Patients and methods: Participants received either usual care or CCM by a team of health care professionals including pharmacists, nurses, dietitians, and general practitioners. The participants in the intervention group received medication counseling, adherence, and dietary advice from the health care team. The QoL was measured using the EQ-5D (EuroQoL-five dimension, health-related quality of life questionnaire) and comparison was made between usual care and intervention groups at the beginning and end of the study at 6 months.
Results: Mean (standard deviation) EQ-5D index scores improved significantly in the intervention group (0.92±0.10 vs 0.95±0.08; P≤0.01), but not in the usual care group (0.94±0.09 vs 0.95±0.09; P=0.084). Similarly, more participants in the intervention group reported improvements in their QoL compared with the usual care group, especially in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions.
Conclusion: The implementation of the CCM resulted in significant improvement in QoL. An interdisciplinary team CCM approach should be encouraged, to ultimately result in behavior changes and improve the QoL of the patients.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on 4 databases from inception until March 2021 to identify studies examining individuals aged 60 years and above reporting functional disabilities in the ASEAN region. Information on the prevalence and impact of functional disability was extracted, assessed for bias, summarised, and analysed using a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Thirty-four studies with 59,944 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of ADL disability was 21.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.2 to 27.3) and that of IADL disability was 46.8% (95% CI, 35.5 to 58.3). Subgroup analyses showed higher prevalence among those of advanced age and women. Adverse impacts included increased years of life with disability and poor health-related quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a quarter of the older adult population in the ASEAN region experience functional disability. These findings highlight the need for further research on the burden and impact of functional disability within this region to allow decision-makers to gauge the severity of the issue, develop policies to reduce the risk of developing functional disabilities, and foster healthy ageing.
METHODS: We reviewed a cohort of people with T2D seeking care from two tertiary hospitals in the metropolitan cities of the state of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan from January 2012 to May 2021. To identify the 3-year predictor of developing CKD (primary outcome) and CKD progression (secondary outcome), the dataset was randomly split into a training and test set. A Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) model was developed to identify predictors of developing CKD. The resultant CoxPH model was compared with other machine learning models on their performance using C-statistic.
RESULTS: The cohorts included 1992 participants, of which 295 had developed CKD and 442 reported worsening of kidney function. Equation for the 3-year risk of developing CKD included gender, haemoglobin A1c, triglyceride and serum creatinine levels, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of cardiovascular disease and diabetes duration. For risk of CKD progression, the model included systolic blood pressure, retinopathy and proteinuria. The CoxPH model was better at prediction compared with other machine learning models examined for incident CKD (C-statistic: training 0.826; test 0.874) and CKD progression (C-statistic: training 0.611; test 0.655). The risk calculator can be found at https://rs59.shinyapps.io/071221/.
CONCLUSIONS: The Cox regression model was the best performing model to predict people with T2D who will develop a 3-year risk of incident CKD and CKD progression in a Malaysian cohort.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.
METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic.
RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries.
CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across six electronic databases, including Ovid Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, CENTRAL, APA PsycINFO, and DARE, from inception until June 2023. Prior to inclusion, two independent reviewers assessed study titles and abstracts. Following inclusion, an assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies was conducted. AMSTAR 2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included SRs.
RESULTS: From 2055 retrieved titles, 11 systematic reviews were included, with 5 out of 11 being meta-analyses. These SRs encompassed diverse pharmacist-led interventions such as education, medication reviews, and multi-component strategies targeting various facets of pain management. These findings showed favorable clinical outcomes, including reduced pain intensity, improved medication management, enhanced overall physical and mental well-being, and reduced hospitalization durations. Significant pain intensity reductions were found due to pharmacists' interventions, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) ranging from -0.76 to -0.22 across different studies and subgroups. Physical functioning improvements were observed, with SMDs ranging from -0.38 to 1.03. Positive humanistic outcomes were also reported, such as increased healthcare provider confidence, patient satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL). QoL improvements were reported, with SMDs ranging from 0.29 to 1.03. Three systematic reviews examined pharmacist interventions' impact on pain-related economic outcomes, highlighting varying cost implications and the need for robust research methodologies to capture costs and benefits.
CONCLUSION: This umbrella review highlights the effectiveness of pharmacist-delivered interventions in improving clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes related to pain management. Existing evidence emphasises on the need to integrate pharamacists into multi-disciplinary pain management teams. Further research is needed to investigate innovative care models, such as pharmacist-independent prescribing initiatives within collaborative pain management clinics.
METHODS: We conducted five semi-structured focus groups with 18 pharmacy students from years one to four of the bachelor of pharmacy program at Monash University Malaysia where students came from different pre-university backgrounds. Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Interrater reliability was performed to ascertain reliability of themes.
RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. Firstly, students cited issues moving past the initial barrier when starting flipped classrooms in terms of education background impacting adaptability and how/why they eventually adapted. Another theme was how flipped classrooms helped development of life skills such as adaptability, communication, teamwork, self-reflection, and time management. The final theme was on requiring a sufficient safety net and support system in flipped classrooms that included well designed pre-classroom materials and well-implemented feedback mechanisms.
