Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(4): e217557, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33929522

ABSTRACT

Importance: Many health care systems lack the efficiency, preparedness, or resources needed to address the increasing number of patients with type 2 diabetes, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: To examine the effects of a quality improvement intervention comprising information and communications technology and contact with nonphysician personnel on the care and cardiometabolic risk factors of patients with type 2 diabetes in 8 Asia-Pacific countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-month multinational open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 28, 2012, to April 28, 2016, at 50 primary care or hospital-based diabetes centers in 8 Asia-Pacific countries (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam). Six countries were low and middle income, and 2 countries were high income. The study was conducted in 2 phases; phase 1 enrolled 7537 participants, and phase 2 enrolled 13 297 participants. Participants in both phases were randomized on a 1:1 ratio to intervention or control groups. Data were analyzed by intention to treat and per protocol from July 3, 2019, to July 21, 2020. Interventions: In both phases, the intervention group received 3 care components: a nurse-led Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) technology-guided structured evaluation, automated personalized reports to encourage patient empowerment, and 2 or more telephone or face-to-face contacts by nurses to increase patient engagement. In phase 1, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation and automated personalized reports. In phase 2, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation only. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of diabetes-associated end points, including cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, visual impairment or eye surgery, lower extremity amputation or foot ulcers requiring hospitalization, all-site cancers, and death. The secondary outcomes were the attainment of 2 or more primary diabetes-associated targets (glycated hemoglobin A1c <7.0%, blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL) and/or 2 or more key performance indices (reduction in glycated hemoglobin A1c≥0.5%, reduction in systolic blood pressure ≥5 mm Hg, reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥19 mg/dL, and reduction in body weight ≥3.0%). Results: A total of 20 834 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized in phases 1 and 2. In phase 1, 7537 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [11.3] years; 3914 men [51.9%]; 4855 patients [64.4%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 3732 patients allocated to the intervention group and 3805 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 2, 13 297 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [11.1] years; 7754 men [58.3%]; 13 297 patients [100%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 6645 patients allocated to the intervention group and 6652 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 1, compared with the control group, the intervention group had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74-1.21) but had an increased likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.21-1.49) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.34). In phase 2, the intervention group also had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25) and had a greater likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.14-1.37) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.68) compared with the control group. For attainment of 2 or more primary targets, larger effects were observed among patients in low- and middle-income countries (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29-1.74) compared with high-income countries (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39) (P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this 12-month clinical trial, the use of information and communications technology and nurses to empower and engage patients did not change the number of clinical events but did reduce cardiometabolic risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those in low- and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01631084.


Subject(s)
Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Self-Management , Technology , Aged , Amputation, Surgical/statistics & numerical data , Asia, Southeastern , Blood Pressure , Cardiometabolic Risk Factors , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cholesterol, LDL/metabolism , Developing Countries , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/metabolism , Diabetic Foot/epidemiology , Diabetic Nephropathies/epidemiology , Diabetic Retinopathy/epidemiology , Disease Management , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin/metabolism , Humans , India , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Patient Participation , Quality Improvement , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/epidemiology , Risk Assessment , Taiwan , Treatment Adherence and Compliance
2.
Indian J Endocrinol Metab ; 17(Suppl 2): S530-3, 2013 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24404497

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The A1chieve, a multicentric (28 countries), 24-week, non-interventional study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of insulin detemir, biphasic insulin aspart and insulin aspart in people with T2DM (n = 66,726) in routine clinical care across four continents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected at baseline, at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks. This short communication presents the results for patients enrolled from Delhi, India. RESULTS: A total of 2242 patients were enrolled in the study. Four different insulin analogue regimens were used in the study. Patients had started on or were switched to biphasic insulin aspart (n = 1515), insulin detemir (n = 521), insulin aspart (n = 176), basal insulin plus insulin aspart (n = 11) and other insulin combinations (n = 19). At baseline glycaemic control was poor for both insulin naïve (mean HbA1c: 10.0%) and insulin user (mean HbA1c: 11.0%) groups. After 24 weeks of treatment both the groups showed improvement in HbA1c (insulin naïve: -3.1%, insulin users: -3.6%). SADRs including major hypoglycaemic events or episodes did not occur in any of the study patients. CONCLUSION: Starting or switching to insulin analogues was associated with improvement in glycaemic control with a low rate of hypoglycaemia.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL