Siaw M Y L, Ko Y, Malone D C, Tsou K Y K, Lew Y-J, Foo D, Tan E, Chan S C, Chia A, Sinaram S S, Goh K C, Lee J Y-C
Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Department of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017 Aug;42(4):475-482. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12536. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
With the increasing prevalence of diabetes, the physician-centred model is challenged to deliver holistic care in Asia. Diabetes may be managed effectively within a multidisciplinary collaborative care model; however, evidence on its effectiveness in Asian patients is lacking. Therefore, the primary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multidisciplinary collaborative care vs physician-centred care in diabetes. The secondary objectives were to evaluate humanistic and economic outcomes among the two types of care.
This 6-month prospective, open-label, parallel-arm, randomized, controlled study was conducted at four outpatient healthcare institutions. High-risk patients aged ≥21 years with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, polypharmacy and comorbidities were included. Patients with type 1 diabetes or those who were unable to communicate independently were excluded. The control arm received usual care with referrals to nurses and dietitians as needed. The intervention arm (multidisciplinary collaborative care) was followed up with pharmacists regularly, in addition to receiving the usual care. The primary outcomes included HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein and triglycerides. The secondary outcomes included scores from the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires (DTSQ), and diabetes-related health service utilization rates and costs.
Of 411 eligible patients, 214 and 197 patients were randomized into the intervention and control arms, respectively. At 6 months, 141 patients in the intervention arm (65.9%) and 189 patients in the control arm (95.9%) completed the study. Mean HbA1c reduced from 8.6%±1.5% at baseline to 8.1%±1.3% at 6 months in the intervention arm (P=.04), with up to mean HbA1c improvement of 0.8% in patients with greater levels of uncontrolled glycemia. Whereas the mean HbA1c in the control arm remained unchanged (8.5%±1.4%) throughout the 6-month period. Improvements in PAID and DTSQ scores, reduction in physician workload and an average cost savings of US$91.01 per patient were observed in the intervention arm over 6 months.
The positive clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes highlighted the value of multidisciplinary collaborative care for Asian diabetic patients, thereby supporting the effectiveness of this approach in managing chronic diseases.
随着糖尿病患病率的不断上升,以医生为中心的模式在亚洲提供整体护理方面面临挑战。糖尿病可以在多学科协作护理模式下得到有效管理;然而,缺乏其在亚洲患者中有效性的证据。因此,主要目的是评估多学科协作护理与以医生为中心的护理在糖尿病治疗中的临床结果。次要目的是评估两种护理方式的人文和经济结果。
这项为期6个月的前瞻性、开放标签、平行组、随机对照研究在四家门诊医疗机构进行。纳入年龄≥21岁、2型糖尿病控制不佳、使用多种药物且患有合并症的高危患者。排除1型糖尿病患者或无法独立沟通的患者。对照组接受常规护理,必要时转诊至护士和营养师处。干预组(多学科协作护理)除接受常规护理外,还定期接受药剂师的随访。主要结局包括糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、收缩压、低密度脂蛋白和甘油三酯。次要结局包括糖尿病问题领域(PAID)和糖尿病治疗满意度问卷(DTSQ)的得分,以及糖尿病相关健康服务利用率和成本。
在411名符合条件的患者中,分别有214名和197名患者被随机分配到干预组和对照组。6个月时,干预组有141名患者(65.9%)完成研究,对照组有189名患者(95.9%)完成研究。干预组的平均HbA1c从基线时的8.6%±1.5%降至6个月时的8.1%±1.3%(P = 0.04),血糖控制不佳程度较高的患者平均HbA1c改善高达0.8%。而对照组的平均HbA1c在整个6个月期间保持不变(8.5%±1.4%)。干预组在6个月内观察到PAID和DTSQ得分改善、医生工作量减少以及每位患者平均节省成本91.01美元。
积极的临床、人文和经济结果突出了多学科协作护理对亚洲糖尿病患者的价值,从而支持了这种方法在管理慢性病方面的有效性。