Impact of medication and psychological behaviour assessment by community pharmacists in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients after hospital stay

Community pharmacist-led interventions for patients with type 2 diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing community pharmacist-led interventions conducted in high-income countries indicate that community pharmacists are successful in taking opportunities to support diabetes management. It is not yet clear as to what extent this is also true for low-income and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the types of interventions performed by community pharmacists and available evidence about their effects on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in low-income and middle-income countries.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (non) randomized controlled, before-and-after, and interrupted time series design studies. There was no restriction on publication language. Interventions to be included had to be delivered by community pharmacists in a primary care or community setting. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute of Health tools, with results analyzed qualitatively, and the review itself was conducted in accordance with guidelines for scoping reviews.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included, representing 4,434 patients (mean age from 47.4 to 59.5 years, 55.4% female) from community pharmacies (16 studies), primary care centers (8 studies) or community setting (4 studies). Four studies were single-component and the remaining represented multi-component interventions. Face-to-face counseling of patients was the most common intervention, often combined with the provision of printed materials, remote consultations, or conducting medication reviews. Generally, studies showed improved outcomes in the intervention group, including clinical, patient-reported and medication safety outcomes. In most studies, at least one domain was judged to be of poor quality, with heterogeneity among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Community pharmacist-led interventions on type 2 diabetes mellitus patients showed various positive effects but the quality of the evidence was poor. Face-to-face counseling of varying intensity, often combined with other strategies and representing a multi-component intervention, was the most common type. Although these findings support the expansion of the community pharmacist's role in diabetes care in low-income and middle-income countries, better quality studies are needed to evaluate the impact of specific interventions.

Evaluation of home medication review for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by community pharmacists: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Successful diabetes treatment requires commitment and understanding of disease management by the patients.

OBJECTIVE

This trial aimed to evaluate the programme effectiveness of home medication review by community pharmacists (HMR-CP) in optimising diabetes care and reducing medication wastage.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial was conducted on 166 patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) who were randomly assigned to the intervention or control groups. The intervention group received HMR-CP at 0-month, 3-month, and 6-month. The primary outcome was haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) while clinical outcomes, anthropometric data, and humanistic outcomes were the secondary outcomes. For the intervention group, drug-related problems (DRP) were classified according to the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Foundation (PCNE). Medication adherence was determined based on the Pill Counting Adherence Ratio (PCAR). The cost of medication wastage was calculated based on the total missed dose by the T2DM patients multiplied by the cost of medication. General linear model and generalised estimating equations were used to compare data across the different time-points within and between the groups, respectively.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the demographic and anthropometric data at baseline between the two groups except for fasting blood glucose (FBG). There was a significant reduction in the HbA1c (-0.91%) and FBG (-1.62mmol/L) over the study period (p<0.05). A similar observation was noted in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and total cholesterol (TC) but not in high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and anthropometric parameters. Both utility value and Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (MDKT) scores increased significantly over time. As for the intervention group, significant changes in PCAR (p<0.001) and the number of DRP (p<0.001) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

HMR-CP significantly improved the glycaemic control, QoL, medication adherence, and knowledge of T2DM patients as well as reduced the number of DRP and cost of medication wastage. However, the impact of HMR-CP on certain clinical and anthropometric parameters remains inconclusive and further investigation is warranted.

Magnitude and determinants of drug therapy problems among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with hypertension in Ethiopia

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with hypertension are at high risk of drug therapy problems since they are subject to receive multiple drug therapies due to comorbidities.

Objectives

To determine the magnitude of drug therapy problems and its determinants among Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with hypertension.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was employed among 423 randomly selected participants based on the inclusion criteria. A structured questionnaire and review of patients' medical record were employed in the data collection. The classification system used by Cipolle was used to classify and evaluate drug therapy problems. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the social sciences version 25.0 software. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify determinants of drug therapy problems with a statistical significance of p ⩽ 0.05.

Results

A total of 491 drug therapy problems with a mean of 1.86 ± 0.53 drug therapy problems per patient were identified, and 62.4% (264) of them experienced at least one drug therapy problem. Non-compliance (197, 40.1%), needs of additional drug therapy (119, 24.2%), and dosage too low (91, 18.5%) were the most frequently observed drug therapy problems in the study setting. Anti-diabetic medications (88.4%), statins (44.5%), and aspirin (33.5%) were the most commonly involved drugs in drug therapy problems. The determinants of drug therapy problems were very low family income (adjusted odds ratio = 4.64, p = 0.010), age (45-65 years old) (adjusted odds ratio = 2.55, p = 0.008), presence of comorbidity (adjusted odds ratio = 9.19, p < 0.001), and taking ⩾5 medications (adjusted odds ratio = 2.84, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Approximately three out of five patients had one or more drug therapy problems encountered. In this study, the most common types of drug therapy problems were non-compliance, needs additional drug therapy, and dosage too low. Family monthly income, age, comorbidities, and number of medications were the significant determinants of drug therapy problems. Therefore, patient education regarding medication adherence, routine medication review, and strengthening clinical pharmacy services should be promoted.

Assessment of Drug Therapy Problems Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Hypertension Comorbidity in Indonesia

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major chronic disease that affects a large number of people worldwide. Hypertension is a common disease comorbidity among T2DM patients, and often those patients received polypharmacy and complex treatment in long term duration. This condition may lead to an increased risk of drug therapy problems (DTPs). This study aimed to assess and determine potential drug therapy problems in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension comorbidity. Retrospective cross-sectional design was conducted in a hospital setting, especially data sources from the prescription of ambulatory T2DM patients with hypertension. A total of 190 patients were studied. More than half of the participants were female (53.68%). The majority age range of participants was 50-59 years (46.84%). Almost all antidiabetic agents were prescribed as polypharmacy (73.16%). Metformin was the most antidiabetic agent prescribed as monotherapy and combination therapy (63.16%). Almost all antihypertensive agents were prescribed as polypharmacy (63.26%). Amlodipine was the most antihypertensive agent prescribed as monotherapy and combination therapy (34.74%). Among the study participants, 56.84% have at least one of DTPs. Adverse drug reaction was the most frequent (47.22%), followed by ineffective drug therapy (29.63%). Since the potential of DTPs in T2DM patients with hypertension comorbidity is relatively high, early identifying, resolving, and preventing drug therapy problems by the pharmacist is needed to achieve goals of treatment.

Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.