METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, parallel-design, two-treatment-group randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of MEDIHEALTH in improving medication adherence. Malay patients who have underlying T2DM, who obtain medication therapy at Petra Jaya Health Clinic and Kota Samarahan Health Clinic, and who have a moderate to low adherence level (8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, Malaysian specific, score <6) were randomly assigned to the treatment group (MEDIHEALTH) or the control group. The primary outcome of this study is medication adherence level at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. The secondary outcomes are attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, intention and knowledge related to medication adherence measured at baseline and 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. The effectiveness and sustainability of the Program will be triangulated by findings from semi-structured interviews with five selected participants conducted 1 month after the intervention and in-depth interviews with two main facilitators and two managerial officers in charge of the Program 12 months after the intervention. Statistical analyses of quantitative data were conducted using SPSS version 22 and Stata version 14. Thematic analysis for qualitative data were conducted with the assistance of ATLAS.ti 8.
DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence on the effectiveness and sustainability of a structured group-based educational program that employs multiple theoretical grounding and a culturally sensitive approach in promoting medication adherence among Malays with underlying T2DM. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings of this study could assist in the future development of the Program.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Medical Research Register, NMRR-17-925-35875 (IIR). Registered on 19 May 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03228706 . Registered on 25 July 2017.
Method: We used pharmacy dispensing data of 1461 eligible T2DM patients from public primary care clinics in Malaysia treated with oral antidiabetic drugs between January 2018 and May 2019. Adherence rates were calculated during the period preceding the HbA1c measurement. Adherence cut-off values for the following conditions were compared: adherence measure (MPR versus PDC), assessment period (90-day versus 180-day), and HbA1c target (⩽7.0% versus ⩽8.0%).
Results: The optimal adherence cut-offs for MPR and PDC in predicting HbA1c ⩽7.0% ranged between 86.1% and 98.3% across the two assessment periods. In predicting HbA1c ⩽8.0%, the optimal adherence cut-offs ranged from 86.1% to 92.8%. The cut-off value was notably higher with PDC as the adherence measure, shorter assessment period, and a stricter HbA1c target (⩽7.0%) as outcome.
Conclusion: We found that optimal adherence cut-off appeared to be slightly higher than the conventional value of 80%. The adherence thresholds may vary depending on the length of assessment period and outcome definition but a reasonably wise cut-off to distinguish good versus poor medication adherence to be clinically meaningful should be at 90%.
METHODS: This was a multi-centre, open-label randomised crossover study. Twenty-four overweight/obese T1DM patients aged ⩾18 years old with HbA1c ⩾ 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) were recruited and randomised into two study arms. For first 6-week, one arm remained on standard of care (SOC), the other arm received metformin, adjunctive to SOC. After 2-week washout, patients crossed over and continued for another 6 weeks. Glycaemic variability, other glycaemic parameters and metabolic profile were monitored.
RESULTS: There were significant reduction in metformin group for GV: mean (0.18 ± 1.73 vs -0.95 ± 1.24, p = 0.014), %CV (-15.84 (18.92) vs -19.08 (24.53), p = 0.044), glycemic risk assessment of diabetes equation (-0.69 (3.83) vs -1.61 (3.61), p = 0.047), continuous overlapping net glycaemic action (0.25 ± 1.62 vs -0.85 ± 1.22, p = 0.013), J-index (-0.75 (21.91) vs -7.11 (13.86), p = 0.034), time in range (1.13 ± 14.12% vs 10.83 ± 15.47%, p = 0.032); changes of systolic blood pressure (2.78 ± 11.19 mmHg vs -4.30 ± 9.81 mmHg, p = 0.027) and total daily dose (TDD) insulin (0.0 (3.33) units vs -2.17 (11.45) units, p = 0.012). Hypoglycaemic episodes were not significant in between groups.
CONCLUSION: Metformin showed favourable effect on GV in overweight/obese T1DM patients and reduction in systolic blood pressure, TDD insulin, fasting venous glucose and fructosamine.
METHODS: Cross-sectional baseline evaluation of EVOLVE: an international, multicenter, non-interventional study investigating the safety of injectable glucose-lowering drugs in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Data were collected at enrollment visit interviews before gestational week 16.
RESULTS: In total, 2383 women from 17 mainly European countries were enrolled in the study: 2122 with T1D and 261 with T2D; mean age was 31 and 33 years, and duration of diabetes was 15 and 6 years, respectively. For women with T1D or T2D, 63% and 75%, respectively, received basal and rapid-acting insulin, 36% and 3% rapid-acting insulin only, 0.7% and 14.0% basal insulin only, 0.2% and 5.4% premix insulin, 0.0% and 1.2% injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment without insulin. In women with T1D or T2D, respectively, during early pregnancy, 59% and 62% had HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol); 16% and 36% reported not taking folic acid before or during early pregnancy. Overall, >40% of women had ≥1 chronic concomitant condition (predominantly thyroid disease or hypertension). Retinopathy was the most commonly reported diabetic complication. The most commonly reported previous pregnancy complication was miscarriage.
CONCLUSIONS: Baseline data from this large multinational population of women with pre-existing diabetes indicate that sub-optimal glycemic control, poor pregnancy planning, and chronic concomitant conditions were common in early pregnancy.
METHODS: Patients who were 10 to less than 17 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo for a 26-week double-blind period, followed by a 26-week open-label extension period. Inclusion criteria were a body-mass index greater than the 85th percentile and a glycated hemoglobin level between 7.0 and 11.0% if the patients were being treated with diet and exercise alone or between 6.5 and 11.0% if they were being treated with metformin (with or without insulin). All the patients received metformin during the trial. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level after 26 weeks. Secondary end points included the change in fasting plasma glucose level. Safety was assessed throughout the course of the trial.
RESULTS: Of 135 patients who underwent randomization, 134 received at least one dose of liraglutide (66 patients) or placebo (68 patients). Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age, 14.6 years). At the 26-week analysis of the primary efficacy end point, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had decreased by 0.64 percentage points with liraglutide and increased by 0.42 percentage points with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -1.06 percentage points (P<0.001); the difference increased to -1.30 percentage points by 52 weeks. The fasting plasma glucose level had decreased at both time points in the liraglutide group but had increased in the placebo group. The number of patients who reported adverse events was similar in the two groups (56 [84.8%] with liraglutide and 55 [80.9%] with placebo), but the overall rates of adverse events and gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with liraglutide.
CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide, at a dose of up to 1.8 mg per day (added to metformin, with or without basal insulin), was efficacious in improving glycemic control over 52 weeks. This efficacy came at the cost of an increased frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; Ellipse ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01541215.).