Patients' perceptions and experiences of taking oral glucose-lowering agents: a longitudinal qualitative study

Aims The aims of this study were to examine Type 2 diabetic patients' expectations, perceptions and experiences of oral glucose-lowering agents (OGLAs), including their reasons for taking/not taking these drugs as prescribed and to provide recommendations for developing interventions to improve OGLA adherence. Methods Longitudinal, qualitative study using repeat in-depth interviews with patients (n = 20) over 4 years following clinical diagnosis. Respondents were recruited from primary and secondary care settings across Lothian, Scotland, UK. Results Despite experiences of side-effects, dislikes and concerns about taking multiple drugs and a belief that OGLAs could themselves cause one's diabetes to progress, most respondents appeared motivated to take these drugs as prescribed. This motivation seemed to arise from respondents' experiences of taking OGLAs and observing them to 'work'. Some respondents described feeling better after taking OGLAs, others, typically those who were asymptomatic, used blood glucose self-monitoring and/or glycated haemoglobin results to observe and evidence the effects of their OGLAs. Most respondents demonstrated a 'passive' expectation that health professionals should be responsible for decisions about medications. Hence, non-adherence typically resulted from forgetfulness rather than ambivalence about either medication or consultation style. Respondent concern about OGLA's largely centred upon lack of knowledge about the medication and what to do when doses were missed. Conclusion The findings call for multifaceted strategies to promote adherence. These could include education to address misconceptions and advise patients how to respond to missed doses; reminders to help patients remember to take their drugs; and structured feedback on the impact of OGLAs on glycaemic control.

Solid oral forms availability in children:a cost saving investigation

AIM: To assess the suitability and potential cost savings, from both the hospital and community perspective, of prescribed oral liquid medicine substitution with acceptable solid forms for children over 2 years. METHOD: Oral liquid medicines dispensed from a paediatric hospital (UK) in 1 week were assessed by screening for existence of the solid form alternative and evaluating the acceptability of the available solid form, firstly related to the prescribed dose and secondly to acceptable size depending on the child's age. Costs were calculated based on providing treatment for 28 days or prescribed duration for short term treatments. RESULTS: Over 90% (440/476) of liquid formulations were available as a marketed solid form. Considering dosage acceptability (maximum of 10% deviation from prescribed dosage or 0% for narrow therapeutic range drugs, maximum tablet divisions into quarters) 80% of liquids could be substituted with a solid form. The main limitation for liquid substitution would be solid form size. However, two-thirds of prescribed liquids could have been substituted with a suitable solid form for dosage and size, with estimated savings being of 5K and 8K in 1 week, respectively based on hospital and community costs, corresponding to a projected annual saving of 238K and 410K (single institution). CONCLUSION: Whilst not all children over 2 years will be able to swallow tablets, drug cost savings if oral liquid formulations were substituted with suitable solid dosage forms would be considerable. Given the numerous advantages of solid forms compared with liquids, this study may provide a theoretical basis for investing in supporting children to swallow tablets/capsules.