Reflections by potential health care providers on a research methodology course taught under a primary health care centre: An experience of inter-professional education.

OBJECTIVES: Public health research demands a collaborative approach in working with communities to combat expected challenges in the field. Therefore, to improve primary care services, a training programme on research methodology, focusing on the principles of inter-professional education (IPE), was introduced at Karachi Medical and Dental College. The objectives of this study were to assess the level of learning by participants in the domain of communication and to explore participants' opinions and evaluations of the training programme. METHODS: A total of 96 participants, including faculty members, medical students, social works students and health technicians in the research methodology course, were selected during March to September 2010. The study employed mixed method research in which communication competencies and participants' perceptions, as captured by course evaluations, were analysed, and findings were triangulated. RESULTS: The results showed that 87% of faculty enjoyed contributing to 'inter-professional relationships' and that 'teamwork' skills in community-focused areas improved among 90% of students. As many as 78% of students and 70% of faculty members identified 'active listening' and 'communicating information to families', respectively, as being learned to a lesser extent. These findings were defended by their deliberations on course evaluation. CONCLUSION: Learning through inter-professional relationships was found to be most effective among faculty, whereas learning through teamwork was found to be most effective among students. Moreover, it was found that information was better communicated to families by students than by faculty staff.

Meal-induced increases in C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor α are attenuated by prandial + basal insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To determine if a regimen with prandial + basal insulin compared with basal insulin attenuates post-meal inflammatory and glycative biomarkers in patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This test-meal sub-study in the USA is from a previously reported clinical trial comparing the effect on glycaemic control of 24 weeks of thrice-daily pre-meal insulin lispro mix 50 (50% insulin lispro, 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension) or bedtime insulin glargine, both plus metformin. In the sub-study, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor α, interleukin-6, methylglyoxal and 3-deoxyglucosone were measured during the post-meal period of a mixed-meal breakfast at the final visit. Prandial + basal (n = 25) and basal (n = 21) insulin were administered at the same times as during the previous 24 weeks. RESULTS: Post-meal, the prandial + basal insulin group had significantly higher insulin, lower glucose and triglycerides, as well as lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor α and interleukin-6, than the basal insulin group. Glucose incremental area under the concentration curve significantly correlated with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor α, interleukin-6, methylglyoxal and 3-deoxyglucosone incremental area under the concentration curve. Insulin incremental area under the concentration curve correlated inversely with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor α incremental area under the concentration curve. However, after adjusting for glucose incremental area under the concentration curve, these inverse correlations were no longer significant. Triglyceride incremental area under the concentration curve was not correlated with any biomarker incremental area under the concentration curve. CONCLUSIONS: Controlling post-meal hyperglycaemia with prandial + basal insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes attenuates meal-induced increases in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor α compared with basal insulin. The rise in post-meal glucose, but not triglycerides, significantly correlated with the rise in post-meal inflammatory and glycative biomarkers.

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin detemir in basal-bolus therapy in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: The efficacy of two basal insulins, insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) and insulin detemir, was compared in basal-bolus regimens in Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 32-week, multinational, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial, adult patients with Type 1 diabetes received ILPS or insulin detemir, injected twice daily (before breakfast and bedtime) and prandial insulin lispro three times daily. The primary outcome was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to endpoint. RESULTS: Least squares mean (+/-se) changes in HbA(1c) were similar between groups, meeting non-inferiority (margin, 0.4%): -0.69 +/- 0.07% for ILPS and -0.59 +/- 0.07% for insulin detemir [between-treatment difference -0.10%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29, 0.10]. Standard deviation of fasting blood glucose was similar (non-inferiority margin 0.8 mmol/l): 2.74 +/- 0.14 mmol/l for ILPS and 2.38 +/- 0.14 mmol/l for insulin detemir (CI -0.03, 0.75). Patients on ILPS gained more weight (1.59 +/- 0.23 kg vs. 0.62 +/- 0.24 kg; CI 0.34, 1.60; margin 1.5 kg). Weight-adjusted daily total and prandial insulin doses were lower for ILPS (prandial insulin, 0.38 +/- 0.01 U/kg/day for ILPS, 0.44 +/- 0.01 U/kg/day for insulin detemir; P = 0.004); daily basal insulin dose was similar. All hypoglycaemia incidence and rate and nocturnal hypoglycaemia incidence were similar between groups; nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was lower for insulin detemir (mean +/- sd 0.79 +/- 1.23 for ILPS, 0.49 +/- 0.85 for insulin detemir; P = 0.001). Severe hypoglycaemia rate was 0.03 +/- 0.11 for ILPS and 0.02 +/- 0.10 for insulin detemir (P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: ILPS-treated patients with Type 1 diabetes achieved similar glycaemic control as insulin detemir-treated patients after 32 weeks. Glucose variability was similar. While weight gain and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate were statistically higher with ILPS, the clinical relevance is unclear.

