Type 2 DiabetesPRODIACORNCT01456806
Educative Intervention to Improve Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Control in Corrientes
A study testing Education in people with Type 2 Diabetes, run by Centro de Endocrinologia Experimental y Aplicada at 1 site in Argentina.
Trial summary
Objective: To evaluate the effect of system interventions (data recording procedures and complete coverage of medications and supplies) with or without physician and/or patient education, upon the psychological, clinical, metabolic and therapeutic indicators and the costs of care of people with type 2 diabetes. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Type 2 Diabetes
- What is being tested?
- Education
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 468 participants
- Where
- 1 siteArgentina
- Study dates
- Dec 2006to Jul 2010
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adults Patients with type 2 diabetes
- Being regularly attended at the doctors office during at least one year
Who cannot join
- Newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes
- Advanced stage of chronics complications (End-stage-kidney disease)
- Heart Failure.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Programme of Diabetes Education in the City of Corrientes (PRODIACOR): Clinical, Metabolic and Economic Outcomes of a Prospective-randomized Trial Based on Different Patient-centered Educational Strategies for People With Type 2 Diabetes
Objective: To evaluate the effect of system interventions (data recording procedures and complete coverage of medications and supplies) with or without physician and/or patient education, upon the psychological, clinical, metabolic and therapeutic indicators and the costs of care of people with type 2 diabetes.
Design: Randomized 2x2 design; sample size was determined considering the change in haemoglobin A1c (primary outcome variable) using a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and 80% power using a paired t-test. Sample size was increased by 25% to account for non-independence and patient drop-out.
Read more
Setting: Primary care level in the city of Corrientes, Argentina with involvement of all three Argentinean health subsectors (public health, social security and the private, prepaid system).
Participants: 36 general practitioners and 468 adults (62-71% women, mean age 62 years) with type 2 diabetes. Patients of the participating physicians (nine in each group), were randomly selected and assigned to one of four groups (117 patients each): control, provider education, patient education, and provider/patient education.
Intervention: Structured group education programmes were delivered to provider and/or people with type 2 diabetes by trained professionals; identical system interventions were applied to all four groups.
Main outcome measures: Body mass index, blood pressure, fasting glucose, haemoglobin A1c levels, lipid profile, drug consumption, resource use, and patient well being (WHO-5 questionnaire and Lowe score), at baseline and up to 42 months at every 6 months intervals.
Read the detailed description
The study protocol was evaluated and approved by an external ethical committee; patients gave informed consent to participate in the study according with the guidelines from the International Conference on Harmonisation and WHO good clinical practice standards. The study design has been previously described in detail.30 Briefly, the investigators implemented a randomized 2x2 design to address the effectiveness of different education strategies involving the health provider and people with diabetes).
Sample size: for its determination in each of the four groups, the investigators considered the change in haemoglobin A1c (from baseline to the end of the study) as the primary outcome variable. This was done using a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance and 80% power using a paired t-test. The sample size was increased by 25% to account for non-independence and dropout, resulting in the number of providers and patients listed in table 1.
Educational strategies The investigators used the Diabetes Training Course for Physicians and Diabetes Structured Education Courses for People with T2DM, whose characteristics and usefulness have been previously reported.
Data collection Patients' clinical, psychological, biochemical, therapeutic and economic data before and after PRODIACOR were recorded using the Physician Data Form, the Annual and Bi-annual Clinical Record Form and the Feedback Report Form. The investigators developed software that compares the first two mentioned forms and generates a Biannual Feedback Report for physicians and patients; it compares the values recorded for haemoglobin A1c, serum lipids and blood pressure, and the goal proposed for each parameter according to international standards. It also includes recommendations about appropriate treatment to achieve therapeutic goals.31 Additionally, the investigators used the Patient Questionnaire, based on the one previously used in the Diabetes Advantage Program (DAP) which includes questions about the disease, and the WHO-5 well-being questionnaire. Data collection was completed with the Personalized Checkbook, a tool initially developed for the PROPAT study, whose aim and content have been previously described. It serves to order procedures, consultations, laboratory tests, prescription of drugs and strips for glucose self-monitoring, to record and communicate results, and as a payment voucher for all those items.
Study and Data management The Local Coordinator (city of Corrientes) together with the Central Cordinating Center (CENEXA), oversaw the education courses and the overall trial and maintained periodic contact with the participating physicians. Performance of the physicians and their patients was monitored at regular intervals (6 months) during the whole study period. Every physician was visited twice a year by a physician monitor who assessed the quality of the data he has recorded.30 Participating physicians collect their own patients´ data, sent it to the Local Coordinator who controlled its completeness and forwarded to the Central Coordinating Centre.
