Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Chow EP, Hassali A
    Value Health, 2014 Nov;17(7):A746.
    PMID: 27202698 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.171
    Objectives
    To evaluate the impact of home medication review programme (HMR) towards Type 2 Diabetes patients from public primary centre in Penang, Malaysia.

    Methods
    A prospective randomised control study was conducted at Primary Clinic in Bukit Minyak, Penang. Eligible Type 2 diabetes patients with HbA1c > 6.5% and taking ≥ 3 medications who stayed at their own house were recruited and randomly allocated into control and intervention group by coin tossing. Control group patients received usual care from the clinic whereas intervention group patients received additional 2 visits at their home by pharmacist. During both visits, education on quality use of medications and life-style modifications were performed.Blood pressure monitoring, point of care for sugar and total cholesterol levels were conducted in each visit. Patients adherence and knowledge were assessed using validated questionnaire. Pill count was conducted and excessive medications were collected to calculate the costing component. Primary outcomes were medication adherence and level of knowledge. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c, FBS and total cholesterol changes as well as patients’ satisfactions towards HMR and direct cost saving from the programme.

    Results
    A total of 150 patients were recruited and randomly assigned in two groups (n=75 each group). Fifty patients in the intervention group completed the study. After 2 home visits there were significant improvements in the adherence score for the intervention group (mean score=6.90,SD=0.94) compared to the control group (mean score=4.05, SD=1.51). There was a significant improvement in knowledge score after HMR programme, intervention group (mean score=10.04, SD=1.75) and the control group (mean score=5.45, SD=1.89). A direct cost analysis of the medication wasted reveals that HMR can help to save RM 2805.50 (USD 855.34) throughout the eight months period.

    Conclusions
    Pharmacist-led HMR have improved patients’ adherence and knowledge as well as helping the policy makers to save money on excessive medication wastage.
  2. Wei F, Gaisa MM, D'Souza G, Xia N, Giuliano AR, Hawes SE, et al.
    Lancet HIV, 2021 Sep;8(9):e531-e543.
    PMID: 34339628 DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00108-9
    BACKGROUND: Robust age-specific estimates of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in men can inform anal cancer prevention efforts. We aimed to evaluate the age-specific prevalence of anal HPV, HSIL, and their combination, in men, stratified by HIV status and sexuality.

    METHODS: We did a systematic review for studies on anal HPV infection in men and a pooled analysis of individual-level data from eligible studies across four groups: HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), HIV-negative MSM, HIV-positive men who have sex with women (MSW), and HIV-negative MSW. Studies were required to inform on type-specific HPV infection (at least HPV16), detected by use of a PCR-based test from anal swabs, HIV status, sexuality (MSM, including those who have sex with men only or also with women, or MSW), and age. Authors of eligible studies with a sample size of 200 participants or more were invited to share deidentified individual-level data on the above four variables. Authors of studies including 40 or more HIV-positive MSW or 40 or more men from Africa (irrespective of HIV status and sexuality) were also invited to share these data. Pooled estimates of anal high-risk HPV (HR-HPV, including HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68), and HSIL or worse (HSIL+), were compared by use of adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) from generalised linear models.

    FINDINGS: The systematic review identified 93 eligible studies, of which 64 contributed data on 29 900 men to the pooled analysis. Among HIV-negative MSW anal HPV16 prevalence was 1·8% (91 of 5190) and HR-HPV prevalence was 6·9% (345 of 5003); among HIV-positive MSW the prevalences were 8·7% (59 of 682) and 26·9% (179 of 666); among HIV-negative MSM they were 13·7% (1455 of 10 617) and 41·2% (3798 of 9215), and among HIV-positive MSM 28·5% (3819 of 13 411) and 74·3% (8765 of 11 803). In HIV-positive MSM, HPV16 prevalence was 5·6% (two of 36) among those age 15-18 years and 28·8% (141 of 490) among those age 23-24 years (ptrend=0·0091); prevalence was 31·7% (1057 of 3337) among those age 25-34 years and 22·8% (451 of 1979) among those age 55 and older (ptrend<0·0001). HPV16 prevalence in HIV-negative MSM was 6·7% (15 of 223) among those age 15-18 and 13·9% (166 of 1192) among those age 23-24 years (ptrend=0·0076); the prevalence plateaued thereafter (ptrend=0·72). Similar age-specific patterns were observed for HR-HPV. No significant differences for HPV16 or HR-HPV were found by age for either HIV-positive or HIV-negative MSW. HSIL+ detection ranged from 7·5% (12 of 160) to 54·5% (61 of 112) in HIV-positive MSM; after adjustment for heterogeneity, HIV was a significant predictor of HSIL+ (aPR 1·54, 95% CI 1·36-1·73), HPV16-positive HSIL+ (1·66, 1·36-2·03), and HSIL+ in HPV16-positive MSM (1·19, 1·04-1·37). Among HPV16-positive MSM, HSIL+ prevalence increased with age.

    INTERPRETATION: High anal HPV prevalence among young HIV-positive and HIV-negative MSM highlights the benefits of gender-neutral HPV vaccination before sexual activity over catch-up vaccination. HIV-positive MSM are a priority for anal cancer screening research and initiatives targeting HPV16-positive HSIL+.

    FUNDING: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links