A randomized control trial of primary care-based management of type 2 diabetes by a pharmacist in Pakistan.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The role of a pharmacist in primary health care settings of Pakistan is still obscure. Thus, we aimed to demonstrate the pharmacist-led improvements in glycemic, blood pressure and lipid controls in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients of Lahore, Pakistan. METHODS:The first open label, randomized control trial conducted at a primary health care facility of Lahore, Pakistan by enrolling 244 uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (hemoglobin A1 c, (HbA1c); 10.85 ± 1.74) patients. The pharmacological intervention included identification of drug related problems, drug interactions, change in dose, frequency and therapy switches in collaboration with physician, while non-pharmacological intervention consisted of diet, lifestyle and behavior counseling. Outcome measures were glycemic (HbA1c), blood pressure and lipid controls. RESULTS:In intra-group comparison, compared to control arm (C, n = 52), subjects in the intervention arm (I, n = 83) demonstrated significant differences in process outcome measures; baseline vs final, such as HbA1c (C; 10.3 ± 1.3 vs 9.7 ± 1.3, p < 0.001, I; 10.9 ± 1.7 vs 7.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.0001), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (C; 129.9 ± 13.9 vs 136 ± 7.1, p = 0.0001, I; 145 ± 20.4 vs 123.9 ± 9.9 mmHg, p < 0.0001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (C; + 4, p = 0.03, I; - 7 mmHg, p < 0.0001), cholesterol (C; 235.8 ± 57.7 vs 220.9 ± 53.2, p = 0.15, I; 224 ± 55.2 vs 153 ± 25.9 mg/dL, p < 0.0001), triglycerides (C; 213.2 ± 86.6 vs 172.4 ± 48.7, p = 0.001, I; 273 ± 119.4 vs 143 ± 31.6 mg/dL, p < 0.0001) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (C; 77.5 ± 18.6 vs 76 ± 14.2, p = 0.5, I; 69.4 ± 21.3 vs 93.8 ± 15.2 ml/min/1.73m2, p < 0.0001). Likewise, inter-group improvements were more significant in the subjects of intervention group at final follow up in comparison to control for various process outcome measures; HbA1c (p < 0.001), SBP (p < 0.0001), DBP (p = 0.02), cholesterol (p < 0.0001), triglycerides (p < 0.0001), SCr (p < 0.001), eGFR (p < 0.001). Moreover, both male and female subjects exhibited similar responses towards intervention with similar improvements in outcome measures. CONCLUSION:These data suggested that pharmacist intervention in collaboration with physician in primary health care settings may result in significant improvements in glycemic, blood pressure and lipid controls in Pakistani population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was registered retrospectively with International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number (ISRCTN) registry on July 26, 2017 under nutritional, metabolic, endocrine category with assigned registration # ISRCTN22657497 and can be assessed at https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN22657497.
Project description:To assess the effectiveness and sustainability of a 6-month Team Education and Adherence Monitoring (TEAM) intervention for black patients with hypertension in community chain pharmacies.Cluster randomized trial.28 chain pharmacies (14 TEAM and 14 control) in five Wisconsin cities from December 2006 to February 2009.576 black patients with hypertension.Trained pharmacist-technician teams implemented a 6-month intervention using scheduled visits, Brief Medication Questionnaires (BMQs), and novel toolkits for facilitating medication adherence and pharmacist feedback to patients and physicians. Control participants received patient information only.Refill adherence (?80% days covered) and changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, and blood pressure control using blinded assessments at 6 and 12 months.At baseline, all patients had blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Of those eligible, 79% activated the intervention (mean 4.25 visits). Compared with control participants at 6 months, TEAM participants achieved greater improvements in refill adherence (60% vs. 34%, P < 0.001), SBP (-12.62 vs. -5.31 mm Hg, P < 0.001), and blood pressure control (50% vs. 36%, P = 0.01). Six months after intervention discontinuation, TEAM participants showed sustained improvements in refill adherence ( P < 0.001) and SBP ( P = 0.004), though the difference in blood pressure control was not significant ( P < 0.05) compared with control participants. Analysis of intervention fidelity showed that patients who received the full intervention during months 1 through 6 achieved significantly greater 6- and 12-month improvements in refill adherence and blood pressure control compared with control participants.A team-based intervention involving community chain pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and novel toolkits led to significant and sustained improvements in refill adherence and SBP in black patients with hypertension.
