HbA1c changes in a deprived population who followed or not a diabetes self-management programme, organised in a multi-professional primary care practice: a historical cohort study on 207 patients between 2017 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management (DSM) helps people with diabetes to become actors in their disease. Deprived populations are particularly affected by diabetes and are less likely to have access to these programmes. DSM implementation in primary care, particularly in a multi-professional primary care practice (MPCP), is a valuable strategy to promote care access for these populations. In Rennes (Western France), a DSM programme was designed by a MPCP in a socio-economically deprived area. The study objective was to compare diabetes control in people who followed or not this DSM programme. METHOD: The historical cohort of patients who participated in the DSM programme at the MPCP between 2017 and 2019 (n = 69) was compared with patients who did not participate in the programme, matched on sex, age, diabetes type and place of the general practitioner's practice (n = 138). The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change between 12 months before and 12 months after the DSM programme. Secondary outcomes included modifications in diabetes treatment, body mass index, blood pressure, dyslipidaemia, presence of microalbuminuria, and diabetes retinopathy screening participation. RESULTS: HbA1c was significantly improved in the exposed group after the programme (p < 0.01). The analysis did not find any significant between-group difference in socio-demographic data, medical history, comorbidities, and treatment adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: These results, consistent with the international literature, promote the development of DSM programmes in primary care settings in deprived areas. The results of this real-life study need to be confirmed on the long-term and in different contexts (rural area, healthcare organisation).

PRESERVE-beta: two-year efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide or glyburide plus metformin.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide/metformin versus glyburide/metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, 2-year study of 428 drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients received 120 mg a.c. nateglinide or 1.25 mg q.d. glyburide plus 500 mg q.d. open-label metformin for the initial 4 weeks. During a subsequent 12-week titration period, glyburide and metformin were increased by 1.25- and 500-mg increments to maximum daily doses of 10 and 2,000 mg, respectively, if biweekly fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or = 6.7 mmol/l. Nateglinide was not titrated. Blinding was maintained by use of matching placebo for nateglinide and glyburide. An 88-week monitoring period followed, during which HbA1c (A1C), FPG, and postprandial glucose excursions (PPGEs) during an oral glucose tolerance test were measured. RESULTS: In nateglinide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.4% at baseline and 6.9% at week 104. In glyburide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.3% at baseline and 6.8% at week 104 (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline for both treatments, NS between treatments). The deltaPPGE averaged -96 +/- 19 (P < 0.0001) and -57 +/- 22 mmol.l(-1).min(-1) (P < 0.05) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively, whereas deltaFPG was -1.6 +/- 0.2 (P < 0.0001) and -2.4 +/- 0.2 mmol/l (P < 0.0001) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively (P < 0.01 between groups). Thus, the two treatments achieved similar efficacy with differential effects on FPG versus PPGE. Hypoglycemia occurred in 8.2 and 17.7% of patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar good glycemic control can be maintained for 2 years with either treatment regimen, but nateglinide/metformin may represent a safer approach to initial combination therapy.

Initial angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/calcium channel blocker combination therapy achieves superior blood pressure control compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends initial combination therapy for patients whose blood pressure (BP) is >20/10 mm Hg above goal. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy versus that of monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension, who by definition meet the JNC 7 recommendation for initial combination antihypertensive therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 364 patients with stage 2 hypertension to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d titrated to 10/20 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d titrated to 10 mg/d). RESULTS: Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy (74.2%) compared with those randomized to monotherapy (53.9%; P <.0001) achieved the primary end point (reductions in systolic BP > or =25 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was <180 mm Hg, or > or =32 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was > or =180 mm Hg). Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy compared with monotherapy attained BP goals of <140/90 mm Hg (61.0% v 43.3%; P =.0007) and < or =130/85 mm Hg (35.7% v 19.1%; P =.0004). Among patients with baseline systolic BP > or =180 mm Hg, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater reductions in systolic BP compared with monotherapy (-42.3 v -30.4 mm Hg; P =.001). More than 90% of patients in each group were titrated to the higher dose. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater BP reductions and attainment of BP goals compared with monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension. This evidence supports the recommendation of combination therapy as first-line treatment in stage 2 hypertension.