Dataset Information

Pharmacist interventions to improve cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assesses the effect of pharmacist care on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors among outpatients with diabetes.MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Pharmacist interventions were classified, and a meta-analysis of mean changes of blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and BMI was performed using random-effects models.The meta-analysis included 15 RCTs (9,111 outpatients) in which interventions were conducted exclusively by pharmacists in 8 studies and in collaboration with physicians, nurses, dietitians, or physical therapists in 7 studies. Pharmacist interventions included medication management, educational interventions, feedback to physicians, measurement of CVD risk factors, or patient-reminder systems. Compared with usual care, pharmacist care was associated with significant reductions for systolic BP (12 studies with 1,894 patients; -6.2 mmHg [95% CI -7.8 to -4.6]); diastolic BP (9 studies with 1,496 patients; -4.5 mmHg [-6.2 to -2.8]); TC (8 studies with 1,280 patients; -15.2 mg/dL [-24.7 to -5.7]); LDL cholesterol (9 studies with 8,084 patients; -11.7 mg/dL [-15.8 to -7.6]); and BMI (5 studies with 751 patients; -0.9 kg/m(2) [-1.7 to -0.1]). Pharmacist care was not associated with a significant change in HDL cholesterol (6 studies with 826 patients; 0.2 mg/dL [-1.9 to 2.4]).This meta-analysis supports pharmacist interventions-alone or in collaboration with other health care professionals-to improve major CVD risk factors among outpatients with diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Santschi V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3507563 | biostudies-other | 2012 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacist interventions to improve cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Santschi Valérie V Chiolero Arnaud A Paradis Gilles G Colosimo April L AL Burnand Bernard B

Diabetes care 20121201 12

<h4>Objective</h4>This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assesses the effect of pharmacist care on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors among outpatients with diabetes.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Pharmacist interventions were classified, and a meta-analysis of mean changes of blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol, HDL choleste ...[more]

PMID: 23173140

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:ObjectiveTo determine whether psychological interventions have any effect on glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies to assess their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials searched to September 2004.Review methodsAll included studies were randomised controlled trials in children (including adolescents) or adults with type 1 diabetes that evaluated the effect of a psychological therapy (counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy, family systems therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) on control of diabetes. Data were extracted on sample size, age, duration of diabetes, type of psychological therapy, its mode of delivery, and type of intervention in control group.Main outcome measuresGlycaemic control measured by percentage of glycated haemoglobin and psychological distress. Pooled standardised effect sizes were calculated.Results29 trials were eligible for the systematic review and 21 trials for the meta-analysis. In the 10 studies of children and adolescents included in the meta-analysis, the mean percentage of glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced in those who had received a psychological intervention compared with those in the control group (pooled standardised mean difference -0.35 (95% confidence interval -0.66 to -0.04), equivalent to a 0.48% (0.05% to 0.91%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. In the 11 studies in adults the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), equivalent to 0.22% (-0.13% to 0.56%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. Psychological distress was significantly lower in the intervention groups in children and adolescents (pooled standardised effect size -0.46, -0.83 to -0.10) but not in adults (-0.25, -0.51 to 0.01).ConclusionPsychological treatments can slightly improve glycaemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes but have no effect in adults.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The popularity of internet as an area of research has grown manifold over the years. Given its rapid development and increasing coverage worldwide, internet-based interventions seem to offer a promising option to ameliorate huge burdens brought by type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, studies conducted by different researchers have provided contradictory results on the effect of internet-based interventions in glycemic control. OBJECTIVE:This meta-analysis aims to summarize currently available evidence and evaluate the overall impact of internet-based interventions on glycemic management of type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials that used glycosylated hemoglobin values as the outcome measure of glycemic control were considered. Risk of bias and publication bias were evaluated. RESULTS:Of the 492 studies, 35 were included in meta-analysis, and results indicated that the weighted mean difference (WMD) between usual care and internet-based interventions at endpoint was -0.426% (95% CI -0.540 to -0.312; P<.001). Subgroup analyses revealed that intervention duration ≤3 months yielded optimal performance (WMD -0.51%; 95% CI -0.71 to -0.31; P<.001). Combined mobile and website interventions were substantially superior to solely Web-based and mobile-based interventions in glycemic control (combined WMD -0.77%, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.47; P<.001; Web only: WMD -0.48%; 95% CI -0.71 to -0.24, P<.001; mobile only WMD -0.31%, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; P<.001). Furthermore, the effect of interventions with automated feedbacks was similar to those with manual feedbacks, and studies with internet-based educational contents were more effective in glycemic control. The assessment revealed a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, utilization of internet-based intervention is beneficial for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and taking full advantage of this type of intervention may substantially reduce the incidence of complications and improve quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017058032; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=58032 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yY7eQNHr).

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:Objective: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of canagliflozin for the treatment of specific cardiovascular and renal outcomes in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We performed comprehensive searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the treatment of T2DM with canagliflozin that were published to 28 September 2020. The cardiovascular outcomes recorded were cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The renal composite outcomes recorded were end-stage renal disease (ESRD), renal death. The data for the principal cardiovascular outcomes, ESRD, and renal death were pooled and expressed as Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two reviewers independently selected the trials and extracted the data. Results: We identified a total of 1,741 publications, leaving 96 for their titles, abstracts and full-text review. Of these, 10 trials met the inclusion criteria and were finally included in our meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that canagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of heart failure in T2DM by 36% (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.77, p = 0.000). The effects of canagliflozin on non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke (HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.93, p = 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, p = 0.021), and myocardial infarction (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00, p = 0.045) in patients with T2DM were relatively small, reducing the risks by 16%. In addition, canagliflozin reduced the risk of stroke in T2DM patients by 13% (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.06, p = 0.166). Moreover, canagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the composite renal event of ESRD or renal death by 36% (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.75, p = 0.000). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that canagliflozin protects against cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with T2DM. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42020210315].

Dataset Information

Pharmacist interventions to improve cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Pharmacist interventions to improve cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets