Dataset Information

Impact of pharmacist-led care on glycaemic control of patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial in Nigeria.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic, degenerative disease, requiring a multi-dimensional, multi-professional care by healthcare providers and substantial self-care by the patients, to achieve treatment goals.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of pharmacist-led care on glycaemic control in patients with uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes.

Methods

In a parallel group, single-blind randomised controlled study; type 2 diabetic patients, with greater than 7% glycated haemoglobin (A1C) were randomised into intervention and usual care groups and followed for six months. Glycated haemoglobin analyzer, lipid analyzer and blood pressure monitor/apparatus were used to measure patients' laboratory parameters at baseline and six months. Intervention group patients received pharmacist-structured care, made up of patient education and phone calls, in addition to usual care. In an intention to treat analysis, Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare median change at six months in the primary (A1C) and secondary outcome measures. Effect size was computed and proportion of patients that reached target laboratory parameters were compared in both arms.

Results

All enrolled participants (108) completed the study, 54 in each arm. Mean age was 51 (SD 11.75) and majority were females (68.5%). Participants in the intervention group had significant reduction in A1C of -0.75%, compared with an increase of 0.15% in the usual care group (p<0.001; eta-square= 0.144). The proportion of those that achieved target A1C of <7% at 6 months in the intervention and usual care group was 42.6% vs 20.8% (p=0.02). Furthermore, intervention patients were about 3 times more likely to have better glucose control; A1C<7% (aOR 2.72, 95% CI: 1.14-6.46) compared to usual care group, adjusted for sex, age, and duration of diabetes.

Conclusions

Pharmacist-led care significantly improved glycaemic control in patients with uncontrolled T2DM.

SUBMITTER: David EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8370187 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative management of hypertension by primary care-pharmacist teams in community-based clinics. STUDY DESIGN: A 12-month prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in the Providence Primary Care Research Network of patients with hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure. METHODS: As compared to usual primary care, intervention consisted of pharmacy practitioners participating in the active management of hypertension in the primary care office according to established collaborative treatment protocols. At baseline, there was no significant difference in blood pressure between groups. Primary outcome measures were the differences in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures between arms at study end. Secondary measures included blood pressure goal attainment (<140/90 mmHg), hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, home blood pressure monitoring, resource utilization, quality of life, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 463 subjects were enrolled (n = 233 control, n = 230 intervention). Subjects receiving the intervention achieved significantly lower systolic (p = 0.007) and diastolic (p = 0.002) blood pressures compared to control (137/75 mmHg vs. 143/78 mmHg). In addition, 62% of intervention subjects achieved target blood pressure compared to 44% of control subjects (p = 0.003). The intervention group received more total office visits (7.2 vs. 4.9, p < 0.0001), however had fewer physician visits (3.2 vs. 4.7, p < 0.0001) compared to control. Intervention subjects were prescribed more antihypertensive medications (2.7 vs. 2.4, p = 0.02), but did not take more antihypertensive pills per day (2.4 vs. 2.5, p = 0.87). There were minimal differences between groups in hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, quality of life, or satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomized to collaborative primary care-pharmacist hypertension management achieved significantly better blood pressure control compared to usual care with no difference in quality of life or satisfaction.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare the effectiveness of pharmacist medication review, with or without pharmacist prescribing, with standard care, for patients with chronic pain. DESIGN:An exploratory randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Six general practices with prescribing pharmacists in Grampian (3) and East Anglia (3). PARTICIPANTS:Patients on repeat prescribed pain medication (4815) were screened by general practitioners (GPs), and mailed invitations (1397). 196 were randomised and 180 (92%) completed. Exclusion criteria included: severe mental illness, terminally ill, cancer related pain, history of addiction. RANDOMISATION AND INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised using a remote telephone service to: (1) pharmacist medication review with face-to-face pharmacist prescribing; (2) pharmacist medication review with feedback to GP and no planned patient contact or (3) treatment as usual (TAU). Blinding was not possible. OUTCOME MEASURES:Outcomes were the SF-12v2, the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG), the Health Utilities Index 3 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Outcomes were collected at 0, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS:In the prescribing arm (n=70) two patients were excluded/nine withdrew. In the review arm (n=63) one was excluded/three withdrew. In the TAU arm (n=63) four withdrew. Compared with baseline, patients had an improved CPG in the prescribing arm, 47.7% (21/44; p=0.003) and in the review arm, 38.6% (17/44; p=0.001), but not the TAU group, 31.3% (15/48; ns). The SF-12 Physical Component Score showed no effect in the prescribing or review arms but improvement in TAU (p=0.02). The SF-12 Mental Component Score showed no effect for the prescribing or review arms and deterioration in the TAU arm (p=0.002). HADS scores improved within the prescribing arm for depression (p=0.022) and anxiety (p=0.007), between groups (p=0.022 and p=0.045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:This is the first randomised controlled trial of pharmacist prescribing in the UK, and suggests that there may be a benefit for patients with chronic pain. A larger trial is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.isrctn.org/ISRCTN06131530. Medical Research Council funding.

