-
Drugs & Aging Feb 2023Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can lead to medication-related harm, and the older population is at greatest risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can lead to medication-related harm, and the older population is at greatest risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate DDI prevalence and identify common DDIs in older community-dwelling adults.
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE were searched for observational studies published between 01/01/2010 and 10/05/2021 reporting DDI prevalence in community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 65 years. Nursing home and inpatient hospital studies were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with logit transformation. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q and I. DDI prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. All analyses were performed in R (version 4.1.2).
RESULTS
There were 5144 unique articles identified. Thirty-three studies involving 17,011,291 community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 65 years met inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies reported DDI prevalence at the study-participant level, estimates ranged from 0.8% to 90.6%. The pooled DDI prevalence was 28.8% (95% CI 19.3-40.7), with significant heterogeneity (p < 0.10; I = 100%; tau = 2.13) largely explained by the different DDI identification methods. Therefore, 26 studies were qualitatively synthesised and seven studies were eligible for separate meta-analyses. In a meta-analysis of three studies (N = 1122) using Micromedex, pooled DDI prevalence was 57.8% (95% CI 52.2-63.2; I = 69.6%, p < 0.01). In a meta-analysis of two studies (N = 809,113) using Lexi-Interact, pooled DDI prevalence was 30.3% (95% CI 30.2-30.4; I = 6.8%). In a meta-analysis of two studies (N = 947) using the 2015 American Geriatrics Society Beers criteria, pooled DDI prevalence was 16.6% (95% CI 5.6-40.2; I = 97.5%, p < 0.01). Common DDIs frequently involved cardiovascular drugs, including ACE inhibitor-potassium-sparing diuretic; amiodarone-digoxin; and amiodarone-warfarin.
CONCLUSIONS
DDIs are prevalent among older community-dwelling individuals; however, the methodology used to estimate these events varies considerably. A standardised methodology is needed to allow meaningful measurement and comparison of DDI prevalence.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Independent Living; Prevalence; Drug Interactions; Nursing Homes; Skilled Nursing Facilities
PubMed: 36692678
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-022-01001-5 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2021The L. leaf is gaining interest as a potential therapeutic agent for alleviating dengue- and non-dengue-associated thrombocytopaenia. In that regard, safety... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The L. leaf is gaining interest as a potential therapeutic agent for alleviating dengue- and non-dengue-associated thrombocytopaenia. In that regard, safety considerations are as important as efficacy potential. The safety evaluation of botanical products for human use is complicated by variable formulations, complex phytochemical composition, and extrinsic toxicants. This review aimed to systematically collate related safety clinical and preclinical data, as well as reports on herb-drug interactions of leaf consumption.
METHODS
A systematic search using predetermined keywords on electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, and Web of Science) and grey literature was conducted. Relevant clinical and preclinical studies were identified, screened, and analysed to present an overall safety profile of leaf consumption.
RESULTS
A total of 41 articles were included (23 clinical, 5 ongoing trials, and 13 preclinical) for descriptive analysis on study characteristics, adverse reactions, toxicity findings, and herb-drug interactions, from which 13 randomised controlled and quasiexperimental trials were further assessed for risk of bias and reporting quality. Overall, leaf consumption (in the form of juice and standardised aqueous extract) was well tolerated by adult humans for short durations (
digoxin, ciprofloxacin, and artemisinin were accounted. CONCLUSION
leaf consumption in adults is generally safe for short-term use though cautioned in pregnancy and people with liver impairment. It has potential herb-drug interactions with oral hypoglycaemic agents, p-glycoprotein substrates, and antibiotics with cation chelating properties.
PubMed: 34040647
DOI: 10.1155/2021/5511221 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2019Heart failure is a major public health problem worldwide nowadays. However, the morbidity, mortality, and awareness of heart failure are not satisfied as well as the... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and Safety of Fuzi Formulae on the Treatment of Heart Failure as Complementary Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
Heart failure is a major public health problem worldwide nowadays. However, the morbidity, mortality, and awareness of heart failure are not satisfied as well as the status of current treatments. According to the standard treatment for chronic heart failure (CHFST), Fuzi (the seminal root of Debx.) formulae are widely used as a complementary treatment for heart failure in clinical practice for a long time. We are aiming to assess the efficacy and safety of Fuzi formulae (FZF) on the treatment of heart failure according to high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
RCTs in PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database were searched from their inception until June 2019. In addition, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (clinicaltrials.gov) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn) were also searched. We included RCTs that test the efficacy and safety of FZF for the treatment of heart failure, compared with placebo, CHFST, or placebo plus CHFST. The methodological quality of included studies were evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RCTs with Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) score ≥4 were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted through RevMan 5.2 software. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs with 1490 participants were identified. The studies investigated the efficacy and safety of FZF, such as FZF plus the CHFST vs placebo plus CHFST ( = 4), FZF plus CHFST vs CHFST ( = 6), FZF plus digoxin tablets (DT) plus CHFST vs placebo plus DT plus CHFST ( = 1), and FZF plus placebo plus CHFST vs placebo plus DT plus CHFST ( = 1). Meta-analysis indicated that FZF have additional benefits based on the CHFST in reducing plasma NT-proBNP level, MLHFQ scores, Lee's heart failure scores (LHFs), and composite cardiac events (CCEs). Meanwhile, it also improved the efficacy on TCM symptoms (TCMs), NYHA functional classification (NYHAfc), 6MWD, and LVEF. Adverse events were reported in 6 out of 12 studies without significant statistical difference. However, after assessing the strength of evidence, it was found that only the quality of evidence for CCEs was high, and the others were either moderate or low or very low. So we could not draw confirmative conclusions on its additional benefits except CCEs. Further clinical trials should be well designed to avoid the issues that were identified in this study.
CONCLUSION
The efficacy and additional benefits of FZF for CCEs were certain according to the high-quality evidence assessed through GRADE. However, the efficacy and additional benefits for the other outcomes were uncertain judging from current studies. In addition, the safety assessment has a great room for improvement. Thus, further research studies are needed to find more convincing proofs.
PubMed: 31949473
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9728957 -
Contraception: X 2020Clinicians have used feticidal agents prior to second trimester abortion for many years. Despite the widespread use of various agents to induce fetal demise, a...
UNLABELLED
Clinicians have used feticidal agents prior to second trimester abortion for many years. Despite the widespread use of various agents to induce fetal demise, a comprehensive or systematic review of the evidence is lacking on the safety, effectiveness, and most effective routes of administration.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the existing drugs and routes of administration used in inducing fetal demise prior to abortion, and to determine the safety, effectiveness, and acceptability of these feticidal agents.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, POPLINE, and Global Index Medicus to identify studies describing pharmacologic agents used to induce fetal demise prior to termination of pregnancy. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing digoxin, potassium chloride (KCL), and lidocaine to induce fetal demise. We included studies that evaluated the primary outcomes of safety and effectiveness, including success in achieving fetal demise, induction to expulsion time for medical abortion, dilation and evacuation time, as well as maternal side effects and complications. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full texts. One reviewer extracted data from the included studies, which was counterchecked by a second reviewer.