Project description:Background: Treatment of diabetes requires a strict treatment scheme which demands patient self-management. Pharmacists are in a good position to provide self-management support. This review examines whether pharmacist-led interventions to support self-management in diabetes patients improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An extended literature search was conducted with the keywords "pharmacist," "diabetes," and "self-management" using the electronic databases Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from the beginning of the database through September 2017. In addition reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies were searched. Eligibility criteria included; self-management intervention tested with an RCT, performed in an ambulatory care setting, led by a pharmacist and reporting at least one clinical- or patient-reported outcome. Primary outcomes were HbA1c (-as this is a clinical parameter for long-term diabetes follow-up), self-management and components of intervention. Secondary outcomes were blood glucose, blood pressure, BMI, lipids, adherence to medication, quality of life, and diabetes knowledge. For the meta-analysis HbA1c values were pooled with a random-effects model in Revman 5.3. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Twenty-four studies representing 3,610 patients were included. Pharmacist-led self-management interventions included education on diabetes complications, medication, lifestyle, and teaching of self-management skills. Some studies focused on patient needs through a tailored intervention. No key components for a successful self-management intervention could be identified. Pharmacist-led self-management interventions improve HbA1c levels with a mean of 0.71% (CI -0.91, -0.51; overall effect P < 0.0001) and had a positive effect on blood pressure (SBP -5.20 mm Hg [-7.58; -2.92], DBP -3.51 mmHg [-6.00; -1.01]), BMI (-0.49 kg/m2 [-0.79; -0.19]), lipids (total cholesterol -0.19 mmol/l [-0.33; -0.05], LDL-C mmol/l -0.16 [-0.26; -0.06], HDL-C 0.32 mmol/l [0.02; 0.61]), self-management skill development, and adherence to medication. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led self-management interventions significantly improve HbA1c values in diabetes patients. These results underline the added value of pharmacists in patient-related care. Pharmacists should offer self-management support to diabetes patients in order to improve diabetes outcomes.
Project description:Background: Comparative efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on glycemic control of type 2 diabetes patients is unclear. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on clinical outcomes of type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across five databases from date of database inception to September 2017. All randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of pharmacist based interventions on type 2 diabetes patients were included for network meta-analysis (NMA). The protocol is available with PROSPERO (CRD42017078854). Results: A total of 43 studies, involving 6259 type 2 diabetes patients, were included. NMA demonstrated that all interventions significantly lowered glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels compared to usual care, but there was no statistical evidence from this study that one intervention was significantly better than the other for reducing HbA1c levels. Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care showed maximum efficacy for reducing HbA1c levels [-0.86, 95% CI -0.983, -0.727; p < 0.001]. Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care was observed to be statistically significant in lowering levels of systolic blood pressure [-4.94; 95%CI -8.65, -1.23] and triglycerides levels [-0.26, 95%CI -0.51, -0.01], as compared to the interventions which involved diabetes education by pharmacist, and for body mass index (BMI) [-0.57; 95%CI -1.25, -0.12] in comparison to diabetes education by health care team involving pharmacist as member. Conclusion: The findings of this review demonstrate that all interventions had a significantly positive effect on HbA1c, but there was no statistical evidence from this study that one intervention was significantly better than the other for achieving glycemic control.Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care showed maximum efficacy on HbA1c and rest of the clinical outcomes.
Project description:To compare a peer leader (PL) versus a community health worker (CHW) telephone outreach intervention in sustaining improvements in HbA1c over 12 months after a 6-month diabetes self-management education (DSME) program.One hundred and sixteen Latino adults with type 2 diabetes were recruited from a federally qualified health center and randomized to (1) a 6-month DSME program followed by 12 months of weekly group sessions delivered by PLs with telephone outreach to those unable to attend or (2) a 6-month DSME program followed by 12 months of monthly telephone outreach delivered by CHWs. The primary outcome was HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular disease risk factors, diabetes distress, and diabetes social support. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months.After DSME, the PL group achieved a reduction in mean HbA1c (8.2-7.5% or 66-58 mmol/mol, P < 0.0001) that was maintained at 18 months (-0.6% or -6.6 mmol/mol from baseline [P = 0.009]). The CHW group also showed a reduction in HbA1c (7.8 vs. 7.3% or 62 vs. 56 mmol/mol, P = 0.0004) post-6 month DSME; however, it was attenuated at 18 months (-0.3% or -3.3 mmol/mol from baseline, within-group P = 0.234). Only the PL group maintained improvements achieved in blood pressure at 18 months. At the 18-month follow-up, both groups maintained improvements in waist circumference, diabetes support, and diabetes distress, with no significant differences between groups.Both low-cost maintenance programs led by either a PL or a CHW maintained improvements in key patient-reported diabetes outcomes, but the PL intervention may have additional benefit in sustaining clinical improvements beyond 12 months.
Project description:OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative management of hypertension by primary care-pharmacist teams in community-based clinics. STUDY DESIGN: A 12-month prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in the Providence Primary Care Research Network of patients with hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure. METHODS: As compared to usual primary care, intervention consisted of pharmacy practitioners participating in the active management of hypertension in the primary care office according to established collaborative treatment protocols. At baseline, there was no significant difference in blood pressure between groups. Primary outcome measures were the differences in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures between arms at study end. Secondary measures included blood pressure goal attainment (<140/90 mmHg), hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, home blood pressure monitoring, resource utilization, quality of life, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 463 subjects were enrolled (n = 233 control, n = 230 intervention). Subjects receiving the intervention achieved significantly lower systolic (p = 0.007) and diastolic (p = 0.002) blood pressures compared to control (137/75 mmHg vs. 143/78 mmHg). In addition, 62% of intervention subjects achieved target blood pressure compared to 44% of control subjects (p = 0.003). The intervention group received more total office visits (7.2 vs. 4.9, p < 0.0001), however had fewer physician visits (3.2 vs. 4.7, p < 0.0001) compared to control. Intervention subjects were prescribed more antihypertensive medications (2.7 vs. 2.4, p = 0.02), but did not take more antihypertensive pills per day (2.4 vs. 2.5, p = 0.87). There were minimal differences between groups in hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, quality of life, or satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomized to collaborative primary care-pharmacist hypertension management achieved significantly better blood pressure control compared to usual care with no difference in quality of life or satisfaction.
Project description:Optimal control of type 2 diabetes is challenging in many patient populations including in South Asian patients. We systematically reviewed studies on the effect of diabetes management interventions targeted at South Asian patients with type 2 diabetes on glycaemic control.Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pre-post-test studies (January 1990 to February 2014). Studies were stratified by where interventions were conducted (South Asia vs Western countries).Patients originating from Pakistan, Bangladesh or India with type 2 diabetes.Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary end points included change in blood pressure, lipid levels, anthropomorphics and knowledge.23 studies (15 RCTs) met criteria for analysis with 7 from Western countries (n=2532) and 16 from South Asia (n=1081). Interventions in Western countries included translated diabetes education, additional clinical care, written materials, visual aids, and bilingual community-based peers and/or health professionals. Interventions conducted in South Asia included yoga, meditation or exercise, community-based peers, health professionals and dietary education (cooking exercises). Among RCTs in India (5 trials; n=390), 4 demonstrated significant reductions in HbA1c in the intervention group compared with usual care (yoga and exercise interventions). Among the 4 RCTs conducted in Europe (n=2161), only 1 study, an education intervention of 113 patients, reported a significant reduction in HbA1c with the intervention. Lipids, blood pressure and knowledge improved in both groups with studies from India more often reporting reductions in body mass index and waist circumference.Overall, there was little improvement in HbA1c level in diabetes management interventions targeted at South Asians living in Europe compared with usual care, although other outcomes did improve. The smaller studies in India demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic and other end points. Novel strategies are needed to improve glycaemic control in South Asians living outside of India.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of pharmacist interventions on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients and to examine factors that could explain the variation across studies. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and LILACS databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2015. The search strategy included the use of MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, type 2 diabetes, and randomized controlled trials. RCTs published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that evaluated the effect of pharmacist intervention on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic outpatients were included. Two independent authors executed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Mean differences in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were estimated using random-effect models, and heterogeneity was evaluated by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. RESULTS:The literature search yielded 963 records of potential interest, of which 30 were included in the systematic review and 22 in the meta-analysis. Most of these RCTs were conducted in the United States in patients in outpatient clinics using face-to-face contact only. All RCTs performed patient education, and most executed the medication review. The appraised sample showed uncertain or high risk of bias in most of the items evaluated, resulting in low-quality studies. In comparison with usual care, pharmacist interventions were associated with significant reductions in HbA1c levels (-8.5% [95% CI: -1.06, -0.65]; P < 0.0001; I2 = 67.3%). Subgroup analysis indicated differences of heterogeneity by country, baseline HbA1c levels, setting, intervention frequency, and random allocation. Age and HbA1c levels partly explained the variability across studies by meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings confirmed that pharmacist interventions improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with usual care and suggest that younger patients or with higher baseline HbA1c levels may be the main beneficiaries of pharmacist care. PROTOCOL PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42014007457.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is strong evidence that pharmacist care improves patients' glycaemic control. However, the sustainability and durability of such interventions beyond the research period is not known. RxING was the first trial of pharmacist prescribing in diabetes and it showed an improvement in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 1.8% over 6 months. OBJECTIVE:1° objective: To evaluate glycaemic control in the RxING study patients 12 months after the end of the formal study follow-up. 2° objective: To assess the patients' risk of cardiovascular events in the next 10 years. METHODS:We contacted the participating pharmacists to check if the patients who participated in the RxING study are still taking insulin, the dose of insulin they are taking, and their HbA1c. There were no mandated follow-up visits with the pharmacist after the study completion. RESULTS:A total of 100 patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes were enrolled in the original RxING study; 93 of them completed the study, while 83 participated in the 12-month follow-up. Seventy-five patients were still taking insulin, with the average dose increasing from 31.1 units (SD 18.4) at study completion to 37.4 units (SD 30.8) (95% CI -13.3 to 0.88, p=0.085). HbA1c was reduced from 9.1% (SD 1) at baseline to 7.3% (SD 0.9) at study completion (95% CI 1.4 to 2, p <0.001), and increased to 8.1% (SD 1.3) 12 months later (95% CI -1.1 to -0.5, p <0.001 vs study completion). CONCLUSIONS:Twelve months after completing the intervention, approximately half of the glycaemic control gains were lost. This highlights the importance of structured follow-up with the pharmacist in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT01335763.
Project description:This study examined the efficacy of a commercially available, portion-controlled diet (PCD) on body weight and HbA1c over 6 months in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.One-hundred participants with a mean±s.d. age of 55.6±10.6 year, body weight of 102.9±18.4 kg and HbA1c of 7.7±1.3% were randomly assigned to a 9-session group lifestyle intervention that included a PCD or to a 9-session group program of diabetes self-management education (DSME). Participants in the two groups were prescribed the same goals for energy intake (1250-1550 kcal per day) and physical activity (200 min per week).While both groups produced significant improvements in weight and HbA1c after 6 months of treatment, PCD participants lost 7.3 kg [95% confidence interval (CI): -5.8 to -8.8 kg], compared with 2.2 kg (95% CI: -0.7 to -3.7 kg) in the DSME group (P<0.0001). Significantly more PCD than DSME participants lost 5% of initial weight (54.0% vs 14.0%, P<0.0001) and 10% (26.0% vs 6.0%, P<0.0001). HbA1c declined by 0.7% (95% CI: -0.4 to -1.0%) in the PCD group, compared with 0.4% (95% CI: -0.1 to -0.7%) in DSME (P<0.026). Across both groups, larger weight losses were associated with greater reductions in HbA1c (r=0.52, P<0.0001).These findings demonstrate that a commercially available portion-controlled meal plan can induce clinically meaningful improvements in weight and glycemic control in obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. These data have implications for the management of obesity in primary care, as now provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Project description:Background Formula diets can improve glycemic control or can even induce remission in type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that especially an individualized intense meal replacement by a low-carbohydrate formula diet with accompanied self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) contributes to long-term improvements in HbA1c, weight, and cardiometabolic risk factors in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Methods Type 2 diabetes patients were randomized into either a moderate group (M-group) with two meal replacements/day (n = 160) or a stringent group (S-group) with three meal replacements/day (n = 149) during the first week of intervention (1300?1500 kcal/day). Subsequently, both groups reintroduced a low-carbohydrate lunch based on individual adaption due to SMBG in weeks 2?4. After week 4, breakfast was reintroduced until week 12. During the follow-up period, all of the participants were asked to continue replacing one meal per day until the 52-weeks follow-up. Additionally, an observational control group (n = 100) remained in routine care. Parameters were compared at baseline, after 12 and 52 weeks within and between all of the groups. Results 321 participants (83%) completed the acute meal replacement phase after 12 weeks and 279 participants (72%) the whole intervention after 52 weeks. Both intervention groups achieved improvements in HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, blood pressure, and weight (all p < 0.001) within 12 weeks. However, these results were not significantly different between both of the intervention groups. The estimated treatment difference in HbA1c reduction was (mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) -0.10% with 95% CI [-0.40; 0.21] also (p > 0.05) (S-group vs. M-group) not statistically different after 12 weeks. However, only the S-group showed a clinically relevant improvement in HbA1c of -0.81% [-1.06; -0.55] (p < 0.001) after 52 weeks of follow-up, whereas HbA1c was not statistically different between the M- and control group. Conclusion Individualized meal replacement with SMBG demonstrated beneficial effects on HbA1c and cardiometabolic parameters in type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, the initiation of a weight loss program with one week of full meal replacement (three meals per day) resulted in a clinically relevant long-term HbA1c reduction, as compared to an observational control group that had standard care.