Impact of a community-based exercise programme on physical fitness in middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes

Objectives: Physical fitness is related to all-cause mortality, quality of life and risk of falls in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to analyse the impact of a long-term community-based combined exercise program (aerobic + resistance + agility/balance + flexibility) developed with minimum and low-cost material resources on physical fitness in middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: This was a non-experimental pre-post evaluation study. Participants (N = 43; 62.92 ± 5.92 years old) were engaged in a community-based supervised exercise programme (consisting of combined aerobic, resistance, agility/balance and flexibility exercises; three sessions per week; 70 min per session) of 9 months' duration. Aerobic fitness (6-Minute Walk Test), muscle strength (30-Second Chair Stand Test), agility/balance (Timed Up and Go Test) and flexibility (Chair Sit and Reach Test) were assessed before (baseline) and after the exercise intervention. Results: Significant improvements in the performance of the 6-Minute Walk Test (Δ = 8.20%, p < 0.001), 30-Second Chair Stand Test (Δ = 28.84%, p < 0.001), Timed Up and Go Test (Δ = 14.31%, p < 0.001), and Chair Sit and Reach Test (Δ = 102.90%, p < 0.001) were identified between baseline and end-exercise intervention time points. Conclusions: A long-term community-based combined exercise programme, developed with low-cost exercise strategies, produced significant benefits in physical fitness in middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes. This supervised group exercise programme significantly improved aerobic fitness, muscle strength, agility/balance and flexibility, assessed with field tests in community settings.

Beers versus STOPP criteria in polyharmacy community-dwelling older patients

Objective: To assess potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) using Beers (2012 version) and STOPP (2008 version) criteria in polypharmacy, community-dwelling, older patients. Methods: From the information collected in the invoicing data of the prescriptions and the electronic medical records, a sample was selected of 223 ≥ 65-year-old patients who were taking simultaneously 10 or more drugs per day. Beers and STOPP criteria were separately applied, and the results obtained with the two methods were compared. Results: A total of 141 (63.2%) patients presented at least one Beers criterion. The two most frequently observed Beers criteria independent of diagnosis were the use of benzodiazepines and the use of non-COX-2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. With regard to Beers criteria considering diagnosis, the most frequent were the use of anticholinergic drugs in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms or benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the use of benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, Zolpidem or H2-antihistamines, in patients with dementia or cognitive impairment. A total of 165 (73.9%) patients had at least one PIP according to the STOPP criteria. Duplicate drug classes and long-term use of long-acting benzodiazepines were the two most frequent STOPP criteria. Discussion: Our study identified a high frequency of PIP in poly-medicated community-dwelling older patients. Simultaneous application of Beers and STOPP criteria represents a useful tool to improve prescribing in this population group.

Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients

Objective: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. Method: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. Results: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. Conclusions: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.