OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effects of telemedicine on asthma control and the quality of life in adults.
METHODS: An electronic search was performed from the inception to March 2018 on the following databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of telemedicine in adults with asthma were included in this analysis, and the outcomes of interest were levels of asthma control and quality of life. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 22 studies (10,281 participants) were included. Each of 11 studies investigated the effects of single-telemedicine and combined-telemedicine (combinations of telemedicine approaches), and the meta-analyses showed that combined tele-case management could significantly improve asthma control compared with usual care (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56, 1.01). Combined tele-case management and tele-consultation (SMD = 0.52 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.91]) and combined tele-consultation (SMD = 0.28 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.44]) also significantly improved asthma outcomes, but to a lesser degree. In addition, combined tele-case management (SMD = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.31, 0.88]) was the most effective telemedicine for improving quality of life, followed by combined tele-case management and tele-consultation (SMD = 0.31 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.59]), tele-case management (SMD = 0.30 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.55]), and combined tele-consultation (SMD = 0.27 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.43]), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined-telemedicine involving tele-case management or tele-consultation appear to be effective telemedicine interventions to improve asthma control and quality of life in adults. Our findings are expected to provide health care professionals with current evidence of the effects of telemedicine on asthma control and patients' quality of life.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis using a lifetime Markov model was conducted among Thai patients with NAFLD, from a societal perspective. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, a weight reduction program, and usual care were investigated, with the outcomes of interest being the number of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: When compared with usual care, a weight reduction program can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 13.91% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.97, 20.59) and 2.12% (95% CrI 0.43, 4.56), respectively; pioglitazone can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 9.30% (95% CrI -2.52, 15.24) and 1.42% (95% CrI -0.18, 3.74), respectively; and vitamin E can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 7.32% (95% CrI -4.64, 15.56) and 1.12% (95% CrI -0.81, 3.44), respectively. Estimated incremental life expectancy and incremental QALYs for all treatment options compared with usual care were approximately 0.06 years and 0.07 QALYs, respectively. The lifetime costs of both a weight reduction program and pioglitazone were less than usual care, while vitamin E was $3050 (95% CrI 2354, 3650). The weight reduction program dominated all other treatment options. The probability of being cost-effective in Thailand's willingness-to-pay threshold ($4546/QALY gained) was 76% for the weight reduction program, 22% for pioglitazone, 2% for usual care, and 0% for vitamin E.
CONCLUSIONS: A weight reduction program can prevent cirrhosis and HCC occurrences, and dominates all other treatment options. Pioglitazone and vitamin E demonstrated a trend towards decreasing the number of cirrhosis and HCC cases.
DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.
STUDY SELECTION: All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.
METHODS: We performed systematic searches using electronic databases including PubMed and EMBASE until December 2012. Key words included "metformin" AND ("ovarian cancer" OR "ovary tumor"). All human studies assessing the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer were eligible for inclusion. All articles were reviewed independently by 2 authors with a standardized approach for the purpose of study, study design, patient characteristics, exposure, and outcomes. The data were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Of 190 studies retrieved, only 3 observational studies and 1 report of 2 randomized controlled trials were included. Among those studies, 2 reported the effects of metformin on survival outcomes of ovarian cancer, whereas the other 2 reported the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer prevention. The findings of studies reporting the effects on survival outcomes indicated that metformin may prolong overall, disease-specific, and progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients. The results of studies reporting the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer prevention were meta-analyzed. It indicated that metformin tended to decrease occurrence of ovarian cancer among diabetic patients with the pooled odds ratio of 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed the potential therapeutic effects of metformin on survival outcomes of ovarian cancer and ovarian cancer prevention. However, most of the evidence was observational studies. There is a call for further well-conducted controlled clinical trials to confirm the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer survival and ovarian cancer prevention.
METHODS: A retrospective database analysis at a university-affiliated hospital in Thailand was used. Diabetic patients receiving glucose-lowering medications from July 2008 to June 2011 were included. Patients were categorized into those exposed and not exposed to thiazolidinediones (TZDs). PSs were estimated by using conventional PS and CTS-PS. In the CTS-PS, PS was separately estimated for three specific calendar time periods. Patients were matched 1:1 using caliper matching. The outcomes were cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalizations. The TZD and non-TZD groups were compared with Cox proportional hazard models.
