Bloomgarden Z T, Karmally W, Metzger M J, Brothers M, Nechemias C, Bookman J, Faierman D, Ginsberg-Fellner F, Rayfield E, Brown W V
Diabetes Care. 1987 May-Jun;10(3):263-72. doi: 10.2337/diacare.10.3.263.
We randomized 749 insulin-treated patients on the rolls of the Mount Sinai Medical Center Diabetes Clinic in a controlled trial of diabetic patient education; 345 agreed to participate, of whom 165 were assigned to the education group and 180 to the control group. Cognitive scores increased from 5.3 +/- 1.6 to 5.8 +/- 1.6 in the education group, but there was no change in the control group, whose score was 5.3 +/- 1.7 before and after the intervention (P = .0073). HbA1c fell from 6.8 +/- 2.1 to 6.1 +/- 2.0% in the education group and from 6.6 +/- 2.0 to 6.3 +/- 2.0% in the control group, an insignificant difference (P = .1995). The fasting blood glucose decreased from 223 +/- 94 to 179 +/- 73 mg/dl in the education group and from 199 +/- 81 to 185 +/- 76 mg/dl in the controls (P = .1983). Triglycerides, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and insulin dosage also failed to show significant variation among groups. The foot-lesion score showed similar progression in the education and control groups. Neither diastolic nor systolic blood pressure showed significantly greater change in the education or the control group, with falls noted, particularly in diastolic pressures, in both patient groups. Differences between the groups were not significant for sick days, hospitalizations, emergency room visits, or outpatient visits. The sample sizes of the study and control populations were sufficiently large to detect a difference in means between the education and control groups in the HbA1c, the primary outcome variable, of greater than 1.0%, with alpha = .05 and a power of .95. Thus, our study suggests that patient education may not be an efficacious therapeutic intervention in most adults with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus.
我们将西奈山医疗中心糖尿病诊所登记在册的749名接受胰岛素治疗的患者随机分组,进行一项糖尿病患者教育对照试验;345名患者同意参与,其中165名被分配到教育组,180名被分配到对照组。教育组的认知得分从5.3±1.6提高到5.8±1.6,但对照组没有变化,其干预前后的得分均为5.3±1.7(P = 0.0073)。教育组的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)从6.8±2.1降至6.1±2.0%,对照组从6.6±2.0降至6.3±2.0%,差异无统计学意义(P = 0.1995)。教育组的空腹血糖从223±94降至179±73mg/dl,对照组从199±81降至185±76mg/dl(P = 0.1983)。甘油三酯、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇以及胰岛素剂量在各组之间也未显示出显著差异。足部病变评分在教育组和对照组中显示出相似的进展。教育组和对照组的舒张压和收缩压变化均无显著差异,两组患者的血压均有所下降,尤其是舒张压。两组在病假天数、住院次数、急诊就诊次数或门诊就诊次数方面的差异不显著。研究人群和对照人群的样本量足够大,能够检测到教育组和对照组之间在糖化血红蛋白(主要结局变量)均值上大于1.0%的差异,α = 0.05,检验效能为0.95。因此,我们的研究表明,对于大多数接受胰岛素治疗的成年糖尿病患者,患者教育可能不是一种有效的治疗干预措施。