BackgroundDiabetes Mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease that is considered a global public health problem. Education and self-monitoring by diabetic patients help to optimize and make possible a satisfactory metabolic control enabling improved management and reduced morbidity and mortality. The global growth in the use of mobile phones makes them a powerful platform to help provide tailored health, delivered conveniently to patients through health apps.ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of mobile apps through a systematic review and meta-analysis to assist DM patients in treatment.MethodsWe conducted searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE (Pubmed), Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), including manual search in references of publications that included systematic reviews, specialized journals, and gray literature. We considered eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted after 2008 with participants of all ages, patients with DM, and users of apps to help manage the disease. The meta-analysis of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was performed in Review Manager software version 5.3.ResultsThe literature search identified 1236 publications. Of these, 13 studies were included that evaluated 1263 patients. In 6 RCTs, there were a statistical significant reduction (P<.05) of HbA1c at the end of studies in the intervention group. The HbA1c data were evaluated by meta-analysis with the following results (mean difference, MD −0.44; CI: −0.59 to −0.29; P<.001; I²=32%).The evaluation favored the treatment in patients who used apps without significant heterogeneity.ConclusionsThe use of apps by diabetic patients could help improve the control of HbA1c. In addition, the apps seem to strengthen the perception of self-care by contributing better information and health education to patients. Patients also become more self-confident to deal with their diabetes, mainly by reducing their fear of not knowing how to deal with potential hypoglycemic episodes that may occur.

Biological agents directed against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) represent therapeutic options for patients with ankylosing spondylitis with high disease activity despite use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anti-TNF agents infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, we performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials on adult patients with ankylosing spondylitis using articles culled from the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and LILACS databases (September/2012), manual literature search, and the gray literature. Study selections and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreements solved by a third reviewer. The following outcomes were evaluated: ASAS 20 response, disease activity, physical function, vertebral mobility, adverse events, and withdraws. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager(®) 5.1 software by applying the random effects model. Eighteen studies were included in this review. No study of certolizumab was included. Patients treated with anti-TNF agents were more likely to display an ASAS 20 response after 12/14 weeks (RR 2.21; 95 % CI 1.91; 2.56) and 24 weeks (RR 2.68; 95 % CI 2.06; 3.48) compared with controls, which was also true for several other efficacy outcomes. Meta-analysis of safety outcomes and withdraws did not indicate statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups after 12 or 30 weeks. Adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, and golimumab can effectively reduce the signs and symptoms of the axial component of ankylosing spondylitis. Safety outcomes deserve further study, especially with respect to long-term follow-ups.

This evaluation determines whether published studies to date meet the key characteristics identified for budget impact analyses (BIA) for medicines, accomplished through a systematic review and assessment against identified key characteristics. Studies from 2001-2015 on 'budget impact analysis' with 'drug' interventions were assessed, selected based on their titles/abstracts and full texts, and their characteristics checked according to key criteria. Out of 1,984 studies, 92 were subsequently identified for review. Of these, 95% were published in Europe and the USA. 2012 saw the largest number of publications (16%) with a decline thereafter. 48% met up to 7 out of the 9 key characteristics. Only 22% stated no conflict of interest. The results indicate low adherence to the key characteristics that should be considered for BIAs and strong conflict of interest. This is an issue since BIAs can be of fundamental importance in managing the entry of new medicines including reimbursement decisions.

Chlorhexidine has proven to be effective for the prevention of NP among adult populations in cardiothoracic ICU. In ICUs with patients who have varied clinical-surgical conditions, the effectiveness of chlorhexidine for the prevention of PN and VAP was inconclusive.

