Optimizing physician-encounter frequency for type 2 diabetes patients in primary care based on cardiovascular risk assessment: A target trial emulation study.

AIM: To investigate whether the physician-encounter interval for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can be optimized from 2-3 to 4-6 months among those with a calculated 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score of less than 20% without compromising their long-term outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using territory-wide public electronic medical records in Hong Kong, we emulated a target trial to compare the effectiveness of the physician-encounter intervals of 4-6 versus 2-3 months for T2D patients without prior CVDs and with a predicted risk for CVDs of less than 20% (i.e. those patients not in the high-risk category). Propensity score matching was used to emulate the randomization of participants at baseline, where 42 154 matched individuals were included for analysis. The marginal structural model was applied to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for CVD incidence and all-cause mortality, the incidence rate ratio of secondary and tertiary care utilization, as well as the between-group differences in HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. RESULTS: During a follow-up period of up to 12 (average: 5.1) years, there was no significantly increased risk of CVD in patients with physician-encounter intervals of 4-6 months compared with those patients with physician-encounter intervals of 2-3 months (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 1.01 [0.90, 1.14]; standardized 10-year risk difference [95% CI]: -0.1% [-0.7%, 0.6%]), nor for all-cause mortality (HR: 1.00 [0.84, 1.20]; standardized 10-year risk difference: -0.1% [-0.5%, 0.3%]). Additionally, there was no observable difference in the utilization of secondary and tertiary care or key clinical parameters between these two follow-up frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: For T2D patients with a calculated 10-year CVD risk of less than 20%, the interval of regular physician encounters can be optimized from 2-3 to 4-6 months without compromising patients' long-term outcomes and saving substantial service resources in primary care.

Follow-up frequency and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: A prospective analysis based on multicenter real-world data.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the follow-up frequency for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the National Metabolic Management Centers (MMCs) leads to different clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 19 908 T2DM patients with at least 6 months of facility-based follow-up were recruited in MMCs between June 2017 and April 2021 and divided into lower-frequency and higher-frequency follow-up (LFF and HFF) groups according to the median follow-up frequency of 2.0 (interquartile range 1.2) times per year. Metabolic parameters at baseline and at the last follow-up visit were analyzed. Multivariable linear regression models were performed to assess the relationship between follow-up frequency and between-group percentage changes, adjusting for the major covariables. Additional stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate the metabolic outcomes in the subgroups. RESULTS: The characteristics of the participants in the LFF and HFF groups were significantly different at baseline. Participants had significant improvements in multiple metabolic parameters after follow-up. Patients with HFF showed significantly greater decrease in percentage changes of fasting blood glucose (-4.95% ± 37.96% vs -2.21% ± 43.08%, P < .0001) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (-12.14% ± 19.78% vs -9.67% ± 20.29%, P < .0001) after adjustments compared to those with LFF. Furthermore, stratification analyses showed that significant between-group percentage changes of HbA1c were observed in those with younger age (<55 years) and higher HbA1c (>9%) at baseline (P for interaction <.001). CONCLUSIONS: HFF is associated with better metabolic outcomes. Participants, especially with younger age or worse HbA1c at baseline in the HFF group achieved better glycemic control than those in the LFF group.

Impact of a reduction in follow-up frequency on life expectancy in uterine cervical cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate interval of post-treatment follow-up appointments for uterine cervical cancer is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reducing the frequency of post-treatment follow-up examinations on life expectancy and medical expenses in cervical cancer patients. METHODS: Cervical cancer patients who were treated with radiotherapy between 2008 and 2017, underwent a less frequent follow-up program, and subsequently developed recurrent disease were included in consecutive group (CG). Non-randomized groups of cervical cancer patients who underwent a frequent follow-up program after radiotherapy between 1997 and 2007, and subsequently developed recurrent disease were also identified through a chart review and served as a comparison group (primary group [PG]). Clinical data regarding the primary disease, follow-up, recurrence, and survival were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses of predictors of survival were performed. RESULTS: A total of 263 recurrent cervical cancer patients (PG: 154, CG: 109) were included in the current study. A reduction in follow-up frequency of up to 40% did not increase the frequency of symptomatic recurrence (PG: vs. CG: 31.2% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.43) or reduce the median overall survival periods of recurrent cervical cancer patients (PG vs. CG: 32 months vs. 36 months, p = 0.15). However, the reduction in the follow-up frequency significantly reduced follow-up costs. CONCLUSION: Reducing the frequency of follow-up by up to 40% did not result in shorter overall survival compared with a conventional follow-up program. The results of this study provide a rationale for future studies investigating the optimal follow-up schedule for patients with cervical cancer.

Does the frequency of routine follow-up after curative treatment for head-and-neck cancer affect survival?

Background: Routine follow-up is a cornerstone of oncology practice, but evidence to support most aspects of follow-up is lacking. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between frequency of routine follow-up and survival. Methods: This population-based study used electronic health care data relating to 5310 patients from Ontario diagnosed with squamous-cell head-and-neck cancer during 2007-2012. Treatments included surgery (24.6%), radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy (52.4%), and combined surgery and radiotherapy (23%). We determined the oncologist who was following each patient after treatment; calculated the average follow-up visits to the oncologist during the subsequent 2.5 years for all patients who were doing well; and used Kaplan-Meier and multiple variable regression analysis to compare, by treatment, overall survival for patients in the high, typical, and low follow-up oncologist groups. Results: Many oncologists saw patients 40%-80% more often than other oncologists did. No relationship of appointment frequency with survival was observed for patients in any treatment group. Conclusions: The practice of routine follow-up varies and is costly both to a health care system and to patients. Without evidence about the effectiveness of current policies, further research is required to investigate new or optimal practices.