Key result
Novel CVD-T2D test improves correct cardiovascular risk stratification to ~65% vs standard care in simulated T2D.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease risk assessment and treatment in type 2 diabetes are often incorrect and delayed, prompting evaluation of whether a novel risk stratification test improves physician management.
Does a novel diagnostic CVD risk stratification test improve CV risk stratification and evidence-based treatment in simulated patients with T2DM managed by cardiologists and primary care physicians?
RCT (n=228)
Open-label
Randomly assigned to control or one of two intervention groups
Yes
Does a novel diagnostic CVD risk stratification test improve CV risk stratification and evidence-based treatment in simulated patients with T2DM managed by cardiologists and primary care physicians?
Providing physicians with a novel diagnostic CVD risk stratification test significantly improved their ability to accurately risk stratify and prescribe evidence-based therapies for simulated patients with T2DM.
Improves CV risk stratification and evidence-based prescribing in T2DM; extends RCT evidence for novel diagnostics in cardiometabolic care.
BACKGROUND: The risk for and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often incorrect and delayed. We wished to determine if a novel test improved physicians' ability to risk stratify, diagnose, and treat patients with T2DM. METHODS: In a 2-phase randomized controlled trial comparing the clinical workup, diagnosis, and management of online, simulated patients with T2DM in a nationwide sample of cardiologists and primary care physicians, participants were randomly assigned to control or one of two intervention groups. Intervention participants had access to standard of care diagnostic tools plus a novel diagnostic CVD risk stratification test. RESULTS: In control, there was no change in CV risk stratification of simulated patients between baseline and round 2 (37.1 to 38.3%, p = 0.778). Pre-post analysis showed significant improvements in risk stratification in both Intervention 1 (38.7 to 65.3%) and Intervention 2 (41.9 to 65.8%) (p < 0.01) compared to controls. Both intervention groups significantly increased prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP1 receptor agonists versus control, + 18.9% for Intervention 1 (p = 0.020) and 1 + 9.4% for Intervention 2 (p = 0.014). Non-pharmacologic treatment improved significantly compared to control (+ 30.0% in Intervention 1 (p < 0.001) and + 22.8% in Intervention 2 (p = 0.001). Finally, monitoring HgbA1C, blood pressure, and follow-up visit frequency improved by + 20.3% (p = 0.004) in Intervention 1 and + 29.8% (p < 0.001) in Intervention 2 compared with control. CONCLUSION: Use of the novel test significantly improved CV risk stratification among T2DM patients. Statistically significant increases treatments were demonstrated, specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor antagonists and recommendations of evidence-based non-pharmacologic treatments. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05237271.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peabody et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes (physician practice behavior) (n=228). CVD-T2D Test (SomaSignal) ± Metabolic Panel vs. Standard of care diagnostic tools was evaluated on Correct cardiovascular risk stratification (p=<0.01). Use of the novel CVD-T2D test significantly improved correct cardiovascular risk stratification among simulated type 2 diabetes patients to 65.3% compared to 38.3% with standard of care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: