-
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Oct 2023Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as risk factors for opioid overdose; however, the magnitude of these associations and their credibility are unclear. We sought to identify predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose from prescription opioids.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to Oct. 30, 2022, for observational studies that explored predictors of opioid overdose after their prescription for chronic pain. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for all predictors reported by 2 or more studies using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies (23 963 716 patients) reported the association of 103 predictors with fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose. Moderate- to high-certainty evidence supported large relative associations with history of overdose (OR 5.85, 95% CI 3.78-9.04), higher opioid dose (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment), 3 or more prescribers (OR 4.68, 95% CI 3.57-6.12), 4 or more dispensing pharmacies (OR 4.92, 95% CI 4.35-5.57), prescription of fentanyl (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.30-3.41), current substance use disorder (OR 2.62, 95% CI 2.09-3.27), any mental health diagnosis (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.73-2.61), depression (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.57-3.14), bipolar disorder (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.77-2.41) or pancreatitis (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.52-2.64), with absolute risks among patients with the predictor ranging from 2-6 per 1000 for fatal overdose and 4-12 per 1000 for nonfatal overdose.
INTERPRETATION
We identified 10 predictors that were strongly associated with opioid overdose. Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and inform harm-reduction strategies SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vznxj/).
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Drug Overdose; Opiate Overdose; Prescriptions; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37871953
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.230459 -
BMC Public Health Sep 2023Social determinants of health are drivers of vaccine inequity and lead to higher risks of complications from infectious diseases in under vaccinated communities. In many... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Social determinants of health are drivers of vaccine inequity and lead to higher risks of complications from infectious diseases in under vaccinated communities. In many countries, pharmacists have gained the rights to prescribe and administer vaccines, which contributes to improving vaccination rates. However, little is known on how they define and target vulnerable communities.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to describe how vulnerable communities are targeted in community pharmacies.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the Embase and MEDLINE database in August 2021 inspired by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols (PRISMA ScR). Articles in English, French or Spanish addressing any vaccine in a community pharmacy context and that target a population defined as vulnerable were screened for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of 1039 articles were identified through the initial search, and 63 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of the literature originated from North America (n = 54, 86%) and addressed influenza (n = 29, 46%), pneumococcal (n = 14, 22%), herpes zoster (n = 14, 22%) or human papilloma virus vaccination (n = 14, 22%). Lifecycle vulnerabilities (n = 48, 76%) such as age and pregnancy were most often used to target vulnerable patients followed by clinical factors (n = 18, 29%), socio-economical determinants (n = 16, 25%) and geographical vulnerabilities (n = 7, 11%). The most frequently listed strategy was providing a strong recommendation for vaccination, promotional posters in pharmacy, distributing leaflet/bag stuffers and providing staff training. A total of 24 barriers and 25 facilitators were identified. The main barriers associated to each vulnerable category were associated to effective promotional strategies to overcome them.
CONCLUSION
Pharmacists prioritize lifecycle and clinical vulnerability at the expense of narrowing down the definition of vulnerability. Some vulnerable groups are also under targeted in pharmacies. A wide variety of promotional strategies are available to pharmacies to overcome the specific barriers experienced by various groups.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Pharmacies; Vaccination; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Influenza Vaccines; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37741997
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16601-y -
Drugs & Aging Nov 2023We previously reported that interventions to optimize medication use reduced adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by 21% and serious ADRs by 36% in older adults. With new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We previously reported that interventions to optimize medication use reduced adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by 21% and serious ADRs by 36% in older adults. With new evidence, we sought to update the systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHOD
We searched OVID, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar from 30 April 2017-30 April 2023. Included studies had to be randomized controlled trials of older adults (mean age ≥65 years) taking medications that examined the outcome of ADRs. Two authors independently reviewed all citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed studies for potential bias. The outcomes were any and serious ADRs. We performed subgroup analyses by intervention type and setting. Random-effects models were used to combine the results from multiple studies and create summary estimates.
