1.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multiple health behaviour change intervention in people aged between 45 and 75 years: a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care (EIRA study).
Aznar-Lou, I, Zabaleta-Del-Olmo, E, Casajuana-Closas, M, Sánchez-Viñas, A, Parody-Rúa, E, Bolíbar, B, Iracheta-Todó, M, Bulilete, O, López-Jiménez, T, Pombo-Ramos, H, et al
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 2021;(1):88
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multiple health behaviour change (MHBC) interventions that promote healthy lifestyles may be an efficient approach in the prevention or treatment of chronic diseases in primary care. This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of the health promotion EIRA intervention in terms of MHBC and cardiovascular reduction. METHODS An economic evaluation alongside a 12-month cluster-randomised (1:1) controlled trial conducted between 2017 and 2018 in 25 primary healthcare centres from seven Spanish regions. The study took societal and healthcare provider perspectives. Patients included were between 45 and 75 years old and had any two of these three behaviours: smoking, insufficient physical activity or low adherence to Mediterranean dietary pattern. Intervention duration was 12 months and combined three action levels (individual, group and community). MHBC, defined as a change in at least two health risk behaviours, and cardiovascular risk (expressed in % points) were the outcomes used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Missing data was imputed and bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to handle uncertainty in the modelling results. RESULTS The study included 3062 participants. Intervention costs were €295 higher than usual care costs. Five per-cent additional patients in the intervention group did a MHBC compared to usual care patients. Differences in QALYS or cardiovascular risk between-group were close to 0 (- 0.01 and 0.04 respectively). The ICER was €5598 per extra health behaviour change in one patient and €6926 per one-point reduction in cardiovascular risk from a societal perspective. The cost-utility analysis showed that the intervention increased costs and has no effect, in terms of QALYs, compared to usual care from a societal perspective. Cost-utility planes showed high uncertainty surrounding the ICUR. Sensitivity analysis showed results in line with the main analysis. CONCLUSION The efficiency of EIRA intervention cannot be fully established and its recommendation should be conditioned by results on medium-long term effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03136211 . Registered 02 May 2017 - Retrospectively registered.
2.
Effectiveness of a Multicomponent Intervention in Primary Care That Addresses Patients with Diabetes Mellitus with Two or More Unhealthy Habits, Such as Diet, Physical Activity or Smoking: Multicenter Randomized Cluster Trial (EIRA Study).
Represas-Carrera, F, Couso-Viana, S, Méndez-López, F, Masluk, B, Magallón-Botaya, R, Recio-Rodríguez, JI, Pombo, H, Leiva-Rus, A, Gil-Girbau, M, Motrico, E, et al
International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021;18(11)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Life habits such as smoking, physical activity, and diet affect glycaemic control. The objective of this multicentre randomised cluster trial (EIRA study) was to evaluate the effectiveness of multicomponent educational interventions on glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetic patients. Interventions in multicomponent individual, group and community settings included smoking cessation, the Mediterranean diet and physical activity, as well as an assessment of the quality of life. Participants had unhealthy lifestyles prior to the intervention. The study was conducted in 26 primary healthcare centres in seven health departments in Spain over a period of 12 months. A brief intervention aimed to change the habits of the participants, including increasing physical activity, quitting smoking and adhering to the Mediterranean diet. After 12 months of intervention, there were no statistically significant improvements in glycaemic control, physical activity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, or quality of life. However, adherence to the Mediterranean diet was statistically significant. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions in improving glycaemic control. The clinical applicability of multicomponent interventions to tackle type 2 diabetes, obesity, and unhealthy lifestyles should be considered by healthcare providers.
Abstract
Introduction: We evaluated the effectiveness of an individual, group and community intervention to improve the glycemic control of patients with diabetes mellitus aged 45-75 years with two or three unhealthy life habits. As secondary endpoints, we evaluated the inverventions' effectiveness on adhering to Mediterranean diet, physical activity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking and quality of life. Method: A randomized clinical cluster (health centers) trial with two parallel groups in Spain from January 2016 to December 2019 was used. Patients with diabetes mellitus aged 45-75 years with two unhealthy life habits or more (smoking, not adhering to Mediterranean diet or little physical activity) participated. Centers were randomly assigned. The sample size was estimated to be 420 people for the main outcome variable. Educational intervention was done to improve adherence to Mediterranean diet, physical activity and smoking cessation by individual, group and community interventions for 12 months. Controls received the usual health care. The outcome variables were: HbA1c (main), the Mediterranean diet adherence score (MEDAS), the international diet quality index (DQI-I), the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ), sedentary lifestyle, smoking ≥1 cigarette/day and the EuroQuol questionnaire (EVA-EuroQol5D5L). Results: In total, 13 control centers (n = 356) and 12 intervention centers (n = 338) were included with similar baseline conditions. An analysis for intention-to-treat was done by applying multilevel mixed models fitted by basal values and the health center: the HbA1c adjusted mean difference = -0.09 (95% CI: -0.29-0.10), the DQI-I adjusted mean difference = 0.25 (95% CI: -0.32-0.82), the MEDAS adjusted mean difference = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.01-0.89), moderate/high physical activity OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.64-1.86), not living a sedentary lifestyle OR = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.55-1.73), no smoking OR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.54-1.06), EVA adjusted mean difference = -1.26 (95% CI: -4.98-2.45). Conclusions: No statistically significant changes were found for either glycemic control or physical activity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking and quality of life. The multicomponent individual, group and community interventions only showed a statistically significant improvement in adhering to Mediterranean diet. Such innovative interventions need further research to demonstrate their effectiveness in patients with poor glycemic control.
3.
Control of cardiovascular risk factors with tailored recommendations: A randomized controlled trial.
Barroso, M, Zomeño, MD, Díaz, JL, Pérez-Fernández, S, Martí-Lluch, R, Cordón, F, Ramos, R, Cabezas, C, Salvador, G, Castell, C, et al
Preventive medicine. 2020;:106302
Abstract
This study analyzed the efficacy of tailored recommendations to control cardiovascular risk factors at 1-year follow-up in a population-based randomized controlled trial in individuals aged 35-74 years with no history of cardiovascular disease at baseline. Total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) were measured at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was the quantitative change in total cholesterol. To estimate the differences within and between groups, McNemar and Student t-tests were applied according to an intention-to-treat strategy. We enrolled 955 individuals [52.3% women; mean age, 50 years (standard deviation 10)]. Finally, 1 participant in each group presented a cardiovascular event and 768 were reexamined at 1-year follow-up. Intervention and control groups showed significant increases in total cholesterol [5.49 (standard deviation 1.02) to 5.56 (1.06) mmol/L and 5.34 (0.94) to 5.43 (0.93) mmol/L, respectively]. Men in the intervention group showed significant decreases in systolic and diastolic BP [117.2 (14.6) to 115.6 mmHg (14.1) and 77.9 (9.7) to 76.5 mmHg (9.7), respectively]; no changes were found in the rates of total cholesterol <5.2 mmol/L and LDL cholesterol <3.0 mmol/L. In the control group, both values were significantly decreased (43.5 to 36.4% and 26.4 to 20.8%, respectively) in men. In the stratified analysis, women showed no differences in any of the outcomes. In conclusion, an intervention with tailored recommendations increased mean total cholesterol values. The intervention effect was higher in men who maintained blood lipids at optimal levels and had decreased BP values.