RESULTS
We identified eight studies that met inclusion criteria: three randomized controlled trials, and five observational studies. A total of 4505 women received drugs to induce fetal demise at 17 to 38 weeks' gestation, including digoxin ( = 4174), KCL ( = 324), and lidocaine ( = 7). Intra-fetal digoxin was superior to intra-amniotic digoxin in achieving fetal demise (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.60, 7.78). Intracardiac KCL 15% 2-3 mL reduced induction to expulsion time by 320 min (p <.006).Similarly, intracardiac KCL 15% 1-3 ml reduced dilation and evacuation time from 16.1 ± 7.9 min to 12.7 ± 5 min (p < 0.001). Intracardiac lidocaine 2% 10 mL was more effective at achieving fetal demise than intracardiac KCL 6 mmol (85.7% vs. 57.9%). Intra-amniotic and intra-fetal digoxin 1 mg, as compared to no feticidal agent, led to greater pre-procedure expulsion, hospital readmission, and the presence of one or more signs of infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from included cohort studies demonstrates that digoxin, KCL, and lidocaine are all effective in inducing fetal demise. Intra-fetal administration of digoxin is superior to intra-amniotic digoxin administration. Administration of feticide using intracardiac KCL may shorten the abortion experience. Limited data from observational studies also supports an increase in maternal side effects and/or complications related to the administration of digoxin.
IMPLICATIONS
Intra-fetal administration of digoxin is more effective in achieving fetal demise when compared to intra-amniotic administration. There is a knowledge gap in determining the single best drug for inducing fetal demise prior to abortion. Additional research is needed to compare different feticidal agents in terms of safety and effectiveness.
PubMed: 33294839
DOI: 10.1016/j.conx.2020.100046 -
European Journal of Heart Failure Apr 2021The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the effect of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy on health-related quality of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the effect of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
METHODS AND RESULTS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in June 2020. Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating contemporary HFrEF pharmacotherapy and reporting HRQoL as an outcome were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was HRQoL at last available follow-up analysed using a random-effects model. We included 37 studies from 5770 identified articles. Risk of bias was low in 10 trials and high/unclear in 27 trials. High certainty evidence from meta-analyses demonstrated improved HRQoL over placebo with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.23] and intravenous iron (SMD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04-1.00). Furthermore, high certainty evidence from ≥1 landmark trial further supported improved HRQoL with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.17), ivabradine (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.23), hydralazine-nitrate (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.04-0.44) vs. placebo, and for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.17). Findings were inconclusive for ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, digoxin, and oral iron based on low-to-moderate certainty evidence.
CONCLUSION
ARBs, ARNIs, SGLT2 inhibitors, ivabradine, hydralazine-nitrate, and intravenous iron improved HRQoL in patients with HFrEF. These findings can be incorporated into discussions with patients to enable shared decision-making.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Humans; Quality of Life; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 33634543
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.2141 -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Jun 2024Intravenous beta-blockers are commonly used to manage patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFl), but the choice of specific agent is often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of intravenous beta-blockers in acute atrial fibrillation and flutter is dependent on beta-1 selectivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.
BACKGROUND
Intravenous beta-blockers are commonly used to manage patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFl), but the choice of specific agent is often not evidence-based.
METHODS
A prospectively-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (PROSPERO: CRD42020204772) to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous beta-blockers against alternative pharmacological agents.
RESULTS
Twelve trials comparing beta-blockers with diltiazem, digoxin, verapamil, anti-arrhythmic drugs and placebo were included, with variable risk of bias and 1152 participants. With high heterogeneity (I = 87%; p < 0.001), there was no difference in the primary outcomes of heart rate reduction (standardised mean difference - 0.65 beats/minute compared to control, 95% CI - 1.63 to 0.32; p = 0.19) or the proportion that achieved target heart rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-1.97; p = 0.70). Conventional selective beta-1 blockers were inferior for target heart rate reduction versus control (RR 0.33, 0.17-0.64; p < 0.001), whereas super-selective beta-1 blockers were superior (RR 1.98, 1.54-2.54; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between beta-blockers and comparators for secondary outcomes of conversion to sinus rhythm (RR 1.15, 0.90-1.46; p = 0.28), hypotension (RR 1.85, 0.87-3.93; p = 0.11), bradycardia (RR 1.29, 0.25-6.82; p = 0.76) or adverse events leading to drug discontinuation (RR 1.03, 0.49-2.17; p = 0.93). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were greater with non-selective beta-blockers (p = 0.031 and p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Across all intravenous beta-blockers, there was no difference with other medications for acute heart rate control in atrial fibrillation and flutter. Efficacy and safety may be improved by choosing beta-blockers with higher beta-1 selectivity.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Heart Rate; Treatment Outcome; Acute Disease; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Administration, Intravenous; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
PubMed: 37658166
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-023-02295-0 -
Drugs & Aging Aug 2022Frailty is highly prevalent in heart failure populations and a major risk factor for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and adverse drug events (ADEs). This review aimed to...
