OBJECTIVE: The present study tested the effectiveness of an integrated social cognition model in predicting intention to participate in the self-management behaviors in FH patients from seven countries.
METHOD: Consecutive patients in FH clinics from Australia, Hong Kong, Brazil, Malaysia, Taiwan, China, and UK (total N = 726) completed measures of social cognitive beliefs about illness from the common sense model of self-regulation, beliefs about behaviors from the theory of planned behavior, and past behavior for the three self-management behaviors.
RESULTS: Structural equation models indicated that beliefs about behaviors from the theory of planned behavior, namely, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, were consistent predictors of intention across samples and behaviors. By comparison, effects of beliefs about illness from the common sense model were smaller and trivial in size. Beliefs partially mediated past behavior effects on intention, although indirect effects of past behavior on intention were larger for physical activity relative to taking medication and healthy eating. Model constructs did not fully account for past behavior effects on intentions. Variability in the strength of the beliefs about behaviors was observed across samples and behaviors.
CONCLUSION: Current findings outline the importance of beliefs about behaviors as predictors of FH self-management behaviors. Variability in the relative contribution of the beliefs across samples and behaviors highlights the imperative of identifying sample- and behavior-specific correlates of FH self-management behaviors.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: The D. siamensis monovalent antivenom displayed extensive recognition and binding to proteins found in D. siamensis venom, irrespective of the geographical origin of those venoms. Similar immunological characteristics were observed with the Hemato Polyvalent antivenom, which also uses D. siamensis venom as an immunogen, but binding levels were dramatically reduced when using comparator monovalent antivenoms manufactured against different snake species. A similar pattern was observed when investigating neutralization of coagulopathy, with the procoagulant action of all four geographical venom variants neutralized by both the D. siamensis monovalent and the Hemato Polyvalent antivenoms, while the comparator monovalent antivenoms were ineffective. These in vitro findings translated into therapeutic efficacy in vivo, as the D. siamensis monovalent antivenom was found to effectively protect against the lethal effects of all four geographical venom variants preclinically. Assessments of in vivo nephrotoxicity revealed that D. siamensis venom (700 μg/kg) significantly increased plasma creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels in anaesthetised rats. The intravenous administration of D. siamensis monovalent antivenom at three times higher than the recommended scaled therapeutic dose, prior to and 1 h after the injection of venom, resulted in reduced levels of markers of nephrotoxicity and prevented renal morphological changes, although lower doses had no therapeutic effect.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights the potential broad geographical utility of the Thai D. siamensis monovalent antivenom for treating envenomings by the Eastern Russell's viper. However, only the early delivery of high antivenom doses appears to be capable of preventing venom-induced nephrotoxicity.
Objective: To examine the effects of a quality improvement intervention comprising information and communications technology and contact with nonphysician personnel on the care and cardiometabolic risk factors of patients with type 2 diabetes in 8 Asia-Pacific countries.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-month multinational open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 28, 2012, to April 28, 2016, at 50 primary care or hospital-based diabetes centers in 8 Asia-Pacific countries (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam). Six countries were low and middle income, and 2 countries were high income. The study was conducted in 2 phases; phase 1 enrolled 7537 participants, and phase 2 enrolled 13 297 participants. Participants in both phases were randomized on a 1:1 ratio to intervention or control groups. Data were analyzed by intention to treat and per protocol from July 3, 2019, to July 21, 2020.
Interventions: In both phases, the intervention group received 3 care components: a nurse-led Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) technology-guided structured evaluation, automated personalized reports to encourage patient empowerment, and 2 or more telephone or face-to-face contacts by nurses to increase patient engagement. In phase 1, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation and automated personalized reports. In phase 2, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation only.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of diabetes-associated end points, including cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, visual impairment or eye surgery, lower extremity amputation or foot ulcers requiring hospitalization, all-site cancers, and death. The secondary outcomes were the attainment of 2 or more primary diabetes-associated targets (glycated hemoglobin A1c <7.0%, blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL) and/or 2 or more key performance indices (reduction in glycated hemoglobin A1c≥0.5%, reduction in systolic blood pressure ≥5 mm Hg, reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥19 mg/dL, and reduction in body weight ≥3.0%).
Results: A total of 20 834 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized in phases 1 and 2. In phase 1, 7537 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [11.3] years; 3914 men [51.9%]; 4855 patients [64.4%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 3732 patients allocated to the intervention group and 3805 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 2, 13 297 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [11.1] years; 7754 men [58.3%]; 13 297 patients [100%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 6645 patients allocated to the intervention group and 6652 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 1, compared with the control group, the intervention group had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74-1.21) but had an increased likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.21-1.49) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.34). In phase 2, the intervention group also had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25) and had a greater likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.14-1.37) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.68) compared with the control group. For attainment of 2 or more primary targets, larger effects were observed among patients in low- and middle-income countries (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29-1.74) compared with high-income countries (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39) (P = .04).
Conclusions and Relevance: In this 12-month clinical trial, the use of information and communications technology and nurses to empower and engage patients did not change the number of clinical events but did reduce cardiometabolic risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those in low- and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01631084.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 6 weeks with lurasidone, 20-60 mg/day (n = 184) or 80-120 mg/day (n = 169), or placebo (n = 172). The primary end-point was change from baseline to Week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).
RESULTS: Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores from baseline to Week 6 for the 20-60-mg/day group (-13.6; adjusted P = 0.007; effect size = 0.33), but not for the 80-120-mg/day group (-12.6; adjusted P = 0.057; effect size = 0.22) compared with placebo (-10.6). Treatment with lurasidone 20-60 mg/day also improved MADRS response rates, functional impairment, and anxiety symptoms. The most common adverse events associated with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Lurasidone treatments were associated with minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with once daily doses of lurasidone 20-60 mg, but not 80-120 mg, significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved functioning in patients with bipolar I depression. Results overall were consistent with previous studies, suggesting that lurasidone 20-60 mg/day is effective and safe in diverse ethnic populations, including Japanese.