METHODS: This is a controlled, intervention based study. It was run on three phases: before, during, and after Ramadan on 262 type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention group (n = 140) received RFEP on medications doses & timing adjustment before and after Ramadan, while the control group (n = 122) received standard care.
RESULTS: The dose of insulin glargine was reduced from 42.51 ± 22.16 at the baseline to 40.11 ± 18.51-units during Ramadan (p = 0.002) in the intervention group while it remained the same in the control group before Ramadan and during Ramadan (38.51 ± 18.63 and 38.14 ± 18.46, P = 0.428, respectively). The hypoglycemia score was 14.2 ± (8.5) pre-Ramadan in the intervention and reduced to 6.36 ± 6.17 during Ramadan (p
AIM: To evaluate the impact of a Ramadan-focused diabetes education programme on hypoglycaemic risk and other clinical and metabolic parameters.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria from inception. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and guidelines were followed when performing the search and identification of appropriate studies.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this systemic review; five of them met the criteria to compile for a meta-analysis. The included studies were with various study designs, including randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and non-randomised studies. Overall, the results revealed a significant reduction of hypoglycemia risk (81% reduction) for fasting patients in intervention groups who received Ramadan-focused education compared with patients receiving conventional care (OR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.08-0.46). Moreover, HbA1c significantly improved amongst patients who received a Ramadan-focused diabetes education intervention, compared with those receiving conventional care.
CONCLUSION: Ramadan-focused diabetes education had a significant impact on hypoglycemia and glycaemic control, with no significant effect on body weight, blood lipids or blood pressure.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of scalp cooling among breast cancer patients in our study population.
METHODS: Consecutive breast cancer patients receiving FE75C, FE100C, FE100C-D, docetaxel75 or docetaxel, and cyclophosphamide (TC) at our treatment center were recruited and allocated to the treatment (scalp cooling, DigniCapTM system) or control group in this prospective nonrandomized controlled study. The assessment of alopecia was carried out using the World Health Organization grading system and clinical photographs.
RESULTS: Seventy patients were recruited, but only 25 completed the study and were evaluable for analysis. Five of 12 patients (42%) in the scalp cooling group managed to preserve hair. Two of three patients who received FE75C and TC regimens had minimal hair loss. All patients treated with FE100C had severe hair loss. Half of all patients who received scalp cooling throughout chemotherapy rated the treatment as reasonably well tolerated. The most common reason for discontinuing scalp cooling was intolerance to its side effects.
CONCLUSION: Scalp cooling is potentially effective in reducing CIA caused by docetaxel, TC, and FE75C chemotherapy regimen. However, it was not well tolerated by our study population. The dropout rate was high, and this needs to be taken into consideration when pursuing further trials in a similar setting.
METHODS: The case records of 162 patients with uncomplicated painful bone metastases treated with palliative radiotherapy from 2006 to 2014 were analyzed. Treatment outcomes were pain score response, analgesic score response, response according to International Consensus Endpoints (complete response and overall response) at 4, 12, and 24 weeks, retreatment rate, symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), and prognostic factors.
RESULTS: At 24 weeks, pain score response for single and multiple fraction group was 82.3% and 88.5%, analgesic score response was 54.8% and 61.5%, and overall response according to International Consensus Endpoint was 61.3% and 67.7%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment response between the 2 treatment groups for all endpoints. ECOG (<2 vs ≥2: aOR 3.405, 95% CI 1.708-6.790, P = .001) and primary breast and prostate (breast vs others: aOR 5.231, 95% CI 1.973-13.869, P = .001; prostate vs others: aOR 5.522, 95% CI 1.493-20.420, P = .01) were significant variables on multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: Single fraction radiotherapy is as effective as multiple fraction radiotherapy for the palliation of uncomplicated bone metastases.
METHOD: All newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors measuring≤2cm at the University Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia) from 1993 to 2013 were included. Mortality of patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy were compared and adjusted for possible confounders using propensity score.
RESULTS: Of 6732 breast cancer patients, 341 (5.1%) had small (≤2cm), node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors at diagnosis. Among them, only 214 (62.8%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Five-year overall survival was 88.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.0%-94.2%) for patients receiving chemotherapy and 89.6% (95% CI: 85.1%-94.1%) for patients without chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was not associated with survival following adjustment for age, ethnicity, tumor size, tumor grade, HER2 status, lympho-vascular invasion, type of surgery and radiotherapy administration. However, chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival advantage (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.14-0.91) in a subgroup of women with high-grade tumors.
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit in women with T1N0M0, hormone receptor negative breast cancer except in those with high-grade tumors.