Improving the adherence of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with pharmacy care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Oral medication for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus plays an important role in diabetes care and is associated with a high level self-care behavior and self-management. However, poor adherence to diabetes treatment is common which causes severe health complications and increased mortality. Barriers to adherence may consist of complex treatment regimens often along with long-term multi-therapies, side effects due to the medication as well as insufficient, incomprehensible or confusing information or instructions provided by the health care provider. Multidisciplinary approaches can support adherence success and can enable a more effective management of diabetes care. One approach in diabetes care can be the involvement of a pharmacist. The aim was to analyze the effectiveness of adherence-enhancing pharmacist interventions for oral medication in type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The study quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Of 491 hits, six publications were included. Two studies mainly examining educational interventions showed a significant improvement in adherence. Moreover, the quality of the included studies was deficient. CONCLUSION: Although pharmacist interventions might potentially improve adherence to type 2 diabetes mellitus medication, high-quality studies are needed to assess effectiveness

Klinička praksa temeljena na dokazima: pregled prijetnji valjanosti dokaza i kako ih spriječiti

Using the best quality of clinical research evidence is essential for choosing the right treatment for patients. How to identify the best research evidence is, however, difficult. In this narrative review we summarise these threats and describe how to minimise them. Pertinent literature was considered through literature searches combined with personal files. Treatments should generally not be chosen based only on evidence from observational studies or single randomised clinical trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of all identifiable randomised clinical trials with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment represent the highest level of evidence. Even though systematic reviews are trust worthier than other types of evidence, all levels of the evidence hierarchy are under threats from systematic errors (bias); design errors (abuse of surrogate outcomes, composite outcomes, etc.); and random errors (play of chance). Clinical research infrastructures may help in providing larger and better conducted trials. Trial Sequential Analysis may help in deciding when there is sufficient evidence in meta-analyses. If threats to the validity of clinical research are carefully considered and minimised, research results will be more valid and this will benefit patients and heath care systems.Primjena najkvalitetnijih dokaza kliničkih istraživanja ključna je u odabiru ispravnog liječenja pacijenata. No, način na koji će se odabrati najbolji dokazi predstavlja često poteškoću. Ovim preglednim člankom prikazujemo opasnosti navedenog odabira, kao i načine kako ih umanjiti. Relevantni izvori razmatrani su pretragom literature u kombinaciji s osobnim datotekama. Izbor liječenja uglavnom se ne bi smio temeljiti isključivo na opservacijskim ili pojedinačnim randomiziranim kliničkim studijama. Sustavni pregledi s metaanalizom svih identificiranih randomiziranih kliničkih studija procijenjenih sustavom stupnjevanja procjene, razvoja i evaluacije preporuka (engl. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; GRADE) predstavljaju najvišu razinu dokaza. Iako su sustavni pregledi pouzdaniji od drugih vrsta dokaza, sve razine hijerarhije dokaza ugrožene su sustavnim pogreškama (engl. bias); pogreškama dizajna studije (zloupotreba surogatnih ishoda, složenih ishoda itd.) i slučajnim pogreškama (igra slučaja). Kliničke istraživačke infrastrukture mogu pomoći u pružanju većih i adekvatnije provedenih ispitivanja. Sekvencijska analiza studija može pomoći pri odlučivanju kada postoji dovoljna razina dokaza u metaanalizama. Ako se prijetnje valjanosti kliničkih istraživanja pažljivo razmatraju i minimiziraju, rezultati istraživanja bit će vrjedniji i korisniji pacientima i zdravstvenim sustavima

50% adherence of patients suffering chronic conditions – where is the evidence? [50% Adhärenz bei Patienten mit chronischen Erkrankungen – wo ist die Evidenz?]

[english] The World Health Organization states that in a widespread report that “in developed countries, adherence among patients suffering chronic diseases averages only 50%”. We followed the quoted references to this statement. The data basis for this statement is one randomized controlled trial (RCT) on hypertensive steel workers in Canada published in 1975 and one study dealing with neurotic outpatients in Pennsylvania, USA published in 1965. Both studies are not suitable to assume such generalized adherence estimation and are not for different reasons transferable to today’s patient care.<br>[german] Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) gibt in einem sehr verbreiteten Bericht an, dass die Therapietreue bei Patienten mit chronischen Erkrankungen bei durchschnittlich 50% in entwickelten Ländern liegt. Wir haben anhand der Literaturhinweise die Basis dieser Aussage verfolgt. Die Basis dieser Aussage ist lediglich eine randomisierte kontrollierte Studie (RCT) an kanadischen Stahlarbeitern mit Hypertension von 1975 sowie eine US-amerikanische Studie an neurotischen Patienten von 1965. Beide Studien sind nicht geeignet eine derart generalisierte Aussage zu treffen und darüber hinaus nicht auf die gegenwärtige Patientenversorgung übertragbar

Adherence enhancing interventions for oral anticancer agents: A systematic review

Background: The use of oral anticancer agents has increased in the last decades. Adherence is a crucial factor for the success of oral anticancer agent therapy. However, many patients are non-adherent. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of adherence interventions in patients taking oral anticancer agents. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in Medline and Embase. Titles and abstracts and in case of potential relevance, full-texts were assessed for eligibility according to the predefined inclusion criteria. The study quality was evaluated. Both process steps were carried out independently by two reviewers. Relevant data on study design, patients, interventions and results were extracted in standardized tables by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Results: Six controlled studies were included. Only one study was randomized. The study quality was moderate to low. One study showed statistically significant results in favor of the adherence intervention, two studies showed a tendency in favor of the intervention, one study showed an inconsistent result depending on the adherence definition and one study showed almost identical adherence rates in both groups. One study showed a tendency in favor of the control group. Conclusions: Although most of the interventions are not very effective, it appears that certain adherence enhancing interventions could have a promising effect. One crucial point is the consideration of the baseline adherence when choosing patients to avoid ceiling effects. The evidence is limited due to lack of sufficient studies and partly inconsistent results. Further high quality studies are needed. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review

AbstractBackground and ObjectiveAs systematic reviews may run out of date, it might be necessary to update them. Out-of-date reviews may jeopardize the comparability when used in the context of overviews (review of reviews).MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched for overviews up to November 2012. We first aimed to analyze whether the authors of overviews additionally searched for primary studies or alternatively explained why they did not. Second, we sought to analyze the actual publication lag (publication date of the overview − publication date of the review) in overviews and to develop recommendations for authors of overviews.ResultsWe included 147 overviews. The mean publication lag in overviews was more than 5 years. A median of 36% of the reviews were published more than 6 years ago. Only one in four reviews considered up-to-dateness. The methods for updating reviews were heterogeneous. We found no overview that systematically investigated whether an update was necessary.ConclusionThe issue of up-to-dateness when conducting overviews seems to be neglected by most authors of overviews. Authors should assess the quality of evidence, based on their included reviews first

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: online survey of the potential influence of AGREE II items on overall assessment of guideline quality and recommendation for use

Abstract Background The AGREE II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within six domains. AGREE II also includes two overall assessments (overall guideline quality, recommendation for use). Our aim was to investigate how strongly the 23 AGREE II items influence the two overall assessments. Methods An online survey of authors of publications on guideline appraisals with AGREE II and guideline users from a German scientific network was conducted between 10th February 2015 and 30th March 2015. Participants were asked to rate the influence of the AGREE II items on a Likert scale (0 = no influence to 5 = very strong influence). The frequencies of responses and their dispersion were presented descriptively. Results Fifty-eight of the 376 persons contacted (15.4%) participated in the survey and the data of the 51 respondents with prior knowledge of AGREE II were analysed. Items 7–12 of Domain 3 (rigour of development) and both items of Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In addition, Items 15–17 (clarity of presentation) had a strong influence on the recommendation for use. Great variations were shown for the other items. The main limitation of the survey is the low response rate. Conclusions In guideline appraisals using AGREE II, items representing rigour of guideline development and editorial independence seem to have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In order to ensure a transparent approach to reaching the overall assessments, we suggest the inclusion of a recommendation in the AGREE II user manual on how to consider item and domain scores. For instance, the manual could include an a-priori weighting of those items and domains that should have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. The relevance of these assessments within AGREE II could thereby be further specified