The impact of a disease management program (COACH) on the attainment of better cardiovascular risk control in dyslipidaemic patients at primary care centres (The DISSEMINATE Study): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of Counselling and Advisory Care for Health (COACH) programme in managing dyslipidaemia among primary care practices in Malaysia. This open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial compared the COACH programme delivered by primary care physicians alone (PCP arm) and primary care physicians assisted by nurse educators (PCP-NE arm). METHODS: This was a multi-centre, open label, randomised trial of a disease management programme (COACH) among dyslipidaemic patients in 21 Malaysia primary care practices. The participating centres enrolled 297 treatment naïve subjects who had the primary diagnosis of dyslipidaemia; 149 were randomised to the COACH programme delivered by primary care physicians assisted by nurse educators (PCP-NE) and 148 to care provided by primary care physicians (PCP) alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean percentage change from baseline LDL-C at week 24 between the 2 study arms. Secondary endpoints included mean percentage change from baseline of lipid profile (TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, TG, TC: HDL ratio), Framingham Cardiovascular Health Risk Score and absolute risk change from baseline in blood pressure parameters at week 24. The study also assessed the sustainability of programme efficacy at week 36. RESULTS: Both study arms demonstrated improvement in LDL-C from baseline. The least squares (LS) mean change from baseline LDL-C were -30.09% and -27.54% for PCP-NE and PCP respectively. The difference in mean change between groups was 2.55% (p=0.288), with a greater change seen in the PCP-NE arm. Similar observations were made between the study groups in relation to total cholesterol change at week 24. Significant difference in percentage change from baseline of HDL-C were observed between the PCP-NE and PCP groups, 3.01%, 95% CI 0.12-5.90, p=0.041, at week 24. There was no significant difference in lipid outcomes between 2 study groups at week 36 (12 weeks after the programme had ended). CONCLUSION: Patients who received coaching and advice from primary care physicians (with or without the assistance by nurse educators) showed improvement in LDL-cholesterol. Disease management services delivered by PCP-NE demonstrated a trend towards add-on improvements in cholesterol control compared to care delivered by physicians alone; however, the improvements were not maintained when the services were withdrawn. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Medical Research Registration (NMRR) Number: NMRR-08-287-1442Trial Registration Number (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier): NCT00708370.

Usage of glucometer is associated with improved glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Malaysian public primary care clinics: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been underutilised. We conducted an open-label, randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of introducing SMBG in primary care clinics in Malaysia. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in five public primary care clinics in Malaysia. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (age range 35-65 years) not performing SMBG at the time of the study were randomised to receive either a glucometer for SMBG or usual care. Both groups of patients received similar diabetes care from the clinics. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were enrolled. Of these, 58 and 47 were randomised to intervention and control groups, respectively. After six months, the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level in the intervention group showed a statistically significant improvement of 1.3% (p = 0.001; 95% confidence interval 0.6-2.0), relative to the control group that underwent usual care. The percentages of patients that reached the HbA1c treatment target of ≤ 7% were 14.0% and 32.1% in the control and intervention groups (p = 0.036), respectively. CONCLUSION: The usage of a glucometer improved glycaemic control, possibly due to the encouragement of greater self-care in the intervention group.