kg/m2. Almost 50 % had heart failure, 95 % dyslipidemia and 91 % hypertension. Around 54 % received GLP-1 agonists and 39 % received SGLT-2-inhibitors. Perspectives: To our knowledge, a similar study with a multidisciplinary, shared care, outpatient clinic treating people living with concomitant T2DM and CVD, has not been performed previously. This study will provide information about the feasibility and efficacy of a multidisciplinary clinic based on changes in cardiovascular risk factors and medication.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A key decision in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is choosing between a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy as the main strategy. When choosing rate control, the optimal heart rate target is uncertain. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation trial is a randomized, multicenter, two-group, superiority trial comparing strict rate control versus lenient rate control in patients with either persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at inclusion. To prevent bias arising from selective reporting and data-driven analyses, we developed a predefined description of the statistical analysis. METHODS: The primary outcome of this trial is the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire. A total of 350 participants will be enrolled based on a minimal important difference of 3 points on the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire, a standard deviation of 10 points, a statistical power of 80% (beta of 20%), and an acceptable risk of type I error of 5%. All secondary, exploratory, and echocardiographic outcomes will be hypothesis-generating. The analyses of all outcomes will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will analyze continuous outcomes using linear regression adjusting for "site," type of atrial fibrillation at inclusion (persistent/ permanent), left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40% or < 40%), and the baseline value of the outcome (all as fixed effects). We define our threshold for statistical significance as a p-value of 0.05 and assessments of clinical significance will be based on the anticipated intervention effects defined in the sample size and power estimations. Thresholds for both statistical and clinical significance will be assessed according to the 5-step procedure proposed by Jakobsen and colleagues. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan will be published prior to enrolment completion and before any data are available and is sought to increase the validity of the DANish Atrial Fibrillation trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04542785. Registered on Sept 09, 2020.