MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open label, single-arm, observational, post marketing study, patients received biphasic isophane insulin injection as per the Prescribing Information; and were assessed for safety (adverse events including hypoglycaemia), effectiveness (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c]; fasting blood sugar, [FBS]; and patient's condition by patient and physician) over a period of 24 weeks.
RESULTS: Adult male and female diabetes patients (N=119; type 2 DM, n=117) with a mean (SD) diabetes duration of 13 years were included. No new safety signals have been identified. Significant reduction in HbA1c was observed at weeks 12 and 24 (mean [SD] - baseline: 9.6% [1.9]; Week 12: 9.0% [1.7] and at Week 24: 9.1% [1.7]; p < 0.001). There were 10 serious and 9 non-serious adverse events reported in the study. Expected mild events included hypoglycaemia and injection site pruritus. However, the majority of the adverse events were non-study drug related events. No deaths were reported during the study.
DISCUSSION: Biphasic isophane insulin injection was well tolerated with no new safety concerns. It was found effective in post- marketing studies conducted in routine clinical settings when administered in DM patients in this study.
Subjects and methods: Sixty T2DM patients were recruited in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, and multicenter trial. The patients, currently using Met, were randomly grouped into those treated with either GKB extract (120 mg/day) or placebo (starch, 120 mg/day) for 90 days. Blood glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting serum glucose, serum insulin, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), insulin resistance, and visceral adiposity index (VAI) were determined before (baseline) and after 90 days of GKB extract treatment.
Results: GKB extract significantly decreased blood HbA1c (7.7%±1.2% vs baseline 8.6%±1.6%, P<0.001), fasting serum glucose (154.7±36.1 mg/dL vs baseline 194.4±66.1 mg/dL, P<0.001) and insulin (13.4±7.8 μU/mL vs baseline 18.5±8.9 μU/mL, P=0.006) levels, BMI (31.6±5.1 kg/m2 vs baseline 34.0±6.0 kg/m2, P<0.001), waist WC (102.6±10.5 cm vs baseline 106.0±10.9 cm, P<0.001), and VAI (158.9±67.2 vs baseline 192.0±86.2, P=0.007). GKB extract did not negatively impact the liver, kidney, or hematopoietic functions.
Conclusion: GKB extract as an adjuvant was effective in improving Met treatment outcomes in T2DM patients. Thus, it is suggested that GKB extract is an effective dietary supplement for the control of DM in humans.
METHODS: A 6-month parallel multicenter two-arm, single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 14 pharmacists at seven primary care clinics was conducted in Johor, Malaysia. Pharmacists without prior specialized diabetes training were trained to use the tool. Patients were randomized within each center to either Simpler care (SC), receiving care from pharmacists who used the tool (n =55), or usual care (UC), receiving usual care and dispensing services (n = 69).
RESULTS: Compared with UC, SC significantly reduced HbA1c (mean reduction 1.59% [95% confidence interval {CI} -2.2, -0.9] vs 0.25% [95% CI -0.62, 0.11], respectively; P ≤ 0.001), and significantly improved systolic BP (-6.28 mmHg [95% CI -10.5, 2.0] vs 0.26 mmHg [95% CI -3.74, 0.43], respectively; P = 0.005). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the SC than UC arm reached the Malaysian guideline treatment goals for HbA1c (14.3% vs 1.5%; P = 0.020), systolic BP (80% vs 42%; P = 0.001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (60.5% vs 40.4%; P = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS: Using the Simpler tool facilitated the delivery of comprehensive evidence-based diabetes management and significantly improved clinical outcomes. The Simpler tool supported pharmacists in providing enhanced structured diabetes care.
METHODS: This was a cross sectional study involving 197 T2DM patients on insulin from two government primary health clinics in Gombak. Physician-patient interaction satisfaction was assessed using Skala Kepuasan Interaksi Perubatan (SKIP-11) consisting of 3 subdomains (Distress Relief, Rapport and Interaction Outcome). Medication adherence level was measured using a single item selfreport question. Data analysis for descriptive, inferential and multivariate analysis statistics were performed.
RESULTS: The mean age of the study participants was 57.12 (SD: 9.27). Majority were Malay, female, unemployed with mean BMI of 27.5. Majority reported full adherence (62.9%). High scores in the Interaction Outcome subdomain was associated with better adherence. Factors associated with high scores in this subdomain included patient education level, number of oral hypoglycaemic agent and type of insulin regime taken. This study also found that high scores in the Interaction Outcome domain is associated with lower HbA1c (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Physician-patient interaction satisfaction is an important factor in achieving better medication adherence which also leads to better glycaemic control in this group of patients. There is a need to identify strategies to improve satisfaction in this domain to improve patient adherence.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted individual in-depth interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were making decisions about insulin treatment. Participants were selected purposively to achieve maximum variation. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews which were audio-recorded and analysed using a thematic approach. We interviewed 21 participants between January 2011 and March 2012. The age range of participants was 28-67 years old. Our sample comprised 9 women and 12 men. Three main themes, 'treatment-specific values', 'life goals and philosophies', and 'personal and social background', emerged from the analysis. The patients reported a variety of insulin-specific values, which were negative and/or positive beliefs about insulin. They framed insulin according to their priorities and philosophies in life. Patients' decisions were influenced by sociocultural (e.g. religious background) and personal backgrounds (e.g. family situations).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the need for expanding the current concept of patient values in medical decision making. Clinicians should address more than just values related to treatment options. Patient values should include patients' priorities, life philosophy and their background. Current decision support tools, such as patient decision aids, should consider these new dimensions when clarifying patient values.