Patients and methods: This was a prospective study conducted in Hospital Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, between March 2015 and June 2015. Educational intervention was provided to 96 patients (11 males, 85 females; mean age 52.4±12.9 years; range, 20 to 83 years) who fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Questionnaires to assess knowledge of CVD risk were given to patients to be answered before reading the informative leaflet, after one hour of intervention, and during their next follow-up three months from the intervention. Both the informative leaflet and questionnaires were prepared in English and then translated into Malay and Chinese languages to suit the need of local patients.
Results: Our results showed that RA patients had good knowledge at baseline regarding risk of smoking, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia on increasing CVD risk and that exercise would not damage their joints. However, they had low knowledge at baseline regarding the amount of exercise needed for lower CVD risks and risk of CVD with use of anti-inflammatory drugs in RA. Total knowledge score increased significantly from baseline immediately after educational intervention. However, total knowledge score decreased after three months compared to immediate post- intervention phase while it was still significantly higher compared to baseline. The improvement was most obvious for knowledge regarding anti- inflammatory drugs and CVD risk and knowledge regarding the number of flares and CVD risk. Our study did not find any significant association between demographic characteristics and traditional cardiovascular risk factors with knowledge of CVD risk.
Conclusion: Rheumatoid arthritis patients have low knowledge regarding their CVD risk related to their disease. The intervention of providing an informative leaflet effectively improved the knowledge of this group of patients on CVD risk particularly in the field related to RA-specific risk.
METHODOLOGY: A single-center cohort study was performed at Indus Hospital and Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan, between April 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. This study included 333 hospitalized hypertensive COVID-19 patients and evaluated their clinical characteristics and survival outcomes. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied in IBM SPSS 27.0 to determine the predictors of mortality.
RESULTS: The majority of patients were females (54.7%), the median age was 62 [55-70] years, with co-existing diabetes (56.5%) and severely ill (52.6%). The independent predictors of mortality identified were age ≥ 65 years (aOR 20.89, 95% CI, 5.81-75.15; p < 0.001), pulse rate (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.63; p = 0.006), serum creatinine (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11-1.63; p = 0.002), use of antibiotics (aOR 3.40, 95% CI 1.29-8.98; p = 0.014)), corticosteroid (aOR 49.68, 95% CI 1.83-1350.31; p = 0.020), and who needed high flow oxygen supply (aOR 13.08, 95% CI 1.70-100.54; p < 0.001), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR 229.01, 95% CI 29.30-1789.71; p < 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR 379.54, 95% CI 36.60-3935.87; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that older age, elevated pulse rate, serum creatinine, use of antibiotics and corticosteroids, and the need for mechanical ventilation predict mortality among hypertensive COVID-19.
Objective: To critically examine the literature regarding the involvement of CCB in manifestation of LUTS in humans.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, and OpenGrey databases to find all potentially relevant research studies before August 2016.
Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Three out of five studies stated that CCB were involved in either precipitation or exacerbation of LUTS. As for the remaining two studies, one study found out that only the monotherapy of CCB was associated with increased prevalence of nocturia and voiding symptoms in young females, whereas the other study reported an inverse association of CCB with LUTS. The methodological quality of studies was considered high for four studies and low for one study.
Conclusion: Healthcare providers should make efforts for an earlier identification of the individuals at risk of LUTS prior to the commencement of CCB therapy. Moreover, patients should be counselled to notify their healthcare provider if they notice urinary symptoms after the initiation of CCB.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental economic evaluation comparing CPE impact on 6-month CKD mortality was conducted on the basis of payer perspective. The experimental group (n = 63) received care by health care providers who were given CPE on drug-related problems and dose adjustment. The control group (n = 80) was based on the historical cohort of patients who received care before the CPE. Measure of clinical outcome applied in this study was number of lives saved/100 patients treated. Cost-effectiveness ratios for CKD stages 4 and 5 patients without CPE and with CPE and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for CKD stages 4 and 5 patients were analyzed.
RESULTS: Lives saved (%) in the treatment of CKD without CPE: CKD stage 4, 78.57; CKD stage 5, 57.58. Lives saved (%) in the treatment of CKD with CPE: CKD stage 4, 88.89; CKD stage 5, 65.45. Cost-effectiveness ratios for stage 4 with and without CPEs were Rp3,348,733.27 and Rp3,519,931.009, respectively. Cost-effectiveness ratios for stage 5 with and without CPEs were Rp7,137,874.93 and Rp7,871,822.27, respectively. ICERs were Rp2,045,341.22 for CKD stage 4 and Rp1,767,585.60 for CKD stage 5.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of CKD stages 4 and 5 with CPE was more effective and cost-effective compared with treatment of CKD stages 4 and 5 without CPE. The ICERs indicated that extra costs were required to increase life saved in both stages.
METHODS: This randomized interventional clinical trial involved patients with diabetes who smoked tobacco and attended the outpatient diabetes clinic at Penang Hospital, Malaysia. Participants were randomized into a control group that usual care for patients with diabetes, or an intervention group that received a 5-minute physician-delivered brief counseling session on tobacco cessation using the 5A's strategy, in addition to usual care. Primary outcome measures were assessed over three visits (every 3-4 months) including mean glycated hemoglobin level, quitting rate, blood pressure, and mean number of cigarettes smoked per day.
RESULTS: In total, 126 participants were finally enrolled in the study, with 63 patients each in the intervention and control groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to glycemic control, blood pressure, and quitting rate. However, patients in both groups reduced their cigarette consumption.
CONCLUSIONS: The present brief smoking cessation intervention did not result in better glycemic control, blood pressure, or quitting rates among patients with diabetes. This patient group may require more intensive guidance for better outcomes.Trial registration: This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04864327); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?pg=1&load=cart&id=NCT04864327.