Pharmacy Department, Tours University Hospital, Tours, France.
UMR 1253, iBrain, Université de Tours, Inserm, Tours, France.
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2020 Nov 6;21:e49. doi: 10.1017/S1463423620000390.
International guidelines on diabetes control strongly encourage the setting-up of therapeutic educational programs (TEP). However, more than half of the patients fail to control their diabetes a few months post-TEP because of a lack of regular follow-up by medical professionals. The DIAB-CH is a TEP associated with the follow-up of diabetic patients by the community pharmacist.
To compare the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) in diabetic patients of Control (neither TEP-H nor community pharmacist intervention), TEP-H (TEP in hospital only) and DIAB-CH (TEP-H plus community pharmacist follow-up) groups.
A comparative cohort study design was applied. Patients included in the TEP-H from July 2017 to December 2017 were enrolled in the DIAB-CH group. The TEP-H session was conducted by a multidisciplinary team composed of two diabetologists, two dieticians and seven nurses. The HbA1c level and the BMI (when over 30 kg/m2 at M0) of patients in Control (n = 20), TEP-H (n = 20) and DIAB-CH (n = 20) groups were collected at M0, M0 + 6 and M0 + 12 months. First, HbA1c and BMI were compared between M0, M6 and M12 in the three groups with the Friedman test, followed by the Benjamini-Hochberg post-test. Secondly, the HbA1c and BMI of the three groups were compared at M0, M6 and M12 using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
While no difference in HbA1c was measured between M0, M6 and M12 in the Control group, Hb1Ac was significantly reduced in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups between M0 and M6 (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0034, respectively), and between M0 and M12 only in the DIAB-CH group (P = 0.0027). In addition, a significant decrease in the difference between the measured HbA1c and the target assigned by diabetologists was observed between M0 and M6 in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0044, respectively) but only for the patients of the DIAB-CH group between M0 and M12 (P = 0.0044). No significant difference (P > 0.05) in BMI between the groups was observed.
The long-lasting benefit on glycemic control of multidisciplinary group sessions associated with community pharmacist-led educational interventions on self-care for diabetic patients was demonstrated in the present study. There is thus evidence pointing to the effectiveness of a community/hospital care collaboration of professionals on diabetes control in primary care.
国际糖尿病控制指南强烈鼓励设立治疗教育计划(TEP)。然而,超过一半的患者在 TEP 后几个月无法控制糖尿病,因为缺乏医疗专业人员的定期随访。DIAB-CH 是一种与社区药剂师一起随访糖尿病患者的 TEP。
比较对照组(既无 TEP-H 也无社区药剂师干预)、TEP-H(仅在医院进行的 TEP)和 DIAB-CH(TEP-H 加社区药剂师随访)组中糖尿病患者的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)和体重指数(BMI)。
应用比较队列研究设计。2017 年 7 月至 2017 年 12 月期间参加 TEP-H 的患者被纳入 DIAB-CH 组。TEP-H 课程由由两名糖尿病专家、两名营养师和七名护士组成的多学科团队进行。收集 Control(n=20)、TEP-H(n=20)和 DIAB-CH(n=20)组患者在 M0、M0+6 和 M0+12 个月时的 HbA1c 水平和 BMI(M0 时超过 30 kg/m2)。首先,使用 Friedman 检验比较三组在 M0、M6 和 M12 之间的 HbA1c 和 BMI,然后进行 Benjamini-Hochberg 事后检验。其次,使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验比较三组在 M0、M6 和 M12 时的 HbA1c 和 BMI。
对照组 M0、M6 和 M12 之间的 HbA1c 无差异,而 TEP-H 和 DIAB-CH 组 M0 和 M6 之间(P=0.0072 和 P=0.0034)以及 M0 和 M12 之间(仅在 DIAB-CH 组,P=0.0027)的 Hb1Ac 显著降低。此外,在 TEP-H 和 DIAB-CH 组中,从 M0 到 M6 之间,以及仅在 DIAB-CH 组中从 M0 到 M12 之间,观察到测量的 HbA1c 与糖尿病专家指定的目标之间的差异显著减小(P=0.0072 和 P=0.0044,分别)。BMI 组间无显著差异(P>0.05)。
本研究证明了多学科小组会议联合社区药剂师主导的自我护理教育干预对糖尿病患者血糖控制的长期益处。因此,有证据表明,在初级保健中,专业人员的社区/医院护理合作对糖尿病控制有效。