RESUMEN
Medication adherence is a critical aspect of managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Mobile app-based interventions have emerged as a promising tool to enhance adherence and glycemic control in T2DM patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mobile app interventions in improving medication adherence and glycated hemoglobin among T2DM patients. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies published between September 2018 and September 2023. Studies were included if they were published in English and investigated the effectiveness of mobile apps in enhancing medication adherence among patients with T2DM. Studies were excluded if they included additional interventions, such as electronic pillboxes, phone calls, or SMS text messages, or if they focused on populations with chronic illnesses other than T2DM. Five studies involving 527 participants from diverse geographic locations were included in the review. The findings from the included studies show that mobile-based app interventions can significantly improve medication adherence in patients with T2DM. From the included studies, the mean HbA1c change for the intervention group was -0.664 (95%CI -0.823 to -0.506), while the mean change in HbA1c for the control group was -0.103 (95%CI -0.305 to 0.099). Studies have demonstrated the potential of mobile app-based interventions to enhance medication adherence and improve glycemic control in T2DM; further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of these interventions.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.
