Objectives: Not all practice guidelines on oral treatment of Type 2 diabetes were consistent with available evidences. Our aim was to explore the necessity of following the new clinical evidences in treatment of diabetes mellitus Type 2 in clinical practice and the availability of randomized controlled trials in literature used.
Methods: Cross-sectional interview survey of 20 physicians in the Internal Medicine Departments in Althawra Teaching Hospital, University of Sana'a, Yemen, to understand the drug used in T2DM in regards to the clinically evidenced trials. The three commonly used literatures were studied for the availability of randomized controlled trials s and the systematic reviews.
Results: Examples of drugs to be considered in special correlation and contradiction were metformin and thiazolidinediones (rosi-, pioglitazone). Fear of lactic acidosis was seen in 45% of physicians. Ischemic Heart disease and failure represent the commonest cause of glitazones avoidance, especially for rosiglitazone (100% vs. 50% for pioglitazone).
Example of drugs used were with no agreements of their benefit are gabapentin (35%) and neurobion (30%) for neuropathy prevention. In the side effect consideration, metformin was still considered dangerous, and B-blockers hesitation in ischemic heart disease prevention.
The main source of information used by physicians was Davidson's Medicine, British national formulary and pharmaceutical marketing leaflets.
Conclusions: Inconsistency between the tested physicians may be improved by better access and implementation of evidence-based therapy and guidelines in T2DM.
Lessons Learnt from Recent Trials in Ischemic Heart Disease