CONCLUSIONS: We have identified students' perspectives on the benefits and challenges associated with a predominantly flipped classroom pharmacy curriculum in a low to middle income country setting. We suggest using scaffolding and effective feedback approaches to guide the implementation of flipped classrooms successfully. This work can aid future educational designers in preparation and supporting a more equitable learning experience regardless of student background.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in four databases from inception until April 30, 2021 as well as search of citation of included articles. Studies that reported patients' and/or their caregivers' attitude towards deprescribing quantitatively were included. All studies were independently screened, reviewed, and data extracted in duplicates. Patients and caregivers willingness to deprescribe their regular medication was pooled using random effects meta-analysis of proportions.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine unique studies involving 11,049 participants were included. All studies focused on the attitude of the patients towards deprescribing, and 7 studies included caregivers' perspective. Overall, 87.6% (95% CI: 83.3 to 91.4%) patients were willing to deprescribe their medication, based upon the doctors' suggestions. This was lower among caregivers, with only 74.8% (49.8% to 93.8%) willing to deprescribe their care recipients' medications. Patients' or caregivers' willingness to deprescribe were not influenced by study location, study population, or the number of medications they took.
DISCUSSION: Most patients and their caregivers were willing to deprescribe their medications, whenever possible and thus should be offered a trial of deprescribing. Nevertheless, as these tools have a poor predictive ability, patients and their caregivers should be engaged during the deprescribing process to ensure that the values and opinions are heard, which would ultimately improve patient safety. In terms of limitation, as not all studies may published the methods and results of measurement they used, this may impact the methodological quality and thus our findings. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION: https:// osf.io/fhg94.
AIM: This study aims to determine the impact of pharmacy graduate's work readiness, particularly those that had their studies disrupted from the pandemic.
METHODS: Practicing pharmacists with supervisory experience were interviewed on their opinions on work readiness of early career and intern pharmacists. Specifically, they were asked to comment on work readiness of pharmacy graduates who had their later stage of pharmacy education impacted by the pandemic. Data was transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. This was also supplemented with quantitative data from graduating students in 2020 and 2021 using the Work Readiness Scale.
RESULTS: Qualitative feedback showed four themes related to workforce readiness: work competence, social intelligence, personal characteristics, and organizational acumen. Preceptors interviewed noted differences in communication abilities when interacting with patients. However, this improved with time. Quantitative data collected from graduates via the validated Work-Readiness Scale also showed a more positive agreement towards perceived work readiness. These graduates were comfortable with using technology as they had used these extensively in their learning during the pandemic and thus was comfortable in adopting digital health tools in their practice.
CONCLUSION: Although graduates reported to be work ready, there were gaps in communication skills and confidence levels when interacting with patients, as reported by supervising preceptors. Graduates also described this sense of 'missing out' from not having the opportunity to attend face-to-face activities like their originally planned hospital placements and how it impacted their choice of career. As pharmacists continue to play vital roles as members of the broader healthcare workforce, both in clinical and nonclinical settings, learnings from this study should be considered in designing educational activities to train and develop the workforce of the future.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of community pharmacist-led educational intervention and medication review among osteoarthritis patients.
METHODS: A 6-month cluster-randomized controlled study was conducted in 22 community pharmacies of Nepal. Patients clinically diagnosed with osteoarthritis, aged 18 years and above, with a poor knowledge level of osteoarthritis and pain management were enrolled in the study. The intervention groups were educated on osteoarthritis and pain management, and had their medications reviewed while control group received usual care. Primary outcomes evaluated for the study were the change in pain levels, knowledge, and physical functional scores at 3 and 6 months. Repeated analyses of covariance were performed to examine the outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 158 participants were recruited for the study. The intervention group reported improvements in pain score (mean difference 0.473, 95 % CI 0.047 to 0.900) at 3 months and the end of the study (mean difference 0.469, 95 % CI 0.047 to 0.891) as compared to control. Similarly, improvement in knowledge scores were observed in the intervention group at 3 months (mean difference 5.320, 95 % CI 4.982 to 5.658) and 6 months (mean difference 5.411, 95 % CI 5.086 to 5.735). No differences were observed in other outcomes, including physical functional score, depression, and quality of life.
CONCLUSION: Community pharmacist-led intervention improved patients' knowledge of osteoarthritis and pain management. While pain scores improved, physical functional score, depression, and quality of life score remained unchanged.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05337709.
METHODS: Using a societal perspective, the economic burden was calculated at the country level and presented by World Health Organization (WHO) regions and World-Bank income levels. The disease burden was obtained from previously published global disease burden studies in 2016 and disaggregated for 194 countries. Estimates of healthcare resource utilisation were sourced from a literature review, and online interviews were conducted with 20 experts from all 6 WHO regions. Relevant costs were obtained from the literature and estimated in 2016 international dollars (I$).
