TY - JOUR
T1 - The GIANT study, a cluster-randomised controlled trial of efficacy of education of doctors about type 2 diabetes mellitus management guidelines in primary care practice
AU - Reutens, Anne T.
AU - Hutchinson, Richard
AU - Van Binh, Ta
AU - Cockram, Clive
AU - Deerochanawong, Chaicharn
AU - Ho, Low Tone
AU - Ji, Linong
AU - Khalid, Bin Abdul Kadir
AU - Kong, Alice Pik Shan
AU - Lim-Abrahan, Mary Ann
AU - Tan, Chee Eng
AU - Tjokroprawiro, Askandar
AU - Yoon, Kun Ho
AU - Zimmet, Paul Z.
AU - Shaw, Jonathan E.
N1 - Funding Information:
An operating grant was provided by GlaxoSmithKline Pte Ltd.
PY - 2012/10
Y1 - 2012/10
N2 - Objectives: Primary aim: does general practitioner (GP) education on type 2 diabetes treatment improve HbA1c? Secondary aim: cardiovascular risk factors, hypoglycaemia, treatment intensification, health service utilisation, treatment barriers. Methods: 99 Asia-Pacific GPs were cluster-randomised to be educated on regional diabetes management guidelines (intervention) or continue standard care (control). The intervention employed meetings, reminders, medical record summary sheets and patient result cards. Each GP recruited four type 2 diabetic patients, assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA1c from 0 to 6 months in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Results: 361 patients (93%) completed 6 month follow-up. The primary HbA1c outcome was -0.11% (95% CI -0.27, 0.05) with intervention and -0.22% (95% CI -0.39, -0.05) in the control group (p=0.340). The groups did not differ in control of other glycaemic indices, blood pressure or lipids after 6 or 12 months. In those with HbA1c ≥ 9.0%, approximately 50% received intensified treatment by 6 months, and 30% in the final 6 months. GPs identified treatment costs and patient reluctance to use insulin as management barriers. Conclusions/interpretation: A structured GP education programme did not improve HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes.
AB - Objectives: Primary aim: does general practitioner (GP) education on type 2 diabetes treatment improve HbA1c? Secondary aim: cardiovascular risk factors, hypoglycaemia, treatment intensification, health service utilisation, treatment barriers. Methods: 99 Asia-Pacific GPs were cluster-randomised to be educated on regional diabetes management guidelines (intervention) or continue standard care (control). The intervention employed meetings, reminders, medical record summary sheets and patient result cards. Each GP recruited four type 2 diabetic patients, assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA1c from 0 to 6 months in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Results: 361 patients (93%) completed 6 month follow-up. The primary HbA1c outcome was -0.11% (95% CI -0.27, 0.05) with intervention and -0.22% (95% CI -0.39, -0.05) in the control group (p=0.340). The groups did not differ in control of other glycaemic indices, blood pressure or lipids after 6 or 12 months. In those with HbA1c ≥ 9.0%, approximately 50% received intensified treatment by 6 months, and 30% in the final 6 months. GPs identified treatment costs and patient reluctance to use insulin as management barriers. Conclusions/interpretation: A structured GP education programme did not improve HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes.
KW - Asia-Pacific
KW - Glycaemic control
KW - Practice guidelines
KW - Primary care
KW - Type 2 diabetes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867401929&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.diabres.2012.06.002
DO - 10.1016/j.diabres.2012.06.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 22784926
AN - SCOPUS:84867401929
SN - 0168-8227
VL - 98
SP - 38
EP - 45
JO - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
JF - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
IS - 1
ER -