Project description:PurposeThe study aimed to determine the impact of pharmacist-led interventions on diabetes management at a community pharmacy in Pakistan.MethodsA one-month follow-up, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was carried out between December 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. Sampling population consisted of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The study population was randomized to a control group or an intervention group to determine the impact of a community pharmacist intervention on glycemic control fasting blood glucose (FBG) and random blood glucose (RBG), medication adherence (MMAS), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ-5D-3L). Both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventional tools were used that consist of array of charts and verbal communication by pharmacist. Outcomes for continuous variables were analyzed using paired sample t-test for time effect and one sample t-test to evaluate the study group effect. Independent sample t-test was used to compare each independent variable with dependent variable. A P-value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThe control and intervention groups showed significant improvement (P-value < .05) in glycemic control, medication adherence, and HRQoL. However, the difference between the control and intervention groups was not statistically significant in terms of blood glucose levels and HRQoL (time trade off, TTO). There was a clinically significant association between pharmacist intervention and predefined glycemic control among the study participants (FBG: P-value < .001 and RBG: P-value = .04). A clinically significant association was also found between pharmacist intervention and medication adherence at the end of the trial compared with baseline values (P-value < .001). Similarly, a clinically significant association was found between pharmacist intervention and predefined HRQoL [TTO: P-value = .002 and EQ-VAS: P-value = .001].ConclusionA significant proportion of T2DM patients in the intervention group achieved predefined glycemic control, medication adherence, and health related quality of life.

Project description:BackgroundNon-adherence to recommended therapy remains a challenge to achieving optimal clinical outcome with resultant economic implications.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a pharmacist-led intervention on treatment non-adherence and direct costs of management among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodA quasi-experimental study among 201-patients with T2D recruited from two-tertiary healthcare facilities in southwestern Nigeria using semi-structured interview. Patients were assigned into control (HbA1c < 7%, n = 95) and intervention (HbA1c ≥ 7%, n = 106) groups. Baseline questionnaire comprised modified 4-item Medication Adherence Questions (MAQ), Perceived Dietary Adherence Questionnaire (PDAQ) and International Physical Activity Questionnaire, to assess participants' adherence to medications, diet and physical activity, respectively. Post-baseline, participants were followed-up for 6-month with patient-specific educational intervention provided to resolve adherence discrepancies in the intervention group only, while control group continued to receive usual care. Subsequently, direct costs of management for 6-month pre-baseline and 6-month post-baseline were estimated for both groups. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Chi-square, McNemar and paired t-test were used to evaluate categorical and continuous variables at p < 0.05.ResultsMean age was 62.9 ± 11.6 years, and 160(79.6%) were females. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 6.1 ± 0.6% (baseline) and 6.1 ± 0.8% at 6-month post-baseline (p = 0.094) for control group, and 8.7 ± 1.5% (baseline) versus 7.8 ± 2.0% (6-month), p < 0.001, for the intervention. Post-baseline, response to MAQ items 1 (p = 0.017) and 2 (p < 0.001) improved significantly for the intervention. PDAQ score increased significantly from 51.8 ± 8.8 at baseline to 56.5 ± 3.9 at 6-month (p < 0.001) for intervention, and from 56.3 ± 4.0 to 56.5 ± 3.9 (p = 0.094) for the control group. Physical activity increased from 775.2 ± 700.5 Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET) to 829.3 ± 695.5MET(p < 0.001) and from 901.4 ± 743.5MET to 911.7 ± 752.6MET (p = 0.327) for intervention and control groups, respectively. Direct costs of management per patient increased from USD 327.3 ± 114.4 to USD 333.0 ± 118.4 (p = 0.449) for the intervention, while it decreased from USD 290.1 ± 116.97 to USD289.1 ± 120.0 (p = 0.89) for control group, at baseline and 6-month post-baseline, respectively.ConclusionPharmacist-led intervention enhanced adherence to recommended medications, diet and physical activity among the intervention patients, with a corresponding significant improvement in glycaemic outcome and an insignificant increase in direct costs of management. There is a need for active engagement of pharmacists in management of patients with diabetes in clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04712916 . Retrospectively-registered.