Cargando…

Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of an intervention in clinical practice is often reduced compared to the efficacy demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In this comparative effectiveness study, the RCT-proven efficacy of a diabetes education programme for type 1 diabetic patients (PRIMAS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ehrmann, Dominic, Bergis-Jurgan, Nikola, Haak, Thomas, Kulzer, Bernhard, Hermanns, Norbert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26799064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147581
_version_ 1782411459739779072
author Ehrmann, Dominic
Bergis-Jurgan, Nikola
Haak, Thomas
Kulzer, Bernhard
Hermanns, Norbert
author_facet Ehrmann, Dominic
Bergis-Jurgan, Nikola
Haak, Thomas
Kulzer, Bernhard
Hermanns, Norbert
author_sort Ehrmann, Dominic
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of an intervention in clinical practice is often reduced compared to the efficacy demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In this comparative effectiveness study, the RCT-proven efficacy of a diabetes education programme for type 1 diabetic patients (PRIMAS) was compared to the effectiveness observed in an implementation trial (IT) under routine care conditions. METHODS: 75 patients with type 1 diabetes received PRIMAS through an RCT, whereas 179 patients were observed in an implementation trial. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes at the 6-month follow-up (improvement of HbA1c, hypoglycaemia problems, and diabetes-related distress) were compared. RESULTS: At baseline, the type 1 diabetic patients in the RCT had a significant longer diabetes duration (18.7±12.3 vs. 13.8±12.7 yrs., p = .005), lower self-efficacy scores (21.9±4.7 vs. 23.7±6.1, p = .02) and a greater number of diabetes complications (0.8±1.3 vs. 0.4±0.9, p = .02). After 6 months, PRIMAS achieved comparable effects under RCT and implementation trial conditions, as demonstrated by improvement in HbA1c (-0.36%±1.1 vs. -0.37±1.2; Δ -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.31) and hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.5±1.4 vs. -0.3±1.4; Δ 0.18, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.57). The likelihood of clinical improvement did not depend on the trial setting (RCT vs. IT: OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.33). The participants with worse glycaemic control (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.92), hypoglycaemia problems (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.97) or elevated diabetes distress (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.89) had a better chance of clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of PRIMAS under routine care conditions was comparable to the efficacy demonstrated in the RCT. Clinical improvement was independent of the setting in which PRIMAS was evaluated. The PRIMAS education programme for type 1 diabetes can be delivered under conditions of routine care without a loss of effectiveness, compared to its original evaluation in an RCT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4723092
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47230922016-01-30 Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study Ehrmann, Dominic Bergis-Jurgan, Nikola Haak, Thomas Kulzer, Bernhard Hermanns, Norbert PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of an intervention in clinical practice is often reduced compared to the efficacy demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In this comparative effectiveness study, the RCT-proven efficacy of a diabetes education programme for type 1 diabetic patients (PRIMAS) was compared to the effectiveness observed in an implementation trial (IT) under routine care conditions. METHODS: 75 patients with type 1 diabetes received PRIMAS through an RCT, whereas 179 patients were observed in an implementation trial. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes at the 6-month follow-up (improvement of HbA1c, hypoglycaemia problems, and diabetes-related distress) were compared. RESULTS: At baseline, the type 1 diabetic patients in the RCT had a significant longer diabetes duration (18.7±12.3 vs. 13.8±12.7 yrs., p = .005), lower self-efficacy scores (21.9±4.7 vs. 23.7±6.1, p = .02) and a greater number of diabetes complications (0.8±1.3 vs. 0.4±0.9, p = .02). After 6 months, PRIMAS achieved comparable effects under RCT and implementation trial conditions, as demonstrated by improvement in HbA1c (-0.36%±1.1 vs. -0.37±1.2; Δ -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.31) and hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.5±1.4 vs. -0.3±1.4; Δ 0.18, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.57). The likelihood of clinical improvement did not depend on the trial setting (RCT vs. IT: OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.33). The participants with worse glycaemic control (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.92), hypoglycaemia problems (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.97) or elevated diabetes distress (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.89) had a better chance of clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of PRIMAS under routine care conditions was comparable to the efficacy demonstrated in the RCT. Clinical improvement was independent of the setting in which PRIMAS was evaluated. The PRIMAS education programme for type 1 diabetes can be delivered under conditions of routine care without a loss of effectiveness, compared to its original evaluation in an RCT. Public Library of Science 2016-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4723092/ /pubmed/26799064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147581 Text en © 2016 Ehrmann et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ehrmann, Dominic
Bergis-Jurgan, Nikola
Haak, Thomas
Kulzer, Bernhard
Hermanns, Norbert
Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study
title Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study
title_full Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study
title_fullStr Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study
title_short Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study
title_sort comparison of the efficacy of a diabetes education programme for type 1 diabetes (primas) in a randomised controlled trial setting and the effectiveness in a routine care setting: results of a comparative effectiveness study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26799064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147581
work_keys_str_mv AT ehrmanndominic comparisonoftheefficacyofadiabeteseducationprogrammefortype1diabetesprimasinarandomisedcontrolledtrialsettingandtheeffectivenessinaroutinecaresettingresultsofacomparativeeffectivenessstudy
AT bergisjurgannikola comparisonoftheefficacyofadiabeteseducationprogrammefortype1diabetesprimasinarandomisedcontrolledtrialsettingandtheeffectivenessinaroutinecaresettingresultsofacomparativeeffectivenessstudy
AT haakthomas comparisonoftheefficacyofadiabeteseducationprogrammefortype1diabetesprimasinarandomisedcontrolledtrialsettingandtheeffectivenessinaroutinecaresettingresultsofacomparativeeffectivenessstudy
AT kulzerbernhard comparisonoftheefficacyofadiabeteseducationprogrammefortype1diabetesprimasinarandomisedcontrolledtrialsettingandtheeffectivenessinaroutinecaresettingresultsofacomparativeeffectivenessstudy
AT hermannsnorbert comparisonoftheefficacyofadiabeteseducationprogrammefortype1diabetesprimasinarandomisedcontrolledtrialsettingandtheeffectivenessinaroutinecaresettingresultsofacomparativeeffectivenessstudy