Chronic pain, the most common complication of diabetes, is treated with medication often to no avail. Our study aimed to compare the use of mindfulness meditation and progressive relaxation to reduce chronic pain in older females with diabetes. Methods The 105 study participants were divided randomly into 3 groups: Group MM (mindfulness meditation), Group CM (control meditation), and Group PM (progressive relaxation meditation). Assessment of analgesic effectiveness required changes in average daily pain Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) modified for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy and Patient Global Impression of Change using descriptive statistics, Student’s t test, and analysis of variance where applicable. Results Both Groups MM and PM experienced significant ( P < .05) reduction in average daily pain in last 24 hours at study end compared to baseline (28.7% and 39.7%, respectively). Group MM had more significant ( P < .01) reduction of pain compared to control, a score of 5.2 ± 1.2 dropped to 3.0 ± 1.1 by week 12 of treatment. Groups MM and PM showed significant improvement in patients’ impression at study end, 75 ± 5.1% (n = 36) and 61 ± 6.5% (n = 32), respectively. In Group MM, patient satisfaction scores increased significantly ( P < .05) to 3.8 ± 1.9 by week 12. Conclusion Integrative therapies such as mindfulness meditation can be part of a comprehensive pain management plan. Benefits include reduction of pain-related medication consumption, better treatment outcomes, improvement in comorbid conditions such as anxiety and depression as well as no risk of addiction or abuse.

Health literacy is how well the patients are able to attain, deal with, and understand basic health information. This is particularly important when it comes to comprehending prescribed medication instructions. To improve the communication strategies for health-care professionals during patient counseling, our study aimed to assess the influence of health literacy and medication adherence in older patients. The objectives of the study were to evaluate associations that occur between the level of health literacy and medication adherence. This study used a convenience sampling method of females (older than 60 years) attending the diabetic clinic in two hospital settings ( N = 524). All study participants filled three validated questionnaires: these were the Literacy Assessment for Diabetes, the Diabetes Numeracy Test, and a modified Brief Adherence Rating Scale. To assess the spectrum of health literacy differences, we used χ2 analysis and linear regression analysis. Individuals with adequate health literacy were more likely to remember to take their medications compared with those with inadequate health literacy, χ2(4) = 11.6, p = .04. Adequate literacy level study participants were more likely to not change the dose of their medications without medical advice (12.3%) compared with those individuals with inadequate health literacy (2.8%), χ2(4) = 11.13, p = .03. The results in our study suggest that health-care professionals should focus on appropriate communication attuned to the assessment of health literacy levels particularly in older female patients when discussing medication instructions.

The objectives of this article were to review the mechanism and clinical significance of statins-macrolides interaction, determine which combination has the highest risk for the interaction, and identify key patients’ risk factors for the interaction in relation to the development of muscle toxicity. A literature review was conducted in PubMed and Embase (1946 to December 2018) using combined terms: statins – as group and individual agents, macrolides – as group and individual agents, drug interaction, muscle toxicity, rhabdomyolysis, CYP3A4 inhibitors, and OAT1B inhibitors, with forward and backward citation tracking. Relevant English language in vivo studies in healthy volunteers, case reports, and population studies were included. The interaction between statins and macrolides depends on the type of statin and macrolide used. The mechanism of the interaction is due to macrolides' inhibition of CYP3A4 isoenzyme and OAT1B transporter causing increased exposure to statins. The correlation of this increased statin’s exposure to the development of muscle toxicity could not be established, unless the patient had other risk factors such as advanced age, cardiovascular diseases, renal impairment, diabetes, and the concomitant use of other CYP3A4 inhibitors. Simvastatin, lovastatin, and to lesser extent atorvastatin are the statins most affected by this interaction. Rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, and pravastatin are not significantly affected by this interaction. Telithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin are the most “offending” macrolides, while azithromycin appears to be safe to use with statins. This review presented a clear description of the clinical significance of this interaction in real practice. Also, it provided health care professionals with clear suggestions and recommendations on how to overcome this interaction. In conclusion, understanding the different characteristics of each statin and macrolide, as well as key patients’ risk factors, will enable health care providers to utilize both groups effectively without compromising patient safety.

No abstract

Aim To evaluate the safety issues and adverse effects of using TCHP regimen (docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab) versus TCP regimen (docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab) in older postmenopausal women with nonmetastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. HER2 overexpressed in 20–25% of breast cancer signals an aggressive form of breast cancer and is treated with trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Methods The patient record database was accessed to identify all postmenopausal women in the Punjab Care hospital who were above 65 years old, with stages 1–3 HER2-positive breast cancer and treated with neoadjuvant TCHP and neoadjuvant TCP from 2013 till 2016. Results In TCH-P group and TCH group, mild fatigue (34% versus 36%) and diarrhea (48% versus 49%) were most common toxicities. Fever in TCH-P group and TCH group (12% versus 13%) was common. Anorexia affected 21% and 16% of patients receiving TCH and TCHP regimen, respectively. Febrile neutropenia was higher in TCH-P group 13% (3/23) versus 4.5% (1/22) in TCH group. Also 27.2% (6/22) of TCH-P group was hospitalized for treatment related toxicities versus 21.7% (5/23) of TCH group. Conclusion Comparing neoadjuvant TCP and neoadjuvant TCH-P showed TCH-P regimen had an acceptable toxicity profile. Severe cardiac dysfunction was not observed. Using TCH-P regimen can be considered as relatively safe therapeutic option for elderly postmenopausal women with nonmetastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.