INTRODUCTION
Frailty is highly prevalent in heart failure populations and a major risk factor for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and adverse drug events (ADEs). This review aimed to describe the prevalence, causality and severity of ADRs or ADEs from heart failure medications among frail compared with non-frail older adults.
METHODS
A systematic search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Ageline, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsychInfo, Scopus, registries and citations prior to 18 May 2021 was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of people diagnosed with heart failure, aged ≥ 65 years, with frailty defined by an objective measurement, and reported ADRs/ADEs from/with heart failure medications.
RESULTS
Two reviewers screened 2419 articles; interrater reliability kappa = 0.88. Three observational studies (n = 2596), a secondary analysis of two RCTs (n = 2098) and two cohort studies (n = 498) were included in a narrative synthesis. Frail patients in randomised trials of sacubitril/valsartan, aliskiren, or enalapril had twice the risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2.09, 1.62-2.71) and hospitalisations (HR 1.82, 1.37-2.41) compared with robust patients, which may reflect responsiveness to medications and/or factors unrelated to medication use. Hospitalisations from falls, tiredness and nausea were probably attributable to digoxin and possibly preventable according to the Naranjo and Hallas scales, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The potential harms from heart failure medications in frail older people are poorly studied and understood. Clinical trials and pharmacovigilance studies should include frailty as a covariate to inform medication optimisation for this vulnerable and growing population.
REGISTRATION
Prospero registration number: CRD 42021253762.
Topics: Aged; Aminobutyrates; Biphenyl Compounds; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Frailty; Heart Failure; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Prevalence
PubMed: 35761118
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-022-00957-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Antidiuretic Hormone Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 32103487
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012466.pub2 -
Exploratory Research in Clinical and... Jun 2024High-alert medication (HAM) is more predictable to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. The damage related to the HAM lead not only... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
High-alert medication (HAM) is more predictable to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. The damage related to the HAM lead not only suffering to the patient, but also raise the additional costs associated with care.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the incidence of drug-related adverse events related to the use of high-alert medications.
METHODS
It was conducted an active search for information through COCHRANE databases, LILACS, SciELO, SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE and WEB OF SCIENCE. The search strategy included the following terms: "Patient safety", "Medication errors" and "Hospital" and "High Alert Medications" or "Dangerous Drugs" in different combinations. Then two reviewers independently conducted a preliminary evaluation of relevant titles, abstracts and finally full-text. Studies quality was evaluated according to PRISMA declaration.
RESULTS
The systematic review evaluated seven articles, which showed that only 11 HAM identified in the literature could have serious events. The most frequently cited were warfarin (22.2%) which progressed from deep vein thrombosis to gangrene, suggesting lower initial doses, followed by cyclophosphamide (22.2%) and cyclosporine (22.2%) which presented invasive fungal infection and death. In addition to these, morphine was compared with its active metabolite (M6G), with M6G causing fewer serious clinical events related to nausea and vomiting, reducing the need for concomitant use of antiemetics.
CONCLUSIONS
The most reported drug classes in the articles included that were related to incidence of drug-related adverse events in use of high-alert medications: morphine, M6G-glucuronide, haloperidol, promethazine, ivabradine, digoxin, warfarin, ximelagatran, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, and ATG. The formulate protocols for the use of these medications, with importance placed on evaluating, among the classes, the medication that causes the least harm.
PubMed: 38646469
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100435