Resource utilization and costs The data recorded include all direct medical items used by each of the patients ascribed to the programme, and were obtained from the checkbook and the utilization and cost records from each of the participating health coverage entities.
Utilization was classified into five groups: i) hospitalizations, ii) drugs and supplies, iii) diagnostic tests, iv) special studies, and v) physician office visits. Drugs were identified by their generic and commercial name and their corresponding presentation. Their costs were assessed from retail prices published by Alfabeta.net and adjusted to July 2004 using the health chapter of local Consumer Price Index.
Estimated drug costs and haemoglobin A1c reduction experienced by each treatment group were used to construct marginal figures of cost-consequence ratio. For this purpose, the investigators calculated such ratio figures for each experimental group, i.e., the investigators expressed the total drug cost associated to 1% haemoglobin A1c decrease to 10 mm Hg of systolic blood pressure or 10 mg/dL of triglyceride levels. The investigators did not currently estimate the costs of the educational interventions themselves, namely, all the physical and human resources involved in the management and administrative activities of the programme.
Statistical analysis To estimate the effects of the different educational interventions tested, intention to treat analysis was used. Initial univariate differences among groups for quantitative data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (Bonferroni post hoc test). Factorial ANOVA and two-way ANOVA models (Bonferroni post hoc test) were used to assess the differences among groups along the study. ANOVA was also used to explore initial vs. end-of-study differences among quantitative data. Differences among qualitative measures were explored by Chi-squared (Yates corrected). P values of less than 0.05 were considered as significant (two tailed). Missing data strategies applied to the primary endpoint were last observation carried forward and complete case analysis. Both strategies were compared to evaluate the impact of missing data on the efficacy analysis of the primary endpoint.
- Conditions
- Type 2 Diabetes
- Being tested
- Education
- Keywords
- T2DM, Cardiovascular risk factors, Metabolic control, Well-being, Cost, Cost-consequence
- Medical subject headings
- Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
EducationOther
Also called Diabetes Education
Structured group education programmes were delivered to provider and/or people with type 2 diabetes by trained professionals; identical system interventions were applied to all four groups.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Patients and provider non educated | No intervention | In this arm neither the patients nor the providers have attended the groupal education courses Receives: Other: Education |
| Provider educated | Active comparator | Provider attend the interactive group education, while patients do not. Receives: Other: Education |
| Patients Educated | Active comparator | Patients attend the interactive group education, while providers do not. Receives: Other: Education |
| Providers/Patients Educated | Active comparator | Provider and Patients both attend the interactive group education. Receives: Other: Education |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
HbA1c
Measured: 42 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Quality of Care Indicators
Body mass index, blood pressure, fasting glucose, lipid profile, drug consumption, resource use, and patient well being (WHO-5 questionnaire and Lowe score)
Measured: 42 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Oct 2011 (estimated)
- Study startDec 2006
- Primary completionMar 2007
- Study completionJul 2010
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Type 2 DiabetesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 468 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Centro de Endocrinologia Experimental y Aplicada
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Council of Scientific and Technical Research, Argentina
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Juan J Gagliardino, MD, Study director, CENEXA (UNLP-CONICET La Plata)
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01456806
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1374/2006 (ACC)
- Acronym
- PRODIACOR
- Status last verified
- Oct 2011
- First submitted
- 19 Oct 2011
- Last updated
- 21 Oct 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Gagliardino JJ, Lapertosa S, Villagra M, Caporale JE, Oliver P, Gonzalez C, Siri F, Clark Ch Jr; PRODIACOR. PRODIACOR: a patient-centered treatment program for type 2 diabetes and associated cardiovascular risk factors in the city of Corrientes, Argentina: study design and baseline data. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 Jul;28(4):548-56. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.01.004. Epub 2007 Jan 12.
PubMed 17331807Gagliardino JJ, Lapertosa S, Pfirter G, Villagra M, Caporale JE, Gonzalez CD, Elgart J, Gonzalez L, Cernadas C, Rucci E, Clark C Jr; PRODIACOR. Clinical, metabolic and psychological outcomes and treatment costs of a prospective randomized trial based on different educational strategies to improve diabetes care (PRODIACOR). Diabet Med. 2013 Sep;30(9):1102-11. doi: 10.1111/dme.12230. Epub 2013 Jun 7.
PubMed 23668772
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Oct 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Programme of Diabetes Education in the City of Corrientes (PRODIACOR): Clinical, Metabolic and Economic Outcomes of a Prospective-randomized Trial Based on Different Patient-centered Educational Strategies for People With Type 2 Diabetes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01456806
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PRODIACOR / 1374/2006 (ACC)
- Conditions
- Type 2 Diabetes
- Keywords
- T2DM, Cardiovascular risk factors, Metabolic control, Well-being, Cost, Cost-consequence
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 468 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Centro de Endocrinologia Experimental y AplicadaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Council of Scientific and Technical Research, Argentina
- Study start
- Dec 2006
- Primary completion
- Mar 2007 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2010 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Oct 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Objective: To evaluate the effect of system interventions (data recording procedures and complete coverage of medications and supplies) with or without physician and/or patient education, upon the psychological, clinical, metabolic and therapeutic indicators and the costs of care of people with type 2 diabetes.
Design: Randomized 2x2 design; sample size was determined considering the change in haemoglobin A1c (primary outcome variable) using a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and 80% power using a paired t-test. Sample size was increased by 25% to account for non-independence and patient drop-out.
Setting: Primary care level in the city of Corrientes, Argentina with involvement of all three Argentinean health subsectors (public health, social security and the private, prepaid system).
Participants: 36 general practitioners and 468 adults (62-71% women, mean age 62 years) with type 2 diabetes. Patients of the participating physicians (nine in each group), were randomly selected and assigned to one of four groups (117 patients each): control, provider education, patient education, and provider/patient education.
Intervention: Structured group education programmes were delivered to provider and/or people with type 2 diabetes by trained professionals; identical system interventions were applied to all four groups.
Main outcome measures: Body mass index, blood pressure, fasting glucose, haemoglobin A1c levels, lipid profile, drug consumption, resource use, and patient well being (WHO-5 questionnaire and Lowe score), at baseline and up to 42 months at every 6 months intervals.
Detailed description
The study protocol was evaluated and approved by an external ethical committee; patients gave informed consent to participate in the study according with the guidelines from the International Conference on Harmonisation and WHO good clinical practice standards. The study design has been previously described in detail.30 Briefly, the investigators implemented a randomized 2x2 design to address the effectiveness of different education strategies involving the health provider and people with diabetes).
Sample size: for its determination in each of the four groups, the investigators considered the change in haemoglobin A1c (from baseline to the end of the study) as the primary outcome variable. This was done using a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance and 80% power using a paired t-test. The sample size was increased by 25% to account for non-independence and dropout, resulting in the number of providers and patients listed in table 1.
Educational strategies The investigators used the Diabetes Training Course for Physicians and Diabetes Structured Education Courses for People with T2DM, whose characteristics and usefulness have been previously reported.
Data collection Patients' clinical, psychological, biochemical, therapeutic and economic data before and after PRODIACOR were recorded using the Physician Data Form, the Annual and Bi-annual Clinical Record Form and the Feedback Report Form. The investigators developed software that compares the first two mentioned forms and generates a Biannual Feedback Report for physicians and patients; it compares the values recorded for haemoglobin A1c, serum lipids and blood pressure, and the goal proposed for each parameter according to international standards. It also includes recommendations about appropriate treatment to achieve therapeutic goals.31 Additionally, the investigators used the Patient Questionnaire, based on the one previously used in the Diabetes Advantage Program (DAP) which includes questions about the disease, and the WHO-5 well-being questionnaire. Data collection was completed with the Personalized Checkbook, a tool initially developed for the PROPAT study, whose aim and content have been previously described. It serves to order procedures, consultations, laboratory tests, prescription of drugs and strips for glucose self-monitoring, to record and communicate results, and as a payment voucher for all those items.
Study and Data management The Local Coordinator (city of Corrientes) together with the Central Cordinating Center (CENEXA), oversaw the education courses and the overall trial and maintained periodic contact with the participating physicians. Performance of the physicians and their patients was monitored at regular intervals (6 months) during the whole study period. Every physician was visited twice a year by a physician monitor who assessed the quality of the data he has recorded.30 Participating physicians collect their own patients´ data, sent it to the Local Coordinator who controlled its completeness and forwarded to the Central Coordinating Centre.
Resource utilization and costs The data recorded include all direct medical items used by each of the patients ascribed to the programme, and were obtained from the checkbook and the utilization and cost records from each of the participating health coverage entities.
Utilization was classified into five groups: i) hospitalizations, ii) drugs and supplies, iii) diagnostic tests, iv) special studies, and v) physician office visits. Drugs were identified by their generic and commercial name and their corresponding presentation. Their costs were assessed from retail prices published by Alfabeta.net and adjusted to July 2004 using the health chapter of local Consumer Price Index.
Estimated drug costs and haemoglobin A1c reduction experienced by each treatment group were used to construct marginal figures of cost-consequence ratio. For this purpose, the investigators calculated such ratio figures for each experimental group, i.e., the investigators expressed the total drug cost associated to 1% haemoglobin A1c decrease to 10 mm Hg of systolic blood pressure or 10 mg/dL of triglyceride levels. The investigators did not currently estimate the costs of the educational interventions themselves, namely, all the physical and human resources involved in the management and administrative activities of the programme.
Statistical analysis To estimate the effects of the different educational interventions tested, intention to treat analysis was used. Initial univariate differences among groups for quantitative data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (Bonferroni post hoc test). Factorial ANOVA and two-way ANOVA models (Bonferroni post hoc test) were used to assess the differences among groups along the study. ANOVA was also used to explore initial vs. end-of-study differences among quantitative data. Differences among qualitative measures were explored by Chi-squared (Yates corrected). P values of less than 0.05 were considered as significant (two tailed). Missing data strategies applied to the primary endpoint were last observation carried forward and complete case analysis. Both strategies were compared to evaluate the impact of missing data on the efficacy analysis of the primary endpoint.
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Patients and provider non educated | No intervention | Other: EducationIn this arm neither the patients nor the providers have attended the groupal education courses |
| Provider educated | Active comparator | Other: EducationProvider attend the interactive group education, while patients do not. |
| Patients Educated | Active comparator | Other: EducationPatients attend the interactive group education, while providers do not. |
| Providers/Patients Educated | Active comparator | Other: EducationProvider and Patients both attend the interactive group education. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Adults Patients with type 2 diabetes
- Being regularly attended at the doctors office during at least one year
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes
- Advanced stage of chronics complications (End-stage-kidney disease)
- Heart Failure.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| EducationAlso: Diabetes EducationStructured group education programmes were delivered to provider and/or people with type 2 diabetes by trained professionals; identical system interventions were applied to all four groups. | Other | Patients Educated, Patients and provider non educated, Provider educated, Providers/Patients Educated |
Primary outcome
HbA1c
Time frame: 42 months
1 secondary outcome
Quality of Care Indicators
Time frame: 42 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Oct 2011.
- Background: PubMed 17331807Gagliardino JJ, Lapertosa S, Villagra M, Caporale JE, Oliver P, Gonzalez C, Siri F, Clark Ch Jr; PRODIACOR. PRODIACOR: a patient-centered treatment program for type 2 diabetes and associated cardiovascular risk factors in the city of Corrientes, Argentina: study design and baseline data. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 Jul;28(4):548-56. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.01.004. Epub 2007 Jan 12.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 23668772Gagliardino JJ, Lapertosa S, Pfirter G, Villagra M, Caporale JE, Gonzalez CD, Elgart J, Gonzalez L, Cernadas C, Rucci E, Clark C Jr; PRODIACOR. Clinical, metabolic and psychological outcomes and treatment costs of a prospective randomized trial based on different educational strategies to improve diabetes care (PRODIACOR). Diabet Med. 2013 Sep;30(9):1102-11. doi: 10.1111/dme.12230. Epub 2013 Jun 7.
Related trials for Type 2 Diabetes
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
A Study on the Safety and Clinical Efficacy of Guominkang in the Treatment of Diabetic Kidney Disease
Diabetic Kidney Disease (DKD), Type 2 Diabetes
Recruiting
Culturally Tailored Program for Food-Insecure Adults: SPICE-D
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2D)
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Implementing a Screening Strategy for the Diagnosis of Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Health Care in a Brazilian Municipality
Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2), Prediabetes
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
A First-In-Human Study of ARO-INHBE in Adults With Obesity With and Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Obesity
Not yet recruiting
Role of Endothelial Dysfunction on Exercise Pressor Reflex in Type 2 Diabetes
Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM), Endothelial Dysfunction
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Juan J Gagliardino, MD study director
CENEXA (UNLP-CONICET La Plata)
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Education in people with Type 2 Diabetes, run by Centro de Endocrinologia Experimental y Aplicada at 1 site in Argentina.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Oct 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Argentina. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
HbA1c (time frame: 42 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01456806, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Oct 2011.