MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole genome sequencing was performed on matched samples collected at diagnosis, remission and relapse from three patients of de novo childhood AML. Sanger sequencing was performed for validation in 47 patients' samples, followed by functional analysis.
RESULTS: Overall, we identified 312 somatic mutations including synonymous single nucleotide variants (SNVs), missense SNVs, deletions and insertion frameshifts, stopgains and splice sites. After prioritisation, only 46 variants were present at diagnosis (13-17 mutations per patient) and 49 variants at relapse (12-20 mutations per patient). Out of 81 variants, there were 35 new variants detected at relapse but not present at diagnosis. Six potential driver mutations (KIT, CDC73, HNF1A, RBM10, ZMYM4 and ETV6) were identified in predicting relapse for the 3 patients, with recurrent mutations of the ETV6 gene in 2 patients. Functional analysis of the ETV6 mutation showed that ETV6 lost its tumour suppressive function when both mutant ETV6 p.P25fs and ETV6 p.N75fs were tested in vitro.
CONCLUSION: This study has uncovered the mutational landscape in three local childhood AML patients and contributes to a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of relapsed AML.
Objective: To investigate medication adherence among patients with and without medication subsidies and to identify factors that may influence patients' adherence to medication. Setting: Government healthcare institutions in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, and Negeri Sembilan and private healthcare institutions in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Methods: This cross-sectional study sampled patients with and without medication subsidies (self-paying patients). Only one of the patient's medications was re-packed into Medication Event Monitoring Systems (MEMS) bottles, which were returned after four weeks. Adherence was defined as the dose regimen being executed as prescribed on 80% or more of the days. The factors that may influence patients' adherence were modelled using binary logistic regression. Main outcome measure: Percentage of medication adherence.
Results: A total of 97 patients, 50 subsidized and 47 self-paying, were included in the study. Medication adherence was observed in 50% of the subsidized patients and 63.8% of the self-paying patients (χ2=1.887, df=1, p=0.219). None of the evaluated variables had a significant influence on patients' medication adherence, with the exception of attending drug counselling. Patients who attended drug counselling were found to be 3.3 times more likely to adhere to medication than those who did not (adjusted odds ratio of 3.29, 95% CI was 1.42 to 7.62, p = 0.006).
Conclusion: There is no significant difference in terms of medication adherence between subsidized and self-paying patients. Future studies may wish to consider evaluating modifiable risk factors in the examination of non-adherence among subsidized and self-paying patients in Malaysia.
METHODS: Subsidised and self-paying patients were identified at public and private healthcare institutions in three states of Malaysia. Patients were then purposively selected for semi-structured, face-to-face interviews according to their medication adherence status (including adherent and non-adherent patients), which was measured using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Adherence was defined as having 80% or more for the percentage of days in which the dose regimen was executed as prescribed. The interview was conducted from January to August 2016 and during the interviews, patients were asked to provide reasons for their medication adherence or non-adherence. The patient interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis with NVivo 11 software.
RESULTS: Thirteen subsidised and 12 self-paying patients were interviewed. The themes found among subsidised and self-paying patients were similar. The factors that influenced adherence to medication include the 'perceived importance of quality of life' and 'perceived benefit or value of the medications'. A unique factor reported by patients in this study included 'perceived value of the money spent on medications'; more specifically, patients adhered to their medications because they valued the money spent to buy/receive the medications.
CONCLUSION: Medication adherence among subsidised and self-paying patients was influenced by many factors, including a unique factor relating to their perceptions of the value of money spent on medications.
METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4).
RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P