University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Ann Pharmacother. 2022 Feb;56(2):155-161. doi: 10.1177/10600280211023492. Epub 2021 Jun 9.
Team-based care practice models have been shown to improve diabetes-related therapeutic inertia, yet the method and type of antidiabetic treatment intensification (TI) leading to improvements in glycemic control are not well understood.
To evaluate time to TI in a pharmacist-physician practice model (PPM) as compared with usual medical care (UMC), explore the method and type of antidiabetic TI, and evaluate achievement of hemoglobin A (A1C) goal among each cohort.
This was a retrospective cohort study conducted between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018. Median time to TI was calculated and compared between patients in the PPM and UMC groups using the log rank test. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the method and type of TI and A1C goal achievement.
A total of 56 patients were included. The median (interquartile range) time to antidiabetic TI among the PPM cohort was 37.5 days (8, 216.5), as compared with 142 days (16, 465) in the UMC cohort ( = 0.19). At 1 year post-index date, 25% of patients in the PPM cohort reached their A1C goal compared with 18.8% of patients in the UMC cohort. This effect was maintained in the subgroup (n = 49) of patients receiving TI (23.1% vs 17.8%).
A shorter time to TI and improvement in A1C goal achievement was observed with pharmacist-physician care compared with UMC. These findings suggest that pharmacist-physician care may be one of several interventions necessary to overcome therapeutic inertia in diabetes care.
团队式医疗护理模式已被证实可改善与糖尿病相关的治疗惰性,但改善血糖控制的降糖治疗强化(TI)方法和类型仍不清楚。
评估药师-医师护理模式(PPM)与常规医疗护理(UMC)相比,实现 TI 的时间,探讨降糖 TI 的方法和类型,并评估每个队列的糖化血红蛋白(A1C)目标达标率。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,于 2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日进行。采用对数秩检验比较 PPM 组和 UMC 组患者的 TI 中位时间。采用描述性统计评估 TI 方法和类型以及 A1C 目标达标率。
共纳入 56 例患者。PPM 队列的中位(四分位间距)降糖 TI 时间为 37.5 天(8,216.5),而 UMC 队列为 142 天(16,465)( = 0.19)。在索引日期后 1 年,PPM 队列中有 25%的患者达到了 A1C 目标,而 UMC 队列中有 18.8%的患者达到了 A1C 目标。在接受 TI 的患者亚组(n = 49)中,这一效果得以维持(23.1% vs 17.8%)。
与 UMC 相比,药师-医师护理实现 TI 的时间更短,A1C 目标达标率更高。这些发现表明,药师-医师护理可能是克服糖尿病治疗惰性的多种干预措施之一。