SummaryWhat is known and objective: With the increasing prevalence of diabetes, the physician-centred model is challenged to deliver holistic care in Asia. Diabetes may be managed effectively within a multidisciplinary collaborative care model; however, evidence on its effectiveness in Asian patients is lacking. Therefore, the primary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multidisciplinary collaborative care vs physician-centred care in diabetes. The secondary objectives were to evaluate humanistic and economic outcomes among the two types of care.Methods: This 6-month prospective, open-label, parallel-arm, randomized, controlled study was conducted at four outpatient healthcare institutions. High-risk patients aged ≥21 years with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, polypharmacy and comorbidities were included. Patients with type 1 diabetes or those who were unable to communicate independently were excluded. The control arm received usual care with referrals to nurses and dietitians as needed. The intervention arm (multidisciplinary collaborative care) was followed up with pharmacists regularly, in addition to receiving the usual care. The primary outcomes included HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein and triglycerides. The secondary outcomes included scores from the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires (DTSQ), and diabetes-related health service utilization rates and costs.Results and discussion: Of 411 eligible patients, 214 and 197 patients were randomized into the intervention and control arms, respectively. At 6 months, 141 patients in the intervention arm (65.9%) and 189 patients in the control arm (95.9%) completed the study. Mean HbA1c reduced from 8.6%±1.5% at baseline to 8.1%±1.3% at 6 months in the intervention arm (P=.04), with up to mean HbA1c improvement of 0.8% in patients with greater levels of uncontrolled glycemia. Whereas the mean HbA1c in the control arm remained unchanged (8.5%±1.4%) throughout the 6-month period. Improvements in PAID and DTSQ scores, reduction in physician workload and an average cost savings of US$91.01 per patient were observed in the intervention arm over 6 months.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

No abstract

Empowerment plays significant roles in the complex management of type 2 diabetes. International guidelines have provided recommendations on management of Muslims who fast during Ramadan. However, there remains a lack of patient-centered epistemic tool to empower healthcare providers and patients in managing diabetes during Ramadan. This study discussed the development and evaluation of such tool. The collaborative algorithm was developed with reference to the nominal group technique by a board-certified clinical pharmacist and discussed with endocrinologists, nurses, and family physicians. The empowerment component of the algorithm was developed based on the Basic Psychological Needs Theory. The algorithm was evaluated through a randomized controlled trial. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and postprandial glucose (PPG) levels and safety profiles in terms of hypoglycemic events were assessed. The collaborative algorithm was developed with four components: screening, education, dose modification by healthcare provider, and dose adjustment by patient. A total of 62 individuals were recruited, with 30 and 32 randomized into the intervention and control groups, respectively. The mean age was 58.4 years, with majority being females (67.7%). There was a reduction in mean HbA1c from 7.9% ± 0.9% to 7.5% ± 0.8% (P < 0.001) in the intervention group, while no significant difference was observed in the control group (P = 0.270). FPG (P < 0.001) and PPG (P = 0.002) also improved significantly in the intervention group. There were no major hypoglycemic events and minor hypoglycemia comparable between both groups (P = 0.465). The collaborative algorithm incorporated empowerment and promoted shared decision-making in diabetes management, hence promoting safe and effective fasting.

Background: Lack of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) records in actual practice settings continues to create therapeutic challenges for clinicians, especially in adjusting insulin therapy. In order to overcome this clinical obstacle, a ''Symptom-based Insulin adjustment for Glucose Normalization'' (SIGN) algorithm was developed to guide clinicians in caring for patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who have few to no SMBG records. This study examined the clinical outcome and safety of the SIGN algorithm. Subjects and Methods: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin usage, and insulin-related adverse effects of a total of 114 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who refused to use SMBG or performed SMBG once a day for less than three times per week were studied 3 months prior to the implementation of the algorithm and prospectively at every 3-month interval for a total of 6 months after the algorithm implementation. Patients with type 1 diabetes, nonadherence to diabetes medications, or who were not on insulin therapy at any time during the study period were excluded from this study. Results: Mean HbA1c improved by 0.29% at 3 months (P = 0.015) and 0.41% at 6 months (P = 0.006) after algorithm implementation. A slight increase in HbA1c was observed when the algorithm was not implemented. There were no major hypoglycemic episodes. The number of minor hypoglycemic episodes was minimal with the majority of the cases due to irregular meal habits. Conclusions: The SIGN algorithm appeared to offer a viable and safe approach when managing uncontrolled patients with type 2 diabetes who have few to no SMBG records.

Objectives. The utility of informant AD8 for case finding of cognitive impairment at primary healthcare settings is unknown and therefore its feasibility and acceptability for targeted screening at a primary healthcare clinic should be investigated. Methods. The informants of older adult patients attending a primary healthcare clinic in Singapore were administered the AD8. Positive screening findings were provided to patients' primary care physicians for referrals to specialist memory clinics. The acceptability of AD8 was evaluated by collecting feedbacks from the informants and primary care physicians. Results. 205 patients and their informants were recruited. However, 6 (2.9%) informants were uncontactable, while the majority of the remaining 199 patients with completed AD8 (96.5%, n = 192) found it acceptable where 59 (29.6%) patients were deemed cognitively impaired (AD8 ≥ 2). Clinicians (100%, n = 5) found the AD8 helpful in facilitating referrals to memory clinics. However, most referral recommendations (81.4%, n = 48) were declined by patients and/or informant due to limited insight of implications of cognitive impairment. Conclusions. The AD8 can be easily administered and is well tolerated. It detected cognitive impairment in one-third of older adult patients and therefore may be useful for case finding of cognitive impairment in the primary healthcare.