Assessment of Two Diabetes Point-of-Care Analyzers Measuring Hemoglobin A1c in the Peruvian Amazon

Aims: Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is an important indicator of glucose control over time. Point-of-care (POC) devices allow for rapid and convenient measurement of HbA1c, greatly facilitating diabetes care. We assessed two POC analyzers in the Peruvian Amazon where laboratory-based HbA1c testing is not available.

Methods: Venous blood samples were collected from 203 individuals from six different Amazonian communities with a wide range of HbA1c, 4.4-9.0% (25-75 mmol/mol). The results of the Afinion AS100 and the DCA Vantage POC analyzers were compared to a central laboratory using the Premier Hb9210 high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Imprecision was assessed by performing 14 successive tests of a single blood sample.

Results: The correlation coefficient r for POC and HPLC results was 0.92 for the Afinion and 0.93 for the DCA Vantage. The Afinion generated higher HbA1c results than the HPLC (mean difference = +0.56% [+6 mmol/mol]; p < 0.001), as did the DCA Vantage (mean difference = +0.32% [4 mmol/mol]). The bias observed between POC and HPLC did not vary by HbA1c level for the DCA Vantage (p = 0.190), but it did for the Afinion (p < 0.001). Imprecision results were: CV = 1.75% for the Afinion, CV = 4.01% for the DCA Vantage. Sensitivity was 100% for both devices, specificity was 48.3% for the Afinion and 85.1% for the DCA Vantage, positive predictive value (PPV) was 14.4% for the Afinion and 34.9% for the DCA Vantage, and negative predictive value (NPV) for both devices was 100%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.966 for the Afinion and 0.982 for the DCA Vantage. Agreement between HPLC and POC in classifying diabetes and prediabetes status was slight for the Afinion (Kappa = 0.12) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 89; p < 0.001), and moderate for the DCA Vantage (Kappa = 0.45) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 28; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Despite significant variation of HbA1c results between the Afinion and DCA Vantage analyzers compared to HPLC, we conclude that both analyzers should be considered in health clinics in the Peruvian Amazon for therapeutic adjustments if healthcare workers are aware of the differences relative to testing in a clinical laboratory. However, imprecision and bias were not low enough to recommend either device for screening purposes, and the local prevalence of anemia and malaria may interfere with diagnostic determinations for a substantial portion of the population.

STAR 3 randomized controlled trial to compare sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with multiple daily injections in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: research design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled subjects.

BACKGROUND: Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT) integrates real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and offers an alternative to multiple daily injections (MDI). Previous studies provide evidence that SAPT may improve clinical outcomes among people with type 1 diabetes. Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1c Reduction (STAR) 3 is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of SAPT to that of MDI in subjects with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to either continue with MDI or transition to SAPT for 1 year. Subjects in the MDI cohort were allowed to transition to SAPT for 6 months after completion of the study. SAPT subjects who completed the study were also allowed to continue for 6 months. The primary end point was the difference between treatment groups in change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) percentage from baseline to 1 year of treatment. Secondary end points included percentage of subjects with HbA1c < or =7% and without severe hypoglycemia, as well as area under the curve of time spent in normal glycemic ranges. Tertiary end points include percentage of subjects with HbA1c < or =7%, key safety end points, user satisfaction, and responses on standardized assessments. RESULTS: A total of 495 subjects were enrolled, and the baseline characteristics similar between the SAPT and MDI groups. Study completion is anticipated in June 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this randomized controlled trial should help establish whether an integrated RT-CGM and CSII system benefits patients with type 1 diabetes more than MDI.

Study protocol: the Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) study--a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with diabetes have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of effective BP treatment, yet there are high rates both of poor medication adherence and failure to intensify medications. Successful medication management requires an effective partnership between providers who initiate and increase doses of effective medications and patients who adhere to the regimen. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness study, primary care teams within sites were randomized to a program led by a clinical pharmacist trained in motivational interviewing-based behavioral counseling approaches and authorized to make BP medication changes or to usual care. This study involved the collection of data during a 14-month intervention period in three Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and two Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. The clinical pharmacist was supported by clinical information systems that enabled proactive identification of, and outreach to, eligible patients identified on the basis of poor BP control and either medication refill gaps or lack of recent medication intensification. The primary outcome is the relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements over time. Secondary outcomes are changes in Hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), medication adherence determined from pharmacy refill data, and medication intensification rates. DISCUSSION: Integration of the three intervention elements--proactive identification, adherence counseling and medication intensification--is essential to achieve optimal levels of control for high-risk patients. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention at the team level allows us to study the program as it would typically be implemented within a clinic setting, including how it integrates with other elements of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT00495794.

Nurse-led behavioral management of diabetes and hypertension in community practices: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Several trials have demonstrated the efficacy of nurse telephone case management for diabetes (DM) and hypertension (HTN) in academic or vertically integrated systems. Little is known about the real-world potency of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of nurse behavioral management of DM and HTN in community practices among patients with both diseases. DESIGN: The study was designed as a patient-level randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included adult patients with both type 2 DM and HTN who were receiving care at one of nine community fee-for-service practices. Subjects were required to have inadequately controlled DM (hemoglobin A1c [A1c] ≥ 7.5%) but could have well-controlled HTN. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received a call from a nurse experienced in DM and HTN management once every two months over a period of two years, for a total of 12 calls. Intervention patients received tailored DM- and HTN- focused behavioral content; control patients received non-tailored, non-interactive information regarding health issues unrelated to DM and HTN (e.g., skin cancer prevention). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and A1c were co-primary outcomes, measured at 6, 12, and 24 months; 24 months was the primary time point. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-seven subjects were enrolled; 193 were randomized to intervention, 184 to control. Subjects were 55% female and 50% white; the mean baseline A1c was 9.1% (SD = 1%) and mean SBP was 142 mmHg (SD = 20). Eighty-two percent of scheduled interviews were conducted; 69% of intervention patients and 70% of control patients reached the 24-month time point. Expressing model estimated differences as (intervention--control), at 24 months, intervention patients had similar A1c [diff = 0.1 %, 95 % CI (-0.3, 0.5), p = 0.51] and SBP [diff = -0.9 mmHg, 95% CI (-5.4, 3.5), p = 0.68] values compared to control patients. Likewise, DBP (diff = 0.4 mmHg, p = 0.76), weight (diff = 0.3 kg, p = 0.80), and physical activity levels (diff = 153 MET-min/week, p = 0.41) were similar between control and intervention patients. Results were also similar at the 6- and 12-month time points. CONCLUSIONS: In nine community fee-for-service practices, telephonic nurse case management did not lead to improvement in A1c or SBP. Gains seen in telephonic behavioral self-management interventions in optimal settings may not translate to the wider range of primary care settings.