RESULTS: A total of 2165 patients were included. The average conventional PS was 0.198 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.195-0.202), while the average PS in the CTS-PS approach was 0.212 (0.206-0.218), 0.180 (0.173-0.188), and 0.205 (0.197-0.213) for July 2008 to June 2009, July 2009 to June 2010, and July 2010 to June 2011, respectively. The average difference in PS was 0.012 (P < 0.001), -0.009 (P ≤ 0.002), and 0.000 (P = 0.950) in the three calendar time periods. The adjusted hazard ratios of the conventional PS-matched cohort were 0.97 (95% CI 0.39-2.45) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.20) for CVD-related and all-cause hospitalizations, while the adjusted hazard ratios of the CTS-PS-matched cohort were 1.11 (95% CI 0.43-2.88) and 1.12 (95% CI 0.91-1.39), respectively.
CONCLUSION: CTS-PS is different from PS estimated by using the conventional approach. CTS-PS should be considered when a pattern of medication use has changed over the study period.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a service containing self-management support delivered by community pharmacists to patients with asthma.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the following databases from inception to January 2017: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library's Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and PsycInfo. Original studies were selected if they met the following criteria: (a) provided by community pharmacists; (b) the intervention service included the essential components of asthma self-management; (c) included a usual care group; and (d) measured control/severity of asthma symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or medication adherence.
RESULTS: Of the 639 articles screened, 12 studies involving 2,121 asthma patients were included. Six studies were randomized trials, and the other 6 were nonrandomized trials. Patients with asthma who received a self-management support service by community pharmacists had better symptom control/lower severity compared with those receiving usual care (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.09-0.82) with high heterogeneity (I2=82.6%; P = 0.000). The overall improvement in HRQOL and medication adherence among patients in the asthma self-management support group was greater than for those in the usual care group with SMD of 0.23 (95% CI = 0.12-0.34) and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.27-0.61), respectively. Evidence of heterogeneity was not observed in these 2 outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-management support service provided by community pharmacists can help improve symptom control, quality of life, and medication adherence in patients with asthma.
DISCLOSURES: This study received financial support from Naresuan University's Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Fund. Two authors, Saini and Krass, have studies that were included in this review. However, they were not involved in the processes that could bias outcomes of the present study, that is, quality assessment and meta-analysis. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: International and Thai databases were searched from inception to February 2017. Clinical trials investigating effects of PM menopausal or postmenopausal women were included. Outcomes were self-reported menopausal symptoms, serum reproductive hormones, urino-genital tract function, and bone surrogates. Methodological quality was assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias v2.0, and a 22-parameter quality score based on the CONSORT checklist for herbal medicines.
RESULTS: Eight studies (9 articles) used data from 309 menopausal patients. Five-studies demonstrated that PM was associated with climacteric scores reduced by ~50% compared to baseline. Other PM studies using limited numbers of placebo participants suggested improved vaginal and other urogenital tract symptoms. Bone alkaline phosphatase halved (suggesting lowered bone turnover). Variable serum reproductive hormone levels suggested menopausal status differed between studies. PM active ingredients and sources were not defined. Adverse event rates (mastodynia, vaginal spotting, dizziness) were similar in all groups (PM, conjugated equine estrogen, and placebos) but serum C-reactive protein doubled. These studies had design and reporting deficiencies, high risks of biases, and low quality scores.
CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of PM on menopausal symptoms remains inconclusive because of methodological short-comings especially placebo effects inherent in self-assessment/recall questionnaires and no PM standardization. PM efficacy and safety need a fundamental re-appraisal by: (i) cohort (retro- and prospective) studies on current users to define its traditional use for rejuvenation; (ii) tightly coupling long-term efficacy to safety of well-defined PM and multiple end-points; (iii) using study design related to current understanding of menopause progression and estrogen pharmacology (iv) robust pharmacovigilance.