Cisapride, a prokinetic agent, has been used for the treatment of a number of gastrointestinal disorders, particularly gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in adults and children. Since 1993, 341 cases of ventricular arrhythmias, including 80 deaths, have been reported to the US Food and Drug Administration. Marketing of the drug has now been discontinued in the US; however, it is still available under a limited-access protocol. Knowledge of the risk factors for cisapride-associated arrhythmias will be essential for its continued use in those patients who meet the eligibility criteria. This review summarises the published literature on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of cisapride with concomitantly administered drugs, providing clinicians with practical recommendations for avoiding these potentially fatal events. Pharmacokinetic interactions with cisapride involve inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, the primary mode of elimination of cisapride, thereby increasing plasma concentrations of the drug. The macrolide antibacterials clarithromycin, erythromycin and troleandomycin are inhibitors of CYP3A4 and should not be used in conjunction with cisapride. Azithromycin is an alternative. Similarly, azole antifungal agents such as fluconazole, itraconazole and ketoconazole are CYP3A4 inhibitors and their concomitant use with cisapride should be avoided. Of the antidepressants nefazodone and fluvoxamine should be avoided with cisapride. Data with fluoxetine is controversial, we favour the avoidance of its use. Citalopram, paroxetine and sertraline are alternatives. The HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir inhibit CYP3A4. Clinical experience with cisapride is lacking but avoidance with all protease inhibitors is recommended, although saquinavir is thought to have clinically insignificant effects on CYP3A4. Delavirdine is also a CYP3A4 inhibitor and should be avoided with cisapride. We also recommend avoiding coadministration of cisapride with amiodarone, cimetidine (alternatives are famotidine, nizatidine, ranitidine or one of the proton pump inhibitors), diltiazem and verapamil (the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are alternatives), grapefruit juice, isoniazid, metronidazole, quinine, quinupristin/dalfopristin and zileuton (montelukast is an alternative). Pharmacodynamic interactions with cisapride involve drugs that have the potential to have additive effects on the QT interval. We do not recommend use of cisapride with class Ia and III antiarrhythmic drugs or with adenosine, bepridil, cyclobenzaprine, droperidol, haloperidol, nifedipine (immediate release), phenothiazine antipsychotics, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants or vasopressin. Vigilance is advised if anthracyclines, cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), enflurane, halothane, isoflurane, pentamidine or probucol are used with cisapride. In addition, uncorrected electrolyte disturbances induced by diuretics may increase the risk of torsade de pointes. Patients receiving cis...

No abstract

Objective. To examine the rational (systematic and rule-based) and experiential (fast and intuitive) decision-making preferences of student pharmacists, and to compare these preferences to the preferences of other health professionals and student populations. Methods. The Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI-40), a validated psychometric tool, was administered electronically to 114 third-year (P3) student pharmacists. Student demographics and preadmission data were collected. The REI-40 results were compared with student demographics and admissions data to identify possible correlations between these factors. Results. Mean REI-40 rational scores were higher than experiential scores. Rational scores for younger students were significantly higher than students aged 30 years and older ( p,0.05). No significant differences were found based on gender, race, or the presence of a prior degree. All correlations between REI-40 scores and incoming grade point average (GPA) and Pharmacy College Admission Test (PCAT) scores were weak. Conclusion. Student pharmacists favored rational decision making over experiential decision making, which was similar to results of studies done of other health professions.

Objective. To describe preceptor teaching challenges and preceptor development programming design preferences through a qualitative needs assessment. Methods. In 2018, 148 experiential education stakeholders across North Carolina (eg, preceptors, residency program directors, experiential faculty administrators, and practice site administrators) were invited to participate in 60-minute semi-structured interviews as part of a broad preceptor development needs assessment. Interview questions focused on:(1) precepting challenges, (2) positive and negative features of preceptor development programs and, (3) preferences of program design. Interview transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. Results. Forty-two participants completed interviews, including preceptors from various rotation types, residency program directors, experiential faculty administrators, and institution administrators. Participants identified numerous teaching challenges related to learner, preceptor, and institutional levels. Example responses from these groups included challenging teaching and learning situations, difficulty self-assessing teaching ability, and increasing institutional demands, respectively. Participants often noted there was inadequate time, resources, and support to effectively teach. Desirable preceptor development program features included practical strategies, collaboration with preceptors, delivery by education and practice experts, and topics specific to precepting experience. Participants identified live, on-demand, and webinar formats as acceptable if collaboration and engagement were included. Participants also desired unique training opportunities such as online platforms, coaching programs, and simulated learning environments. Conclusion.Preceptors face numerous teaching challenges and require sufficient time, support, and resources to develop their skills. Participants requested training that included on-demand, frequent sessions delivered through various modalities, collaboration opportunities, a choice in topics and delivery formats, and sessions from educational and practice experts.

Objective. To determine how student pharmacists' empathy compares to that of exemplary pharmacist preceptors. Methods. First-through third-year Doctor of Pharmacy students and nominated preceptors demonstrating a model level of empathy in patient care were invited to take the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) and answer demographic questions. A comparison of total JSE scores was made between students and preceptors. Comparisons of total JSE scores were performed between male and female students, students with and without direct patient care experience, students with and without chronic care experience, and among students based on class year. A factor analysis was completed. Results. The response rate for students and preceptors was 70.3% (n5318) and 73.7% (n514), respectively. No significant differences in median JSE scores were identified for any of the comparisons. Factor analysis revealed two factors as underlying constructs: "compassionate care" and "perspective taking." Seven of 20 items on the JSE had mean scores .6.0 (possible range 1-7). Conclusion. The majority of students had moderately high cognitive empathy not related to class year that was similar to that of exemplary pharmacist preceptors. A possible ceiling effect was found in several items on the JSE, potentially limiting its use for measuring changes in empathy longitudinally in students with baseline high empathy.