Use of comprehensive recruitment strategies in the glycemia reduction approaches in diabetes: A comparative effectiveness study (GRADE) multi-center clinical trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We present and describe recruitment strategies implemented from 2013 to 2017 across 45 clinical sites in the United States, participating in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study, an unmasked, randomized controlled trial evaluating four glucose-lowering medications added to metformin in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (duration of diabetes <10 years). We examined the yield of participants recruited through Electronic Health Records systems compared to traditional recruitment methods to leverage access to type 2 diabetes patients in primary care. METHODS: Site selection criteria included availability of the study population, geographic representation, the ability to recruit and retain a diverse pool of participants including traditionally underrepresented groups, and prior site research experience in diabetes clinical trials. Recruitment initiatives were employed to support and monitor recruitment, such as creation of a Recruitment and Retention Committee, development of criteria for Electronic Health Record systems queries, conduct of remote site visits, development of a public screening website, and other central and local initiatives. Notably, the study supported a dedicated recruitment coordinator at each site to manage local recruitment and facilitate screening of potential participants identified by Electronic Health Record systems. RESULTS: The study achieved the enrollment goal of 5000 participants, meeting its target with Black/African American (20%), Hispanic/Latino (18%), and age ≧60 years (42%) subgroups but not with women (36%). Recruitment required 1 year more than the 3 years originally planned. Sites included academic hospitals, integrated health systems, and Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Participants were enrolled through Electronic Health Record queries (68%), physician referral (13%), traditional mail outreach (7%), TV, radio, flyers, and Internet (7%), and other strategies (5%). Early implementation of targeted Electronic Health Record queries yielded a greater number of eligible participants compared to other recruitment methods. Efforts over time increasingly emphasized engagement with primary care networks. CONCLUSION: Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness successfully recruited a diverse study population with relatively new onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus, relying to a large extent on the use of Electronic Health Record to screen potential participants. A comprehensive approach to recruitment with frequent monitoring was critical to meet the recruitment goal.

The Use of Rescue Insulin in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: To describe rescue insulin use and associated factors in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE participants (type 2 diabetes duration <10 years, baseline A1C 6.8%-8.5% on metformin monotherapy, N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin and followed quarterly for a mean of 5 years. Rescue insulin (glargine or aspart) was to be started within 6 weeks of A1C >7.5%, confirmed. Reasons for delaying rescue insulin were reported by staff-completed survey. RESULTS: Nearly one-half of GRADE participants (N = 2,387 [47.3%]) met the threshold for rescue insulin. Among participants assigned to glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, rescue glargine was added by 69% (39% within 6 weeks). Rescue aspart was added by 44% of glargine-assigned participants (19% within 6 weeks) and by 30% of non-glargine-assigned participants (14% within 6 weeks). Higher A1C values were associated with adding rescue insulin. Intention to change health behaviors (diet/lifestyle, adherence to current treatment) and not wanting to take insulin were among the most common reasons reported for not adding rescue insulin within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Proportionately, rescue glargine, when required, was more often used than rescue aspart, and higher A1C values were associated with greater rescue insulin use. Wanting to use noninsulin strategies to improve glycemia was commonly reported, although multiple factors likely contributed to not using rescue insulin. These findings highlight the persistent challenge of intensifying type 2 diabetes treatment with insulin, even in a clinical trial.