Dataset Information

Efficacy of Pharmacist Based Diabetes Educational Interventions on Clinical Outcomes of Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Comparative efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on glycemic control of type 2 diabetes patients is unclear. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on clinical outcomes of type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across five databases from date of database inception to September 2017. All randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of pharmacist based interventions on type 2 diabetes patients were included for network meta-analysis (NMA). The protocol is available with PROSPERO (CRD42017078854). Results: A total of 43 studies, involving 6259 type 2 diabetes patients, were included. NMA demonstrated that all interventions significantly lowered glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels compared to usual care, but there was no statistical evidence from this study that one intervention was significantly better than the other for reducing HbA1c levels. Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care showed maximum efficacy for reducing HbA1c levels [-0.86, 95% CI -0.983, -0.727; p < 0.001]. Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care was observed to be statistically significant in lowering levels of systolic blood pressure [-4.94; 95%CI -8.65, -1.23] and triglycerides levels [-0.26, 95%CI -0.51, -0.01], as compared to the interventions which involved diabetes education by pharmacist, and for body mass index (BMI) [-0.57; 95%CI -1.25, -0.12] in comparison to diabetes education by health care team involving pharmacist as member. Conclusion: The findings of this review demonstrate that all interventions had a significantly positive effect on HbA1c, but there was no statistical evidence from this study that one intervention was significantly better than the other for achieving glycemic control.Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care showed maximum efficacy on HbA1c and rest of the clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Bukhsh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5902757 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Pharmacist Based Diabetes Educational Interventions on Clinical Outcomes of Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Bukhsh Allah A Khan Tahir M TM Lee Shaun W H SWH Lee Learn-Han LH Chan Kok-Gan KG Goh Bey-Hing BH

Frontiers in pharmacology 20180410

<b>Background:</b> Comparative efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on glycemic control of type 2 diabetes patients is unclear. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on clinical outcomes of type 2 diabetes patients. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic search was conducted across five databases from date of database inception to September 2017. All randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of pharmacist based intervent ...[more]

PMID: 29692730

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Treatment of diabetes requires a strict treatment scheme which demands patient self-management. Pharmacists are in a good position to provide self-management support. This review examines whether pharmacist-led interventions to support self-management in diabetes patients improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An extended literature search was conducted with the keywords "pharmacist," "diabetes," and "self-management" using the electronic databases Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from the beginning of the database through September 2017. In addition reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies were searched. Eligibility criteria included; self-management intervention tested with an RCT, performed in an ambulatory care setting, led by a pharmacist and reporting at least one clinical- or patient-reported outcome. Primary outcomes were HbA1c (-as this is a clinical parameter for long-term diabetes follow-up), self-management and components of intervention. Secondary outcomes were blood glucose, blood pressure, BMI, lipids, adherence to medication, quality of life, and diabetes knowledge. For the meta-analysis HbA1c values were pooled with a random-effects model in Revman 5.3. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Twenty-four studies representing 3,610 patients were included. Pharmacist-led self-management interventions included education on diabetes complications, medication, lifestyle, and teaching of self-management skills. Some studies focused on patient needs through a tailored intervention. No key components for a successful self-management intervention could be identified. Pharmacist-led self-management interventions improve HbA1c levels with a mean of 0.71% (CI -0.91, -0.51; overall effect P < 0.0001) and had a positive effect on blood pressure (SBP -5.20 mm Hg [-7.58; -2.92], DBP -3.51 mmHg [-6.00; -1.01]), BMI (-0.49 kg/m2 [-0.79; -0.19]), lipids (total cholesterol -0.19 mmol/l [-0.33; -0.05], LDL-C mmol/l -0.16 [-0.26; -0.06], HDL-C 0.32 mmol/l [0.02; 0.61]), self-management skill development, and adherence to medication. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led self-management interventions significantly improve HbA1c values in diabetes patients. These results underline the added value of pharmacists in patient-related care. Pharmacists should offer self-management support to diabetes patients in order to improve diabetes outcomes.

Project description:Background/objectiveAs pharmacists work to ensure reimbursement for chronic disease management services on the national level, evidence of their impact on important health metrics, such as medication adherence, is needed. However, summative evidence is lacking on the effectiveness of pharmacists to improve medication adherence in older adults. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions on medication adherence in older adults (65+ years).Design/setting/participantsUsing a systematic review and meta-analytic approach, a comprehensive search of publications in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar was conducted through April 2, 2020 for randomized clinical trials of pharmacist-led interventions to improve medication adherence in older adults. A standardized mean difference effect size (Cohen's d) was calculated for medication adherence in each study. Study effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model, with effect sizes weighted by inverse of its total variance.MeasurementsMedication adherence using any method of measurement.ResultsAmong 40 unique randomized trials of pharmacist-led interventions with data from 8822 unique patients (mean age, range: 65-85 years), the mean effect size was 0.57 (k = 40; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.38-0.76). When two outlier studies were excluded from the analysis, the mean effect size reduced to 0.41 (k = 38; 95% CI: 0.27-0.54). A sensitivity analysis of medication adherence outcome by time point resulted in a mean effect size of 0.64 at 3 months (k = 12; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97), 0.30 at 6 months (k = 13; 95% CI: 0.11-0.48), 0.22 at 12 months (k = 12; 95% CI: 0.08-0.37), and 0.36 for outcome time points beyond 12 months (k = 5; 95% CI: 0.02-0.70).ConclusionThis meta-analysis found a significant improvement in medication adherence among older adults receiving pharmacist-led interventions. Implementation of pharmacist-led interventions supported by Medicare reimbursement could ensure older adults' access to effective medication adherence support.

Project description:IntroductionMedication errors are avoidable events that can occur at any stage of the medication use process. They are widespread in healthcare systems and are linked to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Several strategies have been studied to reduce their occurrence including different types of pharmacy-based interventions. One of the main pharmacist-led interventions is educational programs, which seem to have promising benefits.ObjectiveTo describe and compare various pharmacist-led educational interventions delivered to healthcare providers and to evaluate their impact qualitatively and quantitatively on medication error rates.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through searching Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, Medline and Google Scholar from inception to June 2020. Only interventional studies that reported medication error rate change after the intervention were included. Two independent authors worked through the data extraction and quality assessment using Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model for rates of medication errors. Research protocol is available in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42019116465.ResultsTwelve studies involving 115058 participants were included. The two main recipients of the educational interventions were nurses and resident physicians. Educational programs involved lectures, posters, practical teaching sessions, audit and feedback method and flash cards of high-risk abbreviations. All studies included educational sessions as part of their program, either alone or in combination with other approaches, and most studies used errors encountered before implementing the intervention to inform the content of these sessions. Educational programs led by a pharmacist were associated with significant reductions in the overall rate of medication errors occurrence (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.65).ConclusionPharmacist-led educational interventions directed to healthcare providers are effective at reducing medication error rates. This review supports the implementation of pharmacist-led educational intervention aimed at reducing medication errors.

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Pharmacist Based Diabetes Educational Interventions on Clinical Outcomes of Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Efficacy of Pharmacist Based Diabetes Educational Interventions on Clinical Outcomes of Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets