Medicine (RMH) - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7
-
ItemPoor adherence and persistence to sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in real-world settings: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis(WILEY, 2021-01)AIMS: Despite increasing prescription of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, there is limited insight of the patterns of use among patients with diabetes prescribed these drugs. This study aimed to summarize available real-world data on the adherence and persistence to SGLT2 inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review for observational studies reporting the adherence and persistence to SGLT2 inhibitors was performed in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception to October 2019. Data were analysed via random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies (31 cohorts) comprising 123 854 individuals prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors from eight countries were included. The pooled mean proportions of days covered [PDC] at six months and one year were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.82) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.66-0.77), respectively. The pooled proportions adherent (PDC ≥0.80) at six months and one year were 59.5% (95% CI 52.9-65.9) and 49.0% (95% CI 42.3-55.8), respectively. The pooled proportions of people persistent at six months, one year, and two years were 80.1% (95% CI 75.8-84.0), 61.8% (95% CI 57.8-65.7), and 45.9% (95% CI 35.5-56.5), respectively. When persistence was defined as the absence of ≥90-days gap, the equivalent pooled proportions persistent were 81.5% (95% CI 73.1-88.6), 58.9% (95% CI 53.1-64.6), and 34.7% (95% CI 33.6-35.8). Adherence and persistence appeared to vary across different SGLT2 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world adherence and persistence to SGLT2 inhibitors is poor. Hence, targets for improving treatment adherence and persistence need to be identified and appropriate interventions implemented.
-
ItemNo Preview Available
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableSmell and Taste Dysfunction in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis(ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 2020-08)OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGDs) among patients infected with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the preprint server MedRxiv from their inception until May 11, 2020, using the terms anosmia or hyposmia or dysosmia or olfactory dysfunction or olfaction disorder or smell dysfunction or ageusia or hypogeusia or dysgeusia or taste dysfunction or gustatory dysfunction or neurological and COVID-19 or 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2. The references of included studies were also manually screened. Only studies involving patients with diagnostic-confirmed COVID-19 infection were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with data from 8438 patients with test-confirmed COVID-19 infection from 13 countries were included. The pooled proportions of patients presenting with olfactory dysfunction and gustatory dysfunction were 41.0% (95% CI, 28.5% to 53.9%) and 38.2% (95% CI, 24.0% to 53.6%), respectively. Increasing mean age correlated with lower prevalence of olfactory (coefficient = -0.076; P=.02) and gustatory (coefficient = -0.073; P=.03) dysfunctions. There was a higher prevalence of olfactory dysfunctions with the use of objective measurements compared with self-reports (coefficient = 2.33; P=.01). No significant moderation of the prevalence of OGDs by sex was observed. CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of OGDs among patients infected with COVID-19. Routine screening for these conditions could contribute to improved case detection in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, to better inform population screening measures, further studies are needed to establish causality.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableEarly signs that COVID-19 is being contained in Australia(W B SAUNDERS CO LTD, 2020-08)
-
ItemNo Preview Available
-
ItemFrailty Confers High Mortality Risk across Different Populations: Evidence from an Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(MDPI, 2020-03)We performed an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to summarize available data regarding the association between frailty and all-cause mortality. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) databases were searched until February 2020 for meta-analyses examining the association between frailty and all-cause mortality. The AMSTAR2 checklist was used to evaluate methodological quality. Frailty exposure and the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] or relative risk [RR]) were displayed in forest plots. We included 25 meta-analyses that pooled data from between 3 and 20 studies. The number of participants included in these meta-analyses ranged between <2000 and >500,000. Overall, 56%, 32%, and 12% of studies were rated as of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. Frailty was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality in 24/24 studies where the HR/RRs ranged from 1.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.74] (patients with diabetes) to 7.95 [95% CI 4.88-12.96] (hospitalized patients). The median HR/RR across different meta-analyses was 1.98 (interquartile range 1.65-2.67). Pre-frailty was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality in 7/7 studies with the HR/RR ranging from 1.09 to 3.65 (median 1.51, IQR 1.38-1.73). These data suggest that interventions to prevent frailty and pre-frailty are needed.
-
ItemCancer is associated with severe disease in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis(eCancer Global Foundation, 2020-05-18)Cancer patients are vulnerable to complications of respiratory viruses. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to examine the prevalence of cancer and its association with disease severity in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and ScienceDirect from their inception until 28 April 2020. Severe disease was considered to encompass cases resulting in death or as defined by the primary study authors. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models. We included 20 studies involving 32,404 patients from China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, Singapore, Thailand, France, India and South Korea. The pooled prevalence of cancer was 3.50% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70 to 5.80). The pooled prevalence was not moderated by study mean age, proportion of females or whether the study was conducted in/outside of China. Patients with cancer were more likely to experience severe COVID-19 disease compared to patients without cancer (pooled risk ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.23). Our findings reiterate the need for additional precautionary measures to ensure that patients with cancer are not exposed to COVID-19, and if they become infected, extra attention should be provided to minimise their risk of adverse outcomes.