Effects of structured versus usual care on renal endpoint in type 2 diabetes: the SURE study: a randomized multicenter translational study

Juliana C Chan, Wing-Yee So, Chun-Yip Yeung, Gary T Ko, Ip-Tim Lau, Man-Wo Tsang, Kam-Piu Lau, Sing-Chung Siu, June K Li, Vincent T Yeung, Wilson Y Leung, Peter C Tong, SURE Study Group, Kin-Wah Chan, Chun-Hoi Chung, Grace Kum, Lai-Ming Fung, Tai-Pan Ip, Juliana C Chan, Wing-Yee So, Chun-Yip Yeung, Gary T Ko, Ip-Tim Lau, Man-Wo Tsang, Kam-Piu Lau, Sing-Chung Siu, June K Li, Vincent T Yeung, Wilson Y Leung, Peter C Tong, SURE Study Group, Kin-Wah Chan, Chun-Hoi Chung, Grace Kum, Lai-Ming Fung, Tai-Pan Ip

Abstract

Objective: Multifaceted care has been shown to reduce mortality and complications in type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that structured care would reduce renal complications in type 2 diabetes.

Research design and methods: A total of 205 Chinese type 2 diabetic patients from nine public hospitals who had plasma creatinine levels of 150-350 micromol/l were randomly assigned to receive structured care (n = 104) or usual care (n = 101) for 2 years. The structured care group was managed according to a prespecified protocol with the following treatment goals: blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, A1C <7%, LDL cholesterol <2.6 mmol/l, triglyceride <2 mmol/l, and persistent treatment with renin-angiotensin blockers. The primary end point was death and/or renal end point (creatinine >500 micromol/l or dialysis).

Results: Of these 205 patients (mean +/- SD age 65 +/- 7.2 years; disease duration 14 +/- 7.9 years), the structured care group achieved better control than the usual care group (diastolic blood pressure 68 +/- 12 vs. 71 +/- 12 mmHg, respectively, P = 0.02; A1C 7.3 +/- 1.3 vs. 8.0 +/- 1.6%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for age, sex, and study sites, the structured care (23.1%, n = 24) and usual care (23.8%, n = 24; NS) groups had similar end points, but more patients in the structured care group attained >or=3 treatment goals (61%, n = 63, vs. 28%, n = 28; P < 0.001). Patients who attained >or=3 treatment targets (n = 91) had reduced risk of the primary end point (14 vs. 34; relative risk 0.43 [95% CI 0.21-0.86] compared with that of those who attained <or=2 targets (n = 114).

Conclusions: Attainment of multiple treatment targets reduced the renal end point and death in type 2 diabetes. In addition to protocol, audits and feedback are needed to improve outcomes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00309127.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overall study design and clinical outcomes of recruited patients.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan-Meier analysis showing the cumulative incidence of the primary composite end point of death or ESRD defined as dialysis or the need for dialysis or plasma creatinine level ≥500 μmol/l in type 2 diabetic patients with renal insufficiency stratified by attainment of ≥3 prespecified treatment targets. Treatment targets: 1) blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, 2) A1C <7%, 3) LDL cholesterol <2.6 mmol/l, 4) fasting plasma triglyceride <2 mmol/l, and 5) treatment with ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs.

References

    1. Gaede P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving HH, et al. : Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 580– 591
    1. Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, et al. : Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 383– 393
    1. So WY, Kong AP, Ma RC, et al. : Glomerular filtration rate, cardiorenal end points, and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 2046– 2052
    1. Ritz E, Rychlik I, Locatelli F, et al. : End-stage renal failure in type 2 diabetes: a medical catastrophe of worldwide dimensions. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34: 795– 808
    1. So WY, Tong PC, Ko GT, et al. : Effects of protocol-driven care versus usual outpatient clinic care on survival rates in patients with type 2 diabetes. Am J Manag Care 2003; 9: 606– 615
    1. Leung WYS, So WY, Tong PCY, et al. : Effects of structured care by a pharmacist-diabetes specialist team in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Am J Med 2005; 118: 1414.e1421– 1414.e1427
    1. Piwernetz K, Home PD, Snorgaard O, et al. : Monitoring the targets of the St. Vincent declaration and the implementation of quality management in diabetes care: the Diabetes Care initiative. Diabet Med 1993; 10: 371– 377
    1. World Health Organization: Diabetes Mellitus: Report of a WHO Study Group Geneva, World Health Org., 1985(Tech. Rep. Ser., no. 727)
    1. Chan JCN, Wat NMS, So WY, et al. : RAAS blockade and renal disease in type 2 diabetic patients: an Asian perspective from the RENAAL Study. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 874– 879
    1. Jafar TH, Stark PC, Schmid CH, et al. : Progression of chronic kidney disease: the role of blood pressure control, proteinuria, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition: a patient-level meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 244– 252
    1. Kong AP, Yang X, Ko GT, et al. : Effects of treatment targets on subsequent cardiovascular events in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007; 30: 953– 959
    1. Leung WY, So WY, Tong PC, et al. : The renoprotective effects of structured care in a clinical trial setting in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 2519– 2525
    1. Ellrodt G, Cook DJ, Lee J, et al. : Evidence-based disease management. JAMA 1997; 258: 1687– 1692
    1. Grol R, Grimshaw J: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patient's care. Lancet 2003; 362: 1225– 1230
    1. Chan JC, Gagliardino JJ, Baik SH, et al. : Multi-faceted determinants for achieving glycemic control: The InternationalDiabetes Management Practice Study (IDMPS). Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 227– 233
    1. Ho PM, Rumsfeld JS, Masoudi FA, et al. : Effect of medication nonadherence on hospitalization and mortality among patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 1836– 1841
    1. Wu JY, Leung WY, Chang S, et al. : Effectiveness of telephone counselling by a pharmacist in reducing mortality in patients receiving polypharmacy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2006; 333522.
    1. Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, et al. : Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 825– 834
    1. Grant R, Adams AS, Trinacty CM, et al. : Relationship between patient medication adherence and subsequent clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes glycemic management. Diabetes Care 2007; 30: 807– 812
    1. Montori VM, Dinneen SF, Gorman CA, et al. : Theimpact of planned care and a diabeteselectronic management system on community-based diabetes care: the Mayo Health System Diabetes Translation Project. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1952– 1957
    1. Gaede P, Valentine WJ, Palmer AJ, et al. : Cost-effectiveness of intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: results and projections from the Steno-2 study. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 1510– 1515
    1. Funnell MM, Anderson RM: Changing office practice and health care systems to facilitate diabetes self-management. Curr Diab Rep 2003; 3: 127– 133
    1. Piatt G, Orchard T, Emerson S, et al. : Translating the chronic care model into the community: results from a randomized controlled trial of a multifaceted diabetes care intervention. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 811– 817
    1. Millett C, Gray J, Saxena S, et al. : Ethnic disparities in diabetes management and pay-for-performance in the UK: the Wandsworth Prospective Diabetes Study. PLoS Med 2007; 4e191.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever