Diabetes management intervention studies: lessons learned from two studies

Effects of apical periodontitis treatment on hyperglycaemia in diabetes: A prospective cohort study

AIM

This prospective cohort study was undertaken to evaluate the success rate of root canal treatment (RCT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with targeted level and unachieved targeted level of glycaemic control as well as the impact of RCT on the glucose blood level in T2DM patients.

METHODOLOGY

Patients needing RCT were divided into three groups: these without T2DM, that is, the control group (CG), those with targeted level of glycated haemoglobin HbA1c < 7% (TL A1c) and the third ones with unachieved targeted level (UTL A1c), that is, with HbA1c ≥ 7%. Before RCT, HbA1c and the periapical index (PAI) score were assessed, as well as 1 year later.

RESULTS

Our results showed less favourable treatment results of RCT such as a reduction of radiographic lesions in T2DM patients, particularly in subjects with UTL A1c. The intergroup analysis of PAI score at the 12-month follow-up revealed a significant difference in TL A1C (p = .022) and CG (p = .001) with respect to UTL A1c. Total number of healed teeth (PAI≤2) at the 12-month after RCT in UTL A1c was significantly lower in comparison to CG (p = .008). Contrariwise, RCT may improve the glycaemic control in diabetic patients with UTL A1c after 12 months of posttreatment. Regression analysis showed that UTL A1c patients were more likely to have AP persistence after endodontic treatment (OR = 4.788; CI: 1.157-19.816; p = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

T2DM retards the AP healing and conversely AP contributes to increasing the inflammatory burden in T2DM. RCT reduces the cumulative inflammatory burden in T2DM and thus may contribute to improvement of glycaemic control particularly in patients with UTL A1c.

Defining and evaluating the Hawthorne effect in primary care, a systematic review and meta-analysis

In 2015, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in primary care to evaluate if posters and pamphlets dispensed in general practice waiting rooms enhanced vaccination uptake for seasonal influenza. Unexpectedly, vaccination uptake rose in both arms of the RCT whereas public health data indicated a decrease. We wondered if the design of the trial had led to a Hawthorne effect (HE). Searching the literature, we noticed that the definition of the HE was unclear if stated. Our objectives were to refine a definition of the HE for primary care, to evaluate its size, and to draw consequences for primary care research. We designed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses review and meta-analysis between January 2012 and March 2022. We included original reports defining the HE and reports measuring it without setting limitations. Definitions of the HE were collected and summarized. Main published outcomes were extracted and measures were analyzed to evaluate odds ratios (ORs) in primary care. The search led to 180 records, reduced on review to 74 for definition and 15 for quantification. Our definition of HE is "an aware or unconscious complex behavior change in a study environment, related to the complex interaction of four biases affecting the study subjects and investigators: selection bias, commitment and congruence bias, conformity and social desirability bias and observation and measurement bias." Its size varies in time and depends on the education and professional position of the investigators and subjects, the study environment, and the outcome. There are overlap areas between the HE, placebo effect, and regression to the mean. In binary outcomes, the overall OR of the HE computed in primary care was 1.41 (95% CI: [1.13; 1.75]; I 2 = 97%), but the significance of the HE disappears in well-designed studies. We conclude that the HE results from a complex system of interacting phenomena and appears to some degree in all experimental research, but its size can considerably be reduced by refining study designs.

The Impact of Education, COVID-19 and Risk Factors on the Quality of Life in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of education, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and risk factors on the quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in three phases: before education, after education, and in the period of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The subjects were diabetics on oral therapy. To determine the quality of life index, a standardized Ferrans and Powers survey questionnaire was used.

RESULTS

A total of 205 participants took part in the study, of which 111 (54.1%) were men and 94 (46%) women. Participants were enrolled in the study between January 2019 and September 2020. Glycated hemoglobin values were significantly higher before education compared to post-education and at the time of COVID-19 (Friedman test, p = 0.002), and body mass index was significantly lower after education compared to values before education (Friedman test, p = 0.008). The quality of life was significantly lower in all domains in the COVID-19 period (Friedman test, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant predictor of worse assessment of overall quality of life was male gender and rural place of residence. Disease duration of up to 5 years was a significant predictor of worse assessment in the psychological/spiritual domain, while being married was a predictor of better assessment of the quality of life in the family domain. The education of diabetics brought an increase in the health and quality of life while the coronavirus disease pandemic had negative consequences on the same parameters. We consider it necessary to systematically educate diabetics about the comorbidity of COVID-19.