METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, observational study involving 339 patients from Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression Severity scale (CGI-S), and safety parameters were assessed.
RESULTS: 62% of patients responded to olanzapine treatment, defined a priori as a reduction in BPRS of > 40% from baseline. Following the 8-week treatment period, the BPRS total, BPRS positive, BPRS negative, and CGI-S scores decreased by 18.7 (95% CI: 17.4, 20.2), 6.1 (5.6, 6.6), 2.9 (2.6, 3.2), and 1.5 points (median 1.0), respectively (p < 0.0001). In total, 31 of the 339 patients (9.1%) failed to complete the study according to the study description. Loss to follow-up and personal conflict were the most common reasons for discontinuation. There were 30 treatment-emergent adverse events with six serious cases, assessed as unrelated to study drug, reported.
CONCLUSION: This study further demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine in actual clinical practice settings, in reducing the severity of psychopathological symptoms in Asian patients with schizophrenia.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted via retrospective review of outpatients' medical records. Details regarding ADRs were identified by a pharmacist and verified by a consultant respiratory physician.
Results: A total of 91 cases, out of 210 patients enrolled in this study, were detected with 75 patients (35.7%) experienced at least one ADR. The three most common ADRs detected were cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) (21.0%), drug-induced hepatitis (DIH) (7.1%) and gastrointestinal disturbance (4.8%). Pyrazinamide was the most common causative agent and 15.7% of all TB patients required treatment modification due to ADRs. Females were shown to have a higher tendency to develop ADRs than the males in this study (P = 0.009). The development of ADRs was shown not to affect the TB treatment outcomes (P = 0.955).
Conclusion: The incidence of ADRs in this study was high so it is important to identify the risk factors for ADRs and the individuals who have those risk factors when initiating anti-TB drugs. These individuals require special attention when anti-TB drugs are initiated.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 282 stroke patients who provided informed consent and were in follow-up at the Neurology Outpatient Department of Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The study employed a data-collection form that gathered information on sociodemographics, clinical treatment, outcome measures on MUSE, and medication-nonadherence reasons.
Results: The prevalence of poor medication understanding and use self-efficacy among stroke patients was 46.5%, of which 29.1% had poor "learning about medication" self-efficacy, while 36.2% lacked self-efficacy in taking medication. Beliefs about medicine (74.02%) was the commonest reason for medication nonadherence, followed by medication-management issues (44.8%). In the multivariate model, independent variables significantly associated with MUSE were health literacy (AOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.069-0.581; P=0.003), medication-management issues (AOR 0.073, 95% CI 0.020-0.266; P<0.001), multiple-medication issues (AOR 0.28, 95% CI 0.085-0.925; P=0.037), beliefs about medicine (AOR 0.131, 95% CI 0.032-0.542; P=0.005), and forgetfulness/convenience issues (AOR 0.173, 95% CI 0.050-0.600; P=0.006).
Conclusion: The relatively poor learning about medication and medication-taking self-efficacy in this study was highly associated with health literacy and modifiable behavioral issues related to nonadherence, such as medication management, beliefs about medicine, and forgetfulness/convenience. Further research ought to explore these underlying reasons using vigorous techniques to enhance medication understanding and use self-efficacy among stroke survivors to determine cause-effect relationships.