Proactive case management of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by a clinical pharmacist: a randomized controlled trial. Improving combined diabetes outcomes by adding a simple patient intervention to physician feedback: a cluster randomized trial. Twelve-week monotherapy with the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin improves glycemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Treatment of arterial hypertension in diabetic humans: importance of therapeutic selection.
To evaluate the effect of case management by a clinical pharmacist on glycemic control and preventive measures in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
                Randomized controlled trial in a university-affiliated primary care internal medicine clinic.
                We recruited 80 patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. A clinical pharmacist provided evaluation and modification of pharmacotherapy, self-management diabetes education, and reinforcement of diabetes complications screening processes through clinic visits and telephone follow-up. The main clinical outcome was hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) level; process measures included HbA1C and low-density lipoprotein measurement, retinal examination, urine microalbumin testing (or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), and monofilament screening for diabetic neuropathy.
                Patients in the intervention and control groups were similar in age, sex, mean HbA1C levels (10.1% and 10.2%, respectively; P = .65), and current treatment regimens at baseline. Patients who received case management by the clinical pharmacist achieved greater reduction in HbA1C levels than those in the control group (2.1% vs 0.9%, P = .03). Three of the 5 process measures were conducted more frequently in the intervention group than the control group, including low-density lipoprotein measurement (100.0% vs 85.7%, P = .02), retinal examination (97.3% vs 74.3%), and monofilament foot screening (92.3% vs 62.9%).
                Proactive diabetes case management by a pharmacist substantially improved glycemic control and diabetes process-of-care measures. This approach, integrated with and based in the primary care setting, was an effective and efficient approach to improving care, especially for those with poor glycemic control at baseline. Research on synergistic effects of patient targeted interventions combined with physician-targeted interventions has been limited.
                To compare a combined physician-patient intervention to physician feedback alone on a composite outcome of glycemic, lipid and blood pressure control.
                In this cluster study 417 patients with adult-type 2 diabetes from four primary care clinics were randomized to receive either a physician-only intervention or a combined physician-plus-patient intervention. Physicians in all clinics received diabetes-related quality performance feedback during staff meetings. Patients at combined-intervention clinics also received a letter encouraging them to remind their doctors to address essential aspects of diabetes care at the next visit. At 1 year follow-up, outcome measurements included hemoglobin A1c, low density lipoprotein-cholesterol and systolic blood pressure: namely, the proportion of patients with HbA1c 9%, LDL <130 mg/dl and SBP <140 mmHg both as separate outcomes and combined.
                After adjusting for patient characteristics and baseline measures, follow-up levels of HbA1c (7.5% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.09), LDL (104.7 vs. 110.7 mg/dl, P < 0.05) and SBP (135.6 vs. 139.9, P = 0.10) were marginally better for combined-intervention patients compared to physician-only intervention patients. Significantly more patients in the combined-intervention (38.8%) than physician-only intervention (24.2%) met all three targets (HbA1c (9%, LDL (130 mg/dl and SBP <140 mmHg) as a single combined outcome (adjusted odds ratio 2.4, P < .01).
                Compared to physician-feedback alone, a dual intervention combining a patient letter with physician feedback produced modest improvements in glycemic, lipid and blood pressure control individually, but substantial improvement in a combined measure of these three outcomes together. Using composite outcomes may detect meaningful improvements in the management of complex chronic disease. Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enhances the activity of incretin hormones, improving glycemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes. This twelve-week randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the specific and potent oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin (25 mg, bid, n=70) VS. placebo (bid, n=28) in previously diet-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes. Standardized meal tests were performed at baseline and endpoint. The between-group difference in adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was - 0.6 +/- 0.2 % (p=0.0012) for the whole cohort (baseline 8.0 %) and -1.2 % for subjects with baseline HbA1c 8.0 - 9.5 %. Fasting glucose and mean prandial glucose were reduced by 1.1 +/- 0.4 (p=0.0043) and 1.9 +/- 0.5 mmol/l (p <0.0001), respectively. The between-group differences in corrected insulin response at peak glucose and mean prandial C-peptide were + 0.06 +/- 0.02 (p=0.0258) and + 0.10 +/- 0.03 nmol/l (p=0.0031), respectively. Vildagliptin had no effect on fasting lipid levels or body weight. The incidence of adverse events was similar in subjects receiving placebo (71.4 %) and vildagliptin (55.7 %).
                monotherapy with vildagliptin is well tolerated and improves glycemic control in diet-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes. Concomitant improvements in beta-cell function were also observed. Subjects with higher baseline HbA1c levels showed greater response. This study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that, given equal arterial pressure reductions, the combination of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and calcium antagonist slows declines in renal function and yields greater reductions in albuminuria over either agent alone. This hypothesis was evaluated in four groups of hypertensive, non-insulin dependent, diabetic subjects with renal insufficiency (N = 30). Renal hemodynamics, albuminuria and metabolic parameters were evaluated for a period of one year. Subjects were all placed on a 90 mEq sodium, 0.8 g/kg protein, 1500 calorie American Diabetes Association diet for the entire length of the study. Subjects were followed for two weeks off antihypertensive medications and were subsequently randomized to either lisinopril, alone (group I), sustained release verapamil, alone (group II), reduced doses of both lisinopril and sustained release verapamil (group III), and hydrochlorothiazide with guanfacine (group IV). At the end of one year group III had the greatest reduction in albuminuria (78 +/- 7%, group III vs. 59% +/- 4, group I: P less than 0.05). In addition, the decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was the lowest in this group (0.28 +/- 0.07, group III vs. 0.69 +/- 0.12, group I; P less than 0.05) although there was no significant difference between groups II and IV. The highest side effect profiles were noted in group IV, the least in group III. The greatest reductions in renal hemodynamics occurred in all groups within the first month; however, striking differences between groups were noted (7.4 +/- 2%, group I vs. 1.4 +/- 2%, group III; P less than 0.05). We conclude that the combination of reduced doses of an ACE inhibitor and calcium antagonist attenuate both albuminuria and the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate. Furthermore, the combination of these classes of agents appear to yield the lowest side effect profile over either agent alone. Lastly, high doses of ACE inhibition alone may be detrimental to renal function in late stage diabetics with renal insufficiency.
The available evidence for ADP receptor antagonists in patients with diabetes mellitus is limited and most trials do not report outcomes for patients with diabetes separately. Therefore, recommendations for the use of ADP receptor antagonists for the prevention of CVD in patients with diabetes are based on available evidence from trials including patients with and without diabetes. Trials with diabetes patients and subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes in trials with combined populations are needed to provide a more robust evidence base to guide clinical management in patients with diabetes.