RESUMO
Objectives: To evaluate the association of diabetes treatment satisfaction and trust in family physicians with glycemic control among primary care patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: A cross-sectional study on 319 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from five primary healthcare centers in Egypt. Data were collected from February to August 2021 using a structured questionnaire that contained six parts: sociodemographic data, disease profile, the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8), self-reported medication knowledge questionnaire (MKQ), and revised healthcare relationship trust scale (HCR). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess predictors of treatment satisfaction, physician trust, and HbA1c level. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Results: The mean age was 59.66 years (± 7.87 years) and 55.17% were females. Multiple linear regression analysis for predicting HbA1c showed that HbA1c level was lower in patients with higher treatment satisfaction scores (ß = - 0.289, p < 0.001) and higher medication adherence scores (ß = - 0.198, p = 0.001). Treatment satisfaction scores were positively predicted by higher physician trust scores (ß = 0.301, p < 0.001), increased medication adherence scores (ß = 0.160, p = 0.002), and longer duration of diabetes (ß = 0.226, p < 0.001). Positive predictors for physician trust included HbA1c level (ß = 0.141, p = 0.012), medication knowledge (ß = 0.280, p < 0.001), diabetes treatment satisfaction (ß = 0.366, p < 0.001) and medication adherence (ß = 0.146, p = 0.011). Conclusion: Optimizing diabetes treatment satisfaction and physician trust could have favorable associations with medication adherence and medication knowledge with a possible improvement in glycemic control. Family physicians should incorporate patients reported outcomes alongside traditional clinical measures in evaluating diabetes management in primary care.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, aspirin) is a well-known and frequently studied drug for primary and secondary prevention of disease due to its anti-inflammatory and coagulopathic effects. COVID-19 complications are attributed to the role of thrombo-inflammation. Studies regarding the use of low-dose ASA in COVID-19 are limited. For this reason, we propose that the use of low-dose ASA may have protective effects in COVID-19-related thromboembolism and lung injury. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of low-dose ASA compared with enoxaparin, an anticoagulant, for the prevention of thrombosis and mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on COVID-19-confirmed hospitalized patients at the Mansoura University Quarantine Hospital, outpatients, and home-isolated patients from September to December 2020 in Mansoura governorate, Egypt. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of ASA compared with enoxaparin on thromboembolism, and mechanical ventilation needs. RESULTS: This study included 225 COVID-19 patients. Use of ASA-only (81-162 mg orally daily) was significantly associated with reduced thromboembolism (OR 0.163, p = 0.020), but both low-dose ASA and enoxaparin, and enoxaparin-only (0.5 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) daily as prophylactic dose or 1 mg/kg SC every 12 hours as therapeutic dose) were more protective (odds ratio [OR] 0.010, OR 0.071, respectively, p < 0.001). Neither ASA-only nor enoxaparin-only were associated with a reduction in mechanical ventilation needs. Concomitant use of low-dose ASA and enoxaparin was associated with reduced mechanical ventilation (OR 0.032, 95% CI 0.004-0.226, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose ASA-only use may reduce the incidence of COVID-19-associated thromboembolism, but the reduction may be less than that of enoxaparin-only, and both ASA and enoxaparin. Concomitant use of ASA and enoxaparin demonstrates promising results with regard to the reduction of thrombotic events, and mechanical ventilation needs.