IntroductionInsulin analog glargine (GLA) has been available as one of the therapeutic options for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus to enhance glycemic control. Studies have shown that a decrease in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes improves the quality of life (QoL) of diabetic patients. However, there are appreciable acquisition cost differences between different insulins. Consequently, there is a need to assess their impact on QoL to provide future guidance to health authorities.MethodA systematic review of multiple databases including Medline, LILACS, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases with several combinations of agreed terms involving randomized controlled trials and cohorts, as well as manual searches and gray literature, was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was a change in QoL. The quality of the studies and the risk of bias was also assessed.ResultsEight studies were eventually included in the systematic review out of 634 publications. Eight different QoL instruments were used (two generic, two mixed, and four specific), in which the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was the most used. The systematic review did not consistently show any significant difference overall in QoL scores, whether as part of subsets or combined into a single score, with the use of GLA versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Only in patient satisfaction measured by DTSQ was a better result consistently seen with GLA versus NPH insulin, but not using the Well-being Inquiry for Diabetics (WED) scale. However, none of the cohort studies scored a maximum on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for quality, and they generally were of moderate quality with bias in the studies.ConclusionThere was no consistent difference in QoL or patient-reported outcomes when the findings from the eight studies were collated. In view of this, we believe the current price differential between GLA and NPH insulin in Brazil cannot be justified by these findings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-017-0291-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionThe use of insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is widespread; however, the therapeutic benefits still require further evaluation given their higher costs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of analog insulin glargine compared to recombinant DNA (rDNA) insulin in patients with T1DM in observational studies, building on previous reviews of randomized controlled trials comparing neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin and insulin glargine.MethodsA systematic review with a meta-analysis was performed. The review included cohort studies and registries available on PubMed, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as manual and gray literature searches. The meta-analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.3 software. The primary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin (Hb1Ac), weight gain, and hypoglycemia. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsOut of 796 publications, 11 studies were finally included. The meta-analysis favored insulin glargine in HbA1c outcomes (adult patients) and hypoglycemic episodes (P < 0.05), but without reaching glycemic control (Hb1Ac to approximately 7%). The methodological quality of the studies was moderate, noting that 45% of studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionGiven the high heterogeneity of the studies, the discrete value presented by the estimated effect on effectiveness and safety, potential conflicts of interest of the studies, and the appreciable higher cost of insulin glargine, there is still no support for recommending first-line therapy with analogs. The role of analogs in the treatment of T1DM could be better determined by further observational studies of good methodological quality to assess their long-term effectiveness and safety, as well as their cost-effectiveness.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of drugs and the factors associated with polypharmacy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in Minas Gerais. Descriptive analysis of drugs in use and logistic regression to estimate the association between socio-demographic and clinical characteristics with polypharmacy were performed. Of the 2619 respondents, 56.5% were in polypharmacy. Drugs for DM, agent in renin-angiotensin system, and diuretics are the most frequently used. Factors such as age, comorbidities and increased access to health services were associated with polypharmacy. It was observed high prevalence of polypharmacy, which requires a suitable care and better quality of drug use in this population.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the access to medicines in primary health care of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), from the patients’ perspective.METHODS This is a cross-sectional study that used data from the Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos – Services, 2015 (PNAUM – National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines), conducted by interviews with 8,591 patients in cities of the five regions of Brazil. Evaluation of access to medicines used concepts proposed by Penshansky and Thomas (1981), according to the dimensions: availability, accessibility, accommodation, acceptability, and affordability. Each dimension was evaluated by its own indicators.RESULTS For the “availability” dimension, 59.8% of patients reported having full access to medicines, without significant difference between regions. For “accessibility,” 60% of patients declared that the basic health unit (UBS) was not far from their house, 83% said it was very easy/easy to get to the UBS, and most patients reported that they go walking (64.5%). For “accommodation,” UBS was evaluated as very good/good for the items “comfort” (74.2%) and “cleanliness” (90.9%), and 70.8% of patients reported that they do not wait to receive their medicines, although the average waiting time was 32.9 minutes. For “acceptability,” 93.1% of patients reported to be served with respect and courtesy by the staff of the dispensing units and 90.5% declared that the units’ service was very good/good. For “affordability,” 13% of patients reported not being able to buy something important to cover expenses with health problems, and 41.8% of participants pointed out the expense with medicines.CONCLUSIONS Results show 70%–90% compliance, which is compatible with developed countries. However, access to medicines remains a challenge, because it is still heavily compromised by the low availability of essential medicines in public health units, showing that it does not occur universally, equally, and decisively to the population.