首页> 外文OA文献 >Does Training and Support of General Practitioners in Intensive Treatment of People with Screen-Detected Diabetes Improve Medication, Morbidity and Mortality in People with Clinically-Diagnosed Diabetes? Investigation of a Spill-Over Effect in a Cluster RCT
【2h】

Does Training and Support of General Practitioners in Intensive Treatment of People with Screen-Detected Diabetes Improve Medication, Morbidity and Mortality in People with Clinically-Diagnosed Diabetes? Investigation of a Spill-Over Effect in a Cluster RCT

机译:对接受过筛查的糖尿病患者进行深入治疗的全科医生培训和支持是否可以改善临床诊断为糖尿病的患者的用药,发病率和死亡率?集群RCT中溢出效应的研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

$extbf{Introduction}$Very few studies have examined the potential spill-over effect of a trial intervention in general practice. We investigated whether training and support of general practitioners in the intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes improved rates of redeemed medication, morbidity and mortality in people with clinically-diagnosed diabetes.$extbf{Methods}$This is a secondary, post-hoc, register-based analysis linked to a cluster randomised trial. In the $extit{ADDITION-Denmark}$ trial, 175 general practices were cluster randomised (i) to routine care, or (ii) to receive training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (2001 to 2009). Using national registers we identified all individuals who were diagnosed with clinically incident diabetes in the same practices over the same time period. (Patients participating in the ADDITION trial were excluded). We compared rates of redeemed medication, a cardiovascular composite endpoint, and all-cause mortality between the routine care and intensive treatment groups.$extbf{Results}$In total, 4,107 individuals were diagnosed with clinically incident diabetes in $extit{ADDITION-Denmark}$ practices between 2001 and 2009 (2,051 in the routine care group and 2,056 in the intensive treatment group). There were large and significant increases in the proportion of patients redeeming cardio-protective medication in both treatment groups during follow- up. After a median of seven years of follow-up, there was no difference in the incidence of a composite cardiovascular endpoint (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or all-cause mortality between the two groups (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.23).$extbf{Discussion}$There was no evidence of a spill-over effect from an intervention promoting intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes to those with clinically-diagnosed diabetes. Overall, the proportion of patients redeeming cardio-protective medication during follow-up was similar in both groups.$extbf{Trial Registration}$ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549
机译:$ textbf {Introduction} $很少有研究检查一般实践中试验性干预措施的潜在溢出效应。我们调查了在屏幕检测到的糖尿病患者的强化治疗中对全科医生的培训和支持是否能改善临床诊断的糖尿病患者的换药率,发病率和死亡率。$ textbf {Methods} $这是继发的-hoc,基于注册的分析与分类随机试验链接。在$ textit {ADDITION-Denmark} $试验中,将175种常规做法按组随机分组(i)进行常规护理,或​​(ii)在经过筛查的糖尿病患者的强化多因素治疗中接受培训和支持(2001年至2009年) )。使用国家注册簿,我们确定了在相同时间段内以相同实践被诊断出患有临床糖尿病的所有个体。 (不包括参加ADDITION试验的患者)。我们比较了常规治疗组和重症治疗组之间的换药率,心血管复合终点和全因死亡率。$ textbf {结果} $总共,有$ 4,107诊断为临床糖尿病患者。 -Denmark}在2001年至2009年之间的治疗方式(常规护理组为2,051,重症监护组为2,056)。随访期间,两个治疗组中赎回心脏保护药物的患者比例均大幅增加。中位随访7年后,两组的复合心血管终点发生率(HR 1.15,95%CI 0.95至1.38)或两组全因死亡率(HR 1.08,95%CI)无差异0.94至1.23)。$ textbf {Discussion} $没有证据表明干预措施能促进对筛查到的糖尿病患者进行强化治疗,从而对临床诊断的糖尿病患者产生溢出效应。总体而言,两组患者在随访期间使用心脏保护药物的比例相似。$ textbf {Trial Registration} $ ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号