Compared benefits of educational programs dedicated to diabetic patients with or without community pharmacist involvement

BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: 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. METHODS: 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/m(2) 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. FINDINGS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.