OBJECTIVES: To evaluate medication adherence and self-care behaviors among patients with T2DM.
METHODS: A total of 497 subjects with T2DM were recruited from three hospitals and a government clinic in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. Previously validated scales were used to measure medication adherence (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale) and diabetes self-care activities (Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities). Pearson correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationship between the risk factors and medication adherence. Pearson χ2 test of association was used to test significant association.
RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 55.5 years. The mean Morisky Medication Adherence Scale score was 5.65 ± 1.97, indicating a moderate adherence level to medication. Among the subjects who had low adherence level, 50.9% were Malays, followed by 34.2% Indians. The Pearson χ2 test of association indicated a significant association (P = 0.000) between ethnicity and medication adherence. The subjects had better self-care behaviors in their general diet (mean 5.04 ± 1.88) and poor self-care behaviors in blood sugar testing (mean 2.13 ± 2.34).
CONCLUSIONS: The Malaysians had a moderate medication adherence level, whereas they were nonadherent to blood glucose testing. Emphasis on self-care activities and medication adherence is relevant to improve outcomes in the management of T2DM.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mormodica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched, among these were The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE and LILACS (all up to February 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared momordica charantia with placebo or a control intervention, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias of the trials was evaluated using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias. A meta-analysis was not performed given the quality of data and the variability of preparations of momordica charantia used in the interventions (no similar preparation was tested twice).
MAIN RESULTS: Four randomised controlled trials with up to three months duration and investigating 479 participants met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias of these trials (only two studies were published as a full peer-reviewed publication) was generally high. Two RCTs compared the effects of preparations from different parts of the momordica charantia plant with placebo on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. There was no statistically significant difference in the glycaemic control with momordica charantia preparations compared to placebo. When momordica charantia was compared to metformin or glibenclamide, there was also no significant change in reliable parameters of glycaemic control. No serious adverse effects were reported in any trial. No trial investigated death from any cause, morbidity, health-related quality of life or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence on the effects of momordica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Further studies are therefore required to address the issues of standardization and the quality control of preparations. For medical nutritional therapy, further observational trials evaluating the effects of momordica charantia are needed before RCTs are established to guide any recommendations in clinical practice.
METHODS AND DESIGN: This is a single-center, randomized, controlled, two-arm parallel design clinical trial that will be carried out in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. In this study, 100 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes will be enrolled. Diabetic patients who meet the eligibility criteria will be randomly allocated to two groups, which are diabetic C. caudatus treated(U) group and diabetic control (C) group. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The serum and urine metabolome of both groups will be examined using proton NMR spectroscopy.
DISCUSSION: The study will be the first randomized controlled trial to assess whether C. caudatus can confer beneficial effect in patients with type 2 diabetes. The results of this trial will provide clinical evidence on the effectiveness and safety of C. caudatus in patients with type 2 diabetes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02322268.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of colesevelam for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched, among these The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey and Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (all up to January 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared colesevelam with or without other oral hypoglycaemic agents with a placebo or a control intervention with or without oral hypoglycaemic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias of trials using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias.
MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs ranging from 8 to 26 weeks investigating 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias of these trials was unclear or high. All RCTs compared the effects of colesevelam with or without other antidiabetic drug treatments with placebo only (one study) or combined with antidiabetic drug treatments. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in fasting blood glucose with a mean difference (MD) of -15 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI) -22 to - 8), P < 0.0001; 1075 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. There was also a reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in favour of colesevelam (MD -0.5% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.4), P < 0.00001; 1315 participants, 5 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. However, the single trial comparing colesevelam to placebo only (33 participants) did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two arms - in fact, in both arms HbA1c increased. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistical significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol with a MD of -13 mg/dL (95% CI -17 to - 9), P < 0.00001; 886 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. Non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes were infrequently observed. No other serious adverse effects were reported. There was no documentation of complications of the disease, morbidity, mortality, health-related quality of life and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Colesevelam added on to antidiabetic agents showed significant effects on glycaemic control. However, there is a limited number of studies with the different colesevelam/antidiabetic agent combinations. More information on the benefit-risk ratio of colesevelam treatment is necessary to assess the long-term effects, particularly in the management of cardiovascular risks as well as the reduction in micro- and macrovascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, long-term data on health-related quality of life and all-cause mortality also need to be investigated.