Advance Care Planning (ACP) was introduced as part of patient care in the acute hospitals in Singapore in 2010, and has been gaining traction among hospital providers and their patients. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) hopes to strengthen ACP training and awareness in the social and community care sectors. Primary care physicians play an important role to introduce ACP, provide relevant information based on patients health status, and offer advice, encouragement and guidance to enhance understanding, reflection and discussion. They can help patients and their loved ones identify issues in coping with chronic diseases or possible life-threatening conditions. When done well, ACP can uphold the respect and dignity of patients and allow for patient-centric care continuation. ACP conversation often begins by listening and exploring the patients story. Physicians should be attuned to their patients fears, worries and concerns, and identify triggers for opportunistic discussions about ACP with them. With adequate ACP and communication training, primary care physicians are probably best placed for timely ACP initiation.

INTRODUCTIONThe survival and epidemiology of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in Singapore has not been described. We aim to present the characteristics as well as determine the survival outcome and important prognostic factors for SCLC patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODSA retrospective analysis of SCLC patients diagnosed from 1999 to 2002 was conducted at the Outram campus, Singapore. Clinical characteristics and treatment data were obtained from case records and survival data were checked with the registry of births and deaths on 30 May 2005.

RESULTSOne hundred and eleven patients were analysed. There were 38 (34.2%) limited-disease (LD) patients and 73 (65.8%) extensive-disease (ED) patients. The majority were current or former smokers (94.7% among LD and 94.5% among ED). More patients with LD had good performance status (92% versus 63%, P = 0.0003) and were treated with combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (82% versus 48%, P = 0.012). The median survival time of LD patients treated with curative chemoradiotherapy was 14.2 months (95% CI, 10.96 to 17.44). Those given prophylactic cranial irradiation had a median survival time of 16.9 months (95% CI, 11.83 to 21.97). For ED patients, the median survival time was 8.17 months (95%CI, 5.44 to 10.89). None of the factors analysed were significant prognostic factors for LD patients while performance status and type of treatment given were significant among ED patients.

CONCLUSIONSWe found that the characteristics and survival of SCLC patients in Singapore are fairly similar to that of other countries.

Aged ; Carcinoma, Small Cell ; mortality ; therapy ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Female ; Humans ; Lung Neoplasms ; mortality ; therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Singapore ; epidemiology

Aim: This study is conducted to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of two fixed dose combination of metformin/glibenclamide tablets (500mg/5 mg per tablet). Materials and Methods: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2- period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. All 28 adult male subjects were required to fast for at least 10 hours prior to drug administration and they were given access to water ad libitum during this period. Thirty minutes prior to dosing, all subjects were served with a standardized high-fat and high-calorie breakfast with a total calorie of 1000 kcal which was in accordance to the EMA Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Subsequently, subjects were administered either the test or reference preparation with 240mL of plain water in the first trial period. During the second trial period, they received the alternate preparation. Plasma levels of glibenclamide and metformin were analysed separately using two different high performance liquid chromatography methods. Results: The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax of the test preparation over those of the reference preparation were 0.9693–1.0739, 0.9598– 1.0561 and 0.9220 – 1.0642 respectively. Throughout the study period, no serious drug reaction was observed. However, a total of 26 adverse events (AE)/side effects were reported, including 24 that were definitely related to the study drugs, namely giddiness (n=17), while diarrheoa (n=3), headache (n=2) and excessive hunger (n=2) were less commonly reported by the subjects. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the test preparation is bioequivalent to the reference preparation.