Severe distress & denial among Asian patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the primary care: A prospective, multicentre study.

AIMS: To determine the point-prevalence and distribution of diabetes distress among primary care Asians with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and evaluate its association with cardiovascular risk. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre study conducted in two outpatient clinics. Patients aged ≥ 21 years with uncontrolled T2DM (HbA1c > 7.0 % [53 mmol/mol]) and polypharmacy were stratified based on their Framingham Risk Score (FRS-high ≥ 10 %, low < 10 %) and matched in accordance to their baseline HbA1c. Cardiovascular risk was estimated using FRS while diabetes distress was measured using Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale (denial 0-10, severe distress ≥ 40). RESULTS: Of 1940 patients approached, 210 were recruited. A final 132 (62.9 %) participants were eligible for analysis. Median PAID score was 17.5 (IQR 6.25-41.56), with an even distribution in each distress category. There was no significant difference in PAID scores between the high and low FRS groups (20.00vs13.75, p = 0.446). Additionally, PAID score distribution within each group was similar (McNemar-Bowker test, p = 0.477). However, a high prevalence of severe distress (31.4 %) and denial (33.8 %) was detected. Among those in denial, 58.7 % had accompanying intermediate-high 10-year cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: In our sample of Asian primary care patients, a high prevalence of severe diabetes distress and denial was detected although no clear association between cardiovascular risk and diabetes distress was found. Future studies should assess the longitudinal changes and impact of other risk factors in diabetes distress. (Abstract: 199 words).

Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus and polypharmacy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: This study examined the effectiveness of a collaborative care model on clinical and humanistic outcomes, medical cost, productivity loss, and its cost-effectiveness in managing uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A randomized controlled study was conducted in two outpatient health institutions in Singapore. Patients aged above 21 years with HbA1c > 7% and polypharmacy were included. Eligible patients were randomized into the intervention (collaborative care) and control (usual care) arms. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients were included in the analysis. Compared to the control arm, the intervention arm achieved significantly greater glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (mean difference: 0.25, 95%CI: [0.001, 0.50], p = 0.049) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (+0.011, 95%CI: [0.003, 0.019], p = 0.011) at 12 months. The costs per additional HbA1c and QALY improvements over one year were $40.52 and $920.91 respectively. Activity impairment was lower in the intervention group both at 6 months (12.7% vs 19.0%; p = 0.022) and at 12 months (6.7% vs 14.0%; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The collaborative care model achieved earlier HbA1c reduction and reduced patients' activity impairment without decreasing work productivity or increasing medical costs. This intervention is cost-effective for improving glycemic control and quality of life in patients with T2DM.

Association of Deprescribing With Reduction in Mortality and Hospitalization: A Pragmatic Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Deprescribing has gained awareness recently, but the clinical benefits observed from randomized trials are limited. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led 5-step team-care deprescribing intervention in nursing homes to reduce falls (fall risks and fall rates). Secondary aims include reducing mortality, number of hospitalized residents, pill burden, medication cost, and assessing the deprescribing acceptance rate. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents across 4 nursing homes in Singapore were included if they were aged 65 years and above, and taking 5 or more medications. METHODS: The intervention involved a 5-step deprescribing intervention, which involved a multidisciplinary team-care medication review with pharmacists, physicians, and nurses (in which pharmacists discussed with other team members the feasibility of deprescribing and implementation using the Beers and STOPP criteria) or to an active waitlist control for the first 3 months. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five residents from 4 nursing homes participated in the study from February 2017 to March 2018. At 6 months, the deprescribing intervention did not reduce falls. Subgroup analysis showed that intervention reduced fall risk scores within the deprescribing-naïve group by 0.18 (P = .04). Intervention was associated with a reduction in mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.07, 0.41; P < .001] and number of hospitalized residents (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10, 0.26; P < .001). Pre-post analysis witnessed a reduction in pill burden at the end of the study, and a conservative daily cost saving estimate of US$11.42 (SG$15.65) for the study population. Approximately three-quarters of deprescribing interventions initiated by the pharmacists were accepted by the physicians. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Multidisciplinary medication review-directed deprescribing was associated with reductions in mortality and number of hospitalized residents in nursing homes and should be considered for all nursing home residents.

Nursing home team-care deprescribing study: a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: An ageing population has become an urgent concern for Asia in recent times. In nursing homes, polypharmacy has also become a compounding issue. Deprescribing practice is an evidence-based strategy to provide a better outcome in this group of patients; however, its implementation in nursing homes is often challenging, and prospective outcome data on deprescribing practice in the elderly is lacking. Our study assesses the implementation of team-care deprescribing to understand the benefits of this practice in geriatric setting and to explore the factors affecting deprescribing practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre prospective study consists of a prestudy interview questionnaire, and a preintervention and postintervention study to be conducted in the nursing home setting on residents at least 65 years old and on five or more medications. We will employ a cluster randomised stepped-wedge interventional design, based on a five-step (reviewing, checking, discussion, communication and documentation) team-care deprescribing practice coupled with the use of a deprescribing guide (consisting of Beers and STOPP criteria, as well as drug interaction checking), to assess the health and pharmacoeconomic outcome in nursing homes' practice. Primary outcome measures of the intervention will consist of fall risks using a fall risk assessment tool. Other outcomes assessed include fall rates, pill burden including number of pills per day, number of doses per day and number of medications prescribed. Cost-related measures will include the use of cost-benefit analysis, which is calculated from the medication cost savings from deprescribing. For the prestudy interview questionnaire, findings will be analysed qualitatively using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Domain Specific Review Board of National Healthcare Group, Singapore (2016/00422) and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (2016-1430-7791). The study findings shall be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed publications. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02863341), Pre-results.