RESULTS
Six studies are new to the update, resulting in 19 total studies (15,675 participants). Interventions were pharmacist-led (10 studies), other healthcare professional-led (5 studies), technology based (3 studies), and educational (1 study). The interventions were implemented in various clinical settings, including hospitals, outpatient clinics, long-term care facilities/rehabilitation wards, and community pharmacies. In the pooled analysis, the intervention group participants were 19% less likely to experience an ADR (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.96) and 32% less likely to experience a serious ADR (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96). We also found that pharmacist-led interventions reduced the risk of any ADR by 35%, compared with 8% for other types of interventions.
CONCLUSION
Interventions significantly and substantially reduced the risk of ADRs and serious ADRs in older adults. Future research should examine whether effectiveness of interventions vary across health care settings to identify those most likely to benefit. Implementation of successful interventions in health care systems may improve medication safety in older patients.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37702981
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-023-01064-y -
Infection Control and Hospital... Feb 2024To systematically review the methodology, performance, and generalizability of diagnostic models for predicting the risk of healthcare-facility-onset (HO) infection...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the methodology, performance, and generalizability of diagnostic models for predicting the risk of healthcare-facility-onset (HO) infection (CDI) in adult hospital inpatients (aged ≥18 years).
BACKGROUND
CDI is the most common cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea. Prediction models that identify inpatients at risk of HO-CDI have been published; however, the quality and utility of these models remain uncertain.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers evaluated articles describing the development and/or validation of multivariable HO-CDI diagnostic models in an inpatient setting. All publication dates, languages, and study designs were considered. Model details (eg, sample size and source, outcome, and performance) were extracted from the selected studies based on the CHARMS checklist. The risk of bias was further assessed using PROBAST.
RESULTS
Of the 3,030 records evaluated, 11 were eligible for final analysis, which described 12 diagnostic models. Most studies clearly identified the predictors and outcomes but did not report how missing data were handled. The most frequent predictors across all models were advanced age, receipt of high-risk antibiotics, history of hospitalization, and history of CDI. All studies reported the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) as a measure of discriminatory ability. However, only 3 studies reported the model calibration results, and only 2 studies were externally validated. All of the studies had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
The studies varied in their ability to predict the risk of HO-CDI. Future models will benefit from the validation on a prospective external cohort to maximize external validity.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridioides; Prospective Studies; Clostridium Infections; Inpatients; Retrospective Studies; Cross Infection
PubMed: 37665104
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2023.185 -
Cureus Jul 2023The ageing population is increasingly using self-medication due to comorbidities. Most people who self-medicate use over-the-counter (OTC) medications bought from... (Review)
Review
The ageing population is increasingly using self-medication due to comorbidities. Most people who self-medicate use over-the-counter (OTC) medications bought from private pharmacies as their primary source of medicine. The use of self-medication may lead to an increased risk of unfavourable health outcomes. People over the age of 65 are more vulnerable to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Our article aims to gain insights into self-medication in the geriatric population. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) via Google Scholar and PubMed databases. The PubMed search technique was customised for each database and was as follows: (self-medication (Title/Abstract)) AND (geriatric (Title/Abstract) OR elderly (Title/Abstract) OR old (Title/Abstract)). Also, we used other databases like the World Health Organization (WHO), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare(MOHFW) under the Government of India, etc. The keywords used for the search strategy were 'over-the-counter drugs', adverse drug reactions', self-prescribed drugs', and non-prescription drugs'. Articles that were not relevant to the review topic are excluded. Through our review, we found that most geriatric people use self-medication because of their previous experience with that medication, a lack of seriousness regarding the consequences of using OTC medications, and suggestions from family members, friends, or neighbours. Abdominal pain, headache, cough, joint pain, and fever are the conditions for which the geriatric age group mainly uses self-medication. The primary source of self-medication is directly from the pharmacy, and the most commonly consumed drug for self-medication is analgesics. Most people know about the risks associated with self-medication. However, people continue to participate in this risky self-medication behaviour to get quick relief from a mild illness. This issue can be resolved by providing such a group with free consultations or medical insurance. Pharmacists' role in self-medication is also important. Counselling regarding the hazards of self-medication and selling the drugs to consumers without a doctor's prescription must be avoided.
PubMed: 37609089
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42282 -
American Journal of Infection Control Jan 2024Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) guidelines advocate for the use of antibiograms (cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility test data) as a tool to guide empirical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) guidelines advocate for the use of antibiograms (cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility test data) as a tool to guide empirical antibiotic prescribing and inform local treatment guidelines. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiograms as an intervention to optimize antimicrobial prescribing and patient outcomes.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and International Pharmacy Abstracts (IPA) databases were searched from inception until September 2022, to identify studies of antibiogram-related interventions in all health care settings. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
Of the 37 included studies, the majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n = 25) and in hospital settings (n = 27). All interventions were multifaceted and in 26 (70%) studies, facility-specific antibiograms could be considered as an integral component of the interventions. A positive impact on antibiotic consumption trends (17 studies), appropriateness of prescribing (16 studies), and cost of treatment (6 studies) was found, with minimal evidence for improvement in mortality, hospitalization, and resistance profiles. Due to the heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, a meta-analysis was not performed.
CONCLUSIONS
AMS interventions including antibiograms may improve antibiotic use, appropriateness, and costs. Multifaceted interventions were often used, which precludes drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of antibiograms alone as an AMS tool.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Hospitals; Hospitalization; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 37604208
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2023.08.013 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Nov 2023The field of pharmacogenomics is rapidly advancing, but its adoption and implementation remain slow and lacking. Lack of pharmacogenomics knowledge among healthcare... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The field of pharmacogenomics is rapidly advancing, but its adoption and implementation remain slow and lacking. Lack of pharmacogenomics knowledge among healthcare professionals is the most frequently cited barrier to adopting and implementing pharmacogenomics in clinical settings.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to critically evaluate and determine the effectiveness of educational interventions in improving pharmacogenomics knowledge and practice.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO. Studies on pharmacogenomics educational interventions for health care professionals and students with pre- and post-intervention assessments and results were included. No restrictions were placed on time, language, or educational contexts. The educational outcomes measured include both objective and subjective outcomes. The pharmacogenomics competency domains used to judge educational interventions are based on the competency domains listed by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacies (AACP). The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health was used for the quality assessment of pre-post studies with no control group and the controlled intervention studies. No meta-analysis was conducted; the data were synthesized qualitatively. The systematic review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
Fifty studies were included in this review. All included studies integrated the AACP pharmacogenomics competency domains into their educational interventions. Most of the studies had educational interventions that integrated clinical cases (n = 44; 88%). Knowledge was the most frequently evaluated outcome (n = 34; 68%) and demonstrated significant improvement after the educational intervention that integrated AACP pharmacogenomics competency domains and employed active learning with clinical case inclusion.
CONCLUSION
This review provided evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions in improving pharmacogenomics knowledge and practice. Incorporating pharmacogenomics competency domains into education and training, with patient cases for healthcare professionals and students, dramatically improved their pharmacogenomics knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in practice.
Topics: Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Students; Health Personnel; Educational Status; Delivery of Health Care
PubMed: 37586945
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.07.012 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023Since the COVID-19 pandemic, self-medication had become highly popular due to the risk of virus infection and overwhelming medical resources. Pharmacists are...
INTRODUCTION
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, self-medication had become highly popular due to the risk of virus infection and overwhelming medical resources. Pharmacists are well-positioned to provide public health education and disease prevention. This study aims to provide an overview of the research about self-medication during COVID-19 and the role of pharmacists in ensuring the drug safety related to self-medication.
METHODS
Databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, EBSCO host, and Web of Science) were searched for published studies on the practice of self-medication in COVID-19 pandemic without restriction in population and location. Primary search terms were "self-medication," "self-care," "self-management," "non-prescription drugs," "2019nCoV," and "COVID-19." Studies conducted during the pandemic but not exclusively for COVID-19 disease were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
The database search yielded a total of 4,752 papers. After appropriate screening, 62 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were cross-sectional in nature. The review highlighted a very high prevalence of self-medication during COVID-19, ranging from 7.14 to 88.3%. The purpose of self-medication was mainly to treat and prevent COVID-19; fever, body aches, cough, headache, and sore throat were the most frequently mentioned indications. Categories of drugs commonly used in self-medication included antibiotics, herbs, vitamins, and analgesics, most of which came from pharmacies. Information about self-medication usually obtained from relatives and friends, social networks and health care professionals. Common reasons for self-medication included saving money and time, prior experience and mild illness; reasons associated with COVID-19 were mainly fear of contracting the virus and poor access to doctors. Gender, age, education, marital status, and concern about COVID-19 were the most usual associated factors. The role of pharmacists in self-medication included sources of information, advice on medication use, and management of adverse reactions.
CONCLUSION
During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-medication practices were widespread and varied across countries and populations. Self-medication has emerged as an important component of health care, but also as a huge global challenge. The engagement of healthcare administrators and policy makers are essential to regulate self-medication practices. The expertise and favorable conditions of pharmacists make them positioned as key roles in public health interventions for self-medication.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=395423, identifier CRD42023395423.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Public Health; Pandemics; Pharmacies; Pharmacy
PubMed: 37397709
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1184882 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has prompted the exploration of new response strategies for such health contingencies in the near future. Over the last 15 years,...
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has prompted the exploration of new response strategies for such health contingencies in the near future. Over the last 15 years, several pharmacy-based immunization (PBI) strategies have emerged seeking to exploit the potential of pharmacies as immunization, medication sale, and rapid test centers. However, the participation of pharmacies during the last pandemic was very uneven from one country to another, suggesting a lack of consensus on the definition of their roles and gaps between the literature and practice.
PURPOSE
This study aimed to consolidate the current state of the literature on PBI, document its progress over time, and identify the gaps not yet addressed. Moreover, this study seeks to (i) provide new researchers with an overview of the studies on PBI and (ii) to inform both public health and private organization managers on the range of possible immunization models and strategies.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic review of scientific qualitative and quantitative studies on the most important scientific databases was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes guidelines were followed. Finally, this study discusses the trends, challenges, and limitations on the existing literature on PBI.
FINDINGS
Must studies concluded that PBI is a beneficial strategy for the population, particularly in terms of accessibility and territorial equity. However, the effectiveness of PBI is affected by the economic, political, and/or social context of the region. The collaboration between the public (government and health departments) and private (various pharmacy chains) sectors contributes to PBI's success.
ORIGINALITY
Unlike previous literature reviews on PBI that compiled qualitative and statistical studies, this study reviewed studies proposing mathematical optimization methods to approach PBI.
Topics: Humans; Pharmacies; COVID-19; Immunization; Vaccination; Pharmacy
PubMed: 37124782
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1152556 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Feb 2023: With the increased prevalence of patients with cancer, the demand for preparing cytotoxic drugs was increased by health-system pharmacists. To reduce the workload and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: With the increased prevalence of patients with cancer, the demand for preparing cytotoxic drugs was increased by health-system pharmacists. To reduce the workload and contamination of work areas in pharmacies, compounding robots preparing cytotoxic drugs have been introduced, and the use of the robots has been expanded in recent years. As reports on the comprehensive and quantitative evaluation of compounding robots remain lacking, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to provide descriptive and quantitative evaluations of the accuracy of preparing injectable cytotoxic drugs. : A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using published studies up to 2020. To identify eligible studies, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were used. All studies reporting the outcomes relevant to drug-compounding robots such as accuracy, safety, and drug contamination were included. Outcomes from included studies were descriptively summarized. Drug contamination by the robot was quantitatively analyzed using the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS). : A total of 14 compounding robot studies were eligible for review and 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Robotic compounding showed failure rates of 0.9-16.75%, while the accuracy range was set at 5%. Two studies reported that robotic compounding needed more time than manual compounding, two reported that robotic compounding needed less time, and one just reported preparation time without a control group. In a meta-analysis regarding the contamination of the compounding area, manual compounding was associated with lower contamination, although the result was not statistically significant (OR 4.251, 95% CI 0.439-51.772). For the contamination of infusion bags, the robot was associated with lower contamination (OR 0.176, 95% CI 0.084-0.365). : Robotic compounding showed better accuracy than manual compounding and, without control groups, showed a high accuracy rate and also reduced the risk of drug contamination and compounding workload. The preparation time of the robot was not consistent because the type of robot and introduced system were different. In conclusion, robotic compounding showed mixed results compared to the manual compounding of drugs, so the system should be introduced considering the risks and benefits of robots.
Topics: Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Drug Compounding; Antineoplastic Agents; Robotics
PubMed: 36984432
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59030431