Background: A prescribing monitoring policy (PMP) was implemented in November 2015 in Anhui province, China, the first province to pilot this policy to manage the use and costs of select drugs based on their large prescription volumes and/ or costs in hospitals. This study evaluated the impact of PMP on the use and expenditures of different drugs in three tertiary hospitals in Anhui. Methods: We obtained monthly drug use and expenditures data from three tertiary hospitals in Anhui (November 2014 through September 2017). An interrupted time series (ITS) design was used to estimate changes in defined daily doses (DDDs per month) and drug expenditures (dollars per month) of policy-targeted and non-targeted drugs after PMP implementation. Drugs were grouped based on whether they were recommended (recommended drugs) by any clinical guidelines or not (non-recommended drugs), or if they were potentially over-used (proton pump inhibitors, PPIs). Results: After PMP, DDDs and costs of the targeted PPIs (omeprazole) declined while use of non-targeted PPIs increased correspondingly with overall sustained declines in total PPIs. The policy impact on recommended drugs varied based on whether the targeted drugs have appropriate alternatives. The DDDs and costs of recommended drugs that have readily accessible appropriate alternatives (atorvastatin) declined, which offset increases in its alternative non-target drugs (rosuvastatin), while there was no significant change in those recommended drugs that did not have appropriate alternative drugs (clopidogrel and ticagrelor). Finally, the DDDs and costs of non-recommended drugs decreased significantly. Conclusion: PMP policy impact was not the same across different drug groups. PMP did help contain the use and costs of potentially over-used drugs and non-recommended drugs. PMP did not seem to reduce the use of first-line therapeutic drugs recommended by clinical treatment guidelines, especially those lacking alternatives; such drugs are unlikely appropriate candidates for PMP.
Objectives This study aimed to understand the perspective of pharmacists on cancer patients’ needs and the most meaningful pharmaceutical care in specialty pharmacies. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists working at hospitals and specialty pharmacies to survey their perspectives on unmet needs of cancer patients, the most valuable pharmaceutical care provided in specialty pharmacies, and strategies to improve pharmaceutical care. Thematic analysis was used for data analysis. Results Five pharmacists from hospitals and 30 pharmacists from specialty pharmacies were interviewed. Cancer patients’ most concerned but unmet needs included efficacy, safety, cost, accessibility of the medications, informational needs, and humanistic care. Difficulties hospitals might have in managing pharmaceutical care included conducting patient education, counseling, follow-up after hospital discharge, and supply for anticancer agents. Pharmacists claimed that the most valued pharmaceutical care measures provided in specialty pharmacies were financial assistance, medication supply, follow-up, patient education and counseling, information provision, and adverse drug reaction management. Pharmaceutical care in specialty pharmacies could be improved through continuing education for pharmacists in specialty pharmacies, the construction of patient communication platforms, and linkage with hospitals to collaboratively provide pharmaceutical care. Conclusions Cancer patients had plenty of unmet needs that remained uncovered by physicians and pharmacists at hospitals, for which specialty pharmacies can be an addition to provide comprehensive pharmaceutical care.
Pharmacogenetics research on leukotriene modifiers (LTMs) for asthma has been developing rapidly, although pharmacogenetic testing for LTMs is not yet used in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of pharmacogenomics on LTMs response. Studies published until May 2022 were searched using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Pharmacogenomics/genetics studies of patients with asthma using LTMs with or without other anti-asthmatic drugs were included. Statistical tests of the meta-analysis were performed with Review Manager (Revman, version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and R language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.1.0 for Windows, R Core Team, Vienna, Austria) software. In total, 31 studies with 8084 participants were included in the systematic review and five studies were also used to perform the meta-analysis. Two included studies were genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which showed different results. Furthermore, none of the SNPs investigated in candidate gene studies were identified in GWAS. In candidate gene studies, the most widely studied SNPs were ALOX5 (tandem repeats of the Sp1-binding domain and rs2115819), LTC4S-444A/C (rs730012), and SLCO2B1 (rs12422149), with relatively inconsistent conclusions. LTC4S-444A/C polymorphism did not show a significant effect in our meta-analysis (AA vs. AC (or AC + CC): −0.06, 95%CI: −0.16 to 0.05, p = 0.31). AA homozygotes had smaller improvements in parameters pertaining to lung functions (−0.14, 95%CI: −0.23 to −0.05, p = 0.002) in a subgroup of patients with non-selective CysLT receptor antagonists and patients without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (−0.11, 95%CI: −0.14 to −0.08, p < 0.00001), but not in other subgroups. Variability exists in the pharmacogenomics of LTMs treatment response. Our meta-analysis and systematic review found that LTC4S-444A/C may influence the treatment response of patients taking non-selective CysLT receptor antagonists for asthma, and patients taking LTMs not in combination with ICS for asthma. Future studies are needed to validate the pharmacogenomic influence on LTMs response.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.