RESULTS: Both genital HSV-2 (I$31·2 billion) and HSV-1 (I$4·0 billion) infections and their consequences were estimated to cost I$35·3 billion globally in 2016. The major economic burden was from the Americas and Western Pacific regions combined, accounting for almost two-thirds of the global burden (I$20·8 billion). High- and upper-middle-income countries bore a large proportion of the economic burden (76·6% or I$27·0 billion). Costs were driven by the large number of HSV-2 recurrences; however, even assuming conservatively that people with symptomatic herpes have on average only one episode a year, global costs were estimated at I$16·5 billion.
CONCLUSIONS: The global costs of genital HSV infection and its consequences are substantial. HSV prevention interventions have the potential to avert a large economic burden in addition to disease burden; thus, efforts to accelerate HSV vaccine development are crucial.
METHODS: PubMed, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Advanced Search, and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) Database were systematically searched from inception to August 2023. The primary outcomes were knowledge level, knowledge scores, participation in shared decision-making (SDM), decisional conflict, and preference for SDM participation. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of subjects who underwent screening (actual screening utilisation) and the proportion of subjects who intended to be screened (intention to undergo screening). Network and pairwise meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Seven systematic reviews were included. Network meta-analysis found that multimedia (relative risk [RR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.24), print (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23-2.69), and website-based (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.32-3.01) DAs significantly increased participation in SDM compared to the computer-based DA. There was a significant reduction in the actual screening utilisation in the computer DA arm compared to the other delivery modes. No significant differences between all delivery modes were noted on knowledge levels, knowledge scores, decisional conflict, preference for SDM participation, and intention to undergo screening. The highest mean surface under the cumulative ranking curve for all primary outcomes showed that website-based was the most effective delivery mode, followed by print-based DA. The pairwise meta-analysis showed a significant increase in participants' knowledge level, knowledge scores, a reduced intention to undergo screening and actual screening utilisation compared to UC.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that different types of DAs have varying levels of effectiveness in increasing knowledge level, knowledge scores, participation in SDM, and influencing screening behaviours. While website-based DA appeared the most effective, employing the print-based DA could be a practical solution in settings with limited resources.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of integrating clinical pharmacists into the multidisciplinary team (MDT) to manage cancer pain and assess preliminary outcomes in cancer patients receiving pain treatment. This pilot study was undertaken to inform a future definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT).
METHODS: The protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05021393). The PharmaCAP trial was conducted in two oncology centers in Nepal, where patients were randomly enrolled into usual care (UC) or an intervention group (PharmaCAP). The latter received a clinical pharmacist-led medication review, which involved a comprehensive assessment of the patient's current medications, identification of potential drug-related problems, and personalized recommendations for optimizing pain management. This was accompanied by pain assessment, education and counseling on pain management strategies. Baseline and 4-weeks post-intervention assessments measured primary outcomes, i.e., feasibility metrics (recruitment of the patients, retention of patients, patient satisfaction). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, health-related QoL, anxiety, depression, barriers to pain management, and medication adherence at 4 weeks.
RESULTS: Out of 140 screened patients, 108 were evaluated for eligibility, with 16 opting out primarily due to lack of interest (n = 11) and communication barriers (n = 5). A total of ninety-two participants with cancer pain were randomized into two groups, with 91 patients successfully recruited and 85 (93.4%) completing 4 weeks post-intervention assessment). Completion rates for the UC and PharmaCAP groups were 91.3% and 93.4%, respectively. The primary feasibility outcomes were positive: 100% of patients found random allocation acceptable. Retention rates were high, with 91.3% in the UC group and 93.4% in the PharmaCAP group, despite a few dropouts due to being unreachable, COVID-related issues, and changes in treatment centers. No evidence of contamination between groups was found, as participants did not discuss interventions or influence each other's attitudes, ensuring effective isolation of interventions The PharmaCAP intervention showed significant improvement in QoL (P
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the impact of the PRIME programme on participants' clinical outcomes and explore participants' and pharmacists' views towards its implementation. This protocol describes the development of the PRIME programme and mobile app, its feasibility and implementation in community pharmacy settings. 16 pharmacies from two states in Malaysia will be randomised to the intervention arm or standard care. The study will include overweight or obese adults with pre-diabetes. During each follow-up visit at the pharmacy, intervention participants will receive in-depth counselling from pharmacists after reviewing their self-monitoring data recorded in the PRIME app. They will also receive pre-diabetes education through the app and join a peer support chatgroup. The primary clinical outcome includes changes in body weight at 6 months, while the secondary clinical outcomes include changes in blood glucose profile, lipid profile, blood pressure and adiposity measures. The sustainability of the PRIME programme will be accessed using a follow-up questionnaire, while participants' engagement with the intervention will be evaluated using attendance rate and the app data. Focus group discussions and one-to-one interviews will be conducted for process evaluation. This study will inform the impact of community pharmacists-led digital health intervention in pre-diabetes management.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04832984) and approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 27512).
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04832984).