The relationship between self-monitored blood glucose values and glycated haemoglobin in insulin-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is an important self-management tool for insulin-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Its value in estimating glycaemic control in insulin-treated T2DM patients remains unclear. The relationship between glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and SMBG measures in T2DM patients treated with premixed insulin lispro mixtures or basal insulin glargine was examined. METHODS: HbA(1c) and plasma equivalent glucose (PGe) data derived from SMBG profiles were pooled from five randomized clinical trials of patients with T2DM on one or more oral glucose-lowering medication +/- 0-2 insulin injections per day switching to insulin lispro mixtures (N = 317) or glargine (N = 306). Patients generated seven-point SMBG profiles three times in a 2-week period prior to each HbA(1c) measurement. Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated for PGe values and HbA(1c). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined the ability of sets of PGe to estimate HbA(1c) (< or > 7.0%). RESULTS: Mean +/- standard deviation age was 57.5 +/- 9.5 years, body mass index 31.3 +/- 5.6 kg/m(2), 52.5% were male and HbA(1c) overall was 7.4 +/- 1.0% at end-point. Among individual SMBG measures, r for HbA(1c) ranged from 0.34 to 0.49. For means of two or more PGe measures, r for HbA(1c) ranged from 0.51 to 0.59. Correlations were similar for either regimen. ROC curves were consistent with the correlation data. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide patients and clinicians information on the relationship between HbA(1c) and SMBG measurements in patients with T2DM, and support the value of frequent blood glucose measurements for assessing overall glycaemic control.

Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis (PROGRESS): lessons from an international sepsis registry.

BACKGROUND: The PROGRESS Registry (Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) was designed to provide comparative data reflecting everyday clinical practice, thereby allowing participating institutions to explore and benchmark medical interventions in severe sepsis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROGRESS was an international, noninterventional, prospective, observational registry collecting data that describe the management and outcomes of severe sepsis patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were enrolled who had been diagnosed with severe sepsis (suspected or proven infection and >or= 1 acute sepsis-induced organ dysfunction) at the participating institutions, where de-identified data were entered directly into a secured website. PROGRESS was governed by an independent international medical advisory board. RESULTS: PROGRESS took place in 276 ICUs in 37 countries, and 12,881 patients were identified as having severe sepsis. There was considerable variation among countries in enrollment levels, provision of standard treatment and supportive therapies, and ICU and hospital outcomes. Eight countries accounted for 65.2% of the enrolled patients. Males (59.3%) and Caucasian (48.6%) patients predominated the patient cohort. Diagnosis of severe sepsis was prior to ICU admission in 45.7% of patients, at ICU admission in 29.1% of patients, and after ICU admission in the remainder. Globally, ICU and hospital mortality rates were 39.2% and 49.6%, respectively. The mean length of ICU and hospital stay was 14.6 days and 28.2 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PROGRESS international sepsis registry demonstrates that a large web-based sepsis registry is feasible. Wide variations in outcomes and use of sepsis therapies were observed between countries. These results also suggest that additional opportunities exist across countries to improve severe sepsis outcomes.