Impact of a phone call with a medical student/general practitioner team on morbidity of chronic patients during the first French COVID-19 lockdown (COVIQuest): a cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: The first COVID-19 lockdown led to a significantly reduced access to healthcare, which may have increased decompensations in frail patients with chronic diseases, especially older patients living with a chronic cardiovascular disease (CVD) or a mental health disorder (MHD). The objective of COVIQuest was to evaluate whether a general practitioner (GP)-initiated phone call to patients with CVD and MHD during the COVID-19 lockdown could reduce the number of hospitalisation(s) over a 1-month period. DESIGN: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial. Clusters were GPs from eight French regions. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥70 years old with chronic CVD (COVIQuest_CV subtrial) or ≥18 years old with MHD (COVIQuest_MH subtrial). INTERVENTIONS: A standardised GP-initiated phone call aiming to evaluate patients' need for urgent healthcare, with a control group benefiting from usual care (ie, the contact with the GP was by the patient's initiative). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital admission within 1 month after the phone call. RESULTS: In the COVIQuest_CV subtrial, 131 GPs and 1834 patients were included in the intervention group and 136 GPs and 1510 patients were allocated to the control group. Overall, 65 (3.54%) patients were hospitalised in the intervention group vs 69 (4.57%) in the control group (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.20; risk difference -0.77, 95% CI -2.28 to 0.74). In the COVIQuest_MH subtrial, 136 GPs and 832 patients were included in the intervention group and 131 GPs and 548 patients were allocated to the control group. Overall, 27 (3.25%) patients were hospitalised in the intervention group vs 12 (2.19%) in the control group (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.81; risk difference 1.38, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.70). CONCLUSION: A GP-initiated phone call may have been associated with more hospitalisations within 1 month for patients with MHD, but results lack robustness and significance depending on the statistical approach used. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04359875.

How pragmatic are the randomised trials used in recommendations for control of glycosylated haemoglobin levels in type 2 diabetic patients in general practice: an application of the PRECIS II tool.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for good clinical practice have been reported to be difficult to apply in real life by primary care clinicians. This could be because the clinical trials at the origin of the guidelines are based on explanatory trials, conducted under ideal conditions not reflecting the reality of primary care, rather than pragmatic trials conducted under real-life conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate how pragmatic are the clinical trials used to build the French High Authority of Health's recommendations on the management of type II diabetes. METHODS: Trials from the 2013 Cochrane meta-analysis that led to the 2013 French High Authority of Health's recommendations on the management of type II diabetes were selected. Each trial was analysed by applying the PRECIS-2 tool to evaluate whether the trial was pragmatic or explanatory, according to the nine domains of PRECIS-2. Each domain was scored between 1 (very explanatory) and 5 (very pragmatic) by two blinded researchers, and consensus was reached with a third researcher in case of discrepancy. Median scores were calculated for each of the nine domains. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were analysed. Eight out of nine domains - namely eligibility, recruitment, setting, organisation, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, follow-up, and primary outcome - had a median score of less than 3, indicating a more explanatory design. Only the primary analysis domain had a score indicating a more pragmatic approach (median score of 4). In more than 25% of the articles, data to score the domains of recruitment, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, and primary analysis were missing. CONCLUSIONS: Trials used to build French recommendations for good clinical practice for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care were more explanatory than pragmatic. Policy-makers should encourage the funding of pragmatic trials to evaluate the different strategies proposed for managing the patient's treatment according to HbA1C levels and give clinicians feasible recommendations.