Can family physicians help patients initiate basal insulin therapy successfully?: randomized trial of patient-titrated insulin glargine compared with standard oral therapy: lessons for family practice from the Canadian INSIGHT trial.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether FPs could help patients implement bedtime basal insulin therapy as successfully as diabetes experts could. DESIGN: National, multicentre, randomized, open-label trial designed to assess use of bedtime basal insulin therapy compared with use of standard oral-agent therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes being treated by diabetes experts or FPs. SETTING: Nineteen endocrinologist or expert sites and 34 family practices. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 405 adult patients with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values of 7.5% to 11.0% who were taking 0 to 2 oral agents. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive either basal insulin therapy using glargine self-titrated according to a patient algorithm or conventional therapy with physician-adjusted doses of oral agents for a period of 24 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to achieve 2 consecutive HbA1c values < or = 6.5%. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of subjects who achieved these HbA1c values, a fasting plasma glucose level < or = 5.5 mmol/L, and 2 consecutive HbA1c values < or = 7.0%; incidence, rate, and severity of hypoglycemia; daily variations in blood-glucose levels; and participants' lipid profiles. Post-hoc analysis sought to determine whether patients' outcomes differed in terms of the above measures depending on whether they had been treated by diabetes experts or FPs. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients were randomized to the glargine group, and 199 to the oral agents group. In total, 145 patients were followed by experts and 260 by FPs. Mean reductions in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels and rates of hypoglycemia were comparable in the 2 groups. Patients of both types of physicians achieved significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose with glargine than with oral agents (FPs: -4.14 vs -2.45 mmol/L, P = .0001; experts: -3.47 vs -2.19 mmol/L, P = .0013). Patients of FPs achieved significantly greater reductions in HbA1c levels with glargine than with oral agents (FPs: -1.64 vs -1.26%, P = .0058; experts: -1.41 vs-1.24%, P = .3331). Final mean insulin doses were higheramong FPs' patients than among experts' patients (41.74vs 31.66 units, P = .015). Family physicians were more aggressive in their use of insulin, while experts used more oral agents. There were no significant differences inefficacy of treatment. CONCLUSION: In most settings, FPs could easily implement the patient-driven bedtime basal insulin protocol used in this study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».