The aim was to perform an umbrella review to summarise the existing evidence on proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use and adverse outcomes and to grade the certainty of evidence.Methods: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2021 for meta-analyses of cohort studies and/or randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Summary effect sizes from a random-effects model, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval, small-study effect, excess significance and credibility ceilings were devised to classify the credibility of evidence from meta-analyses of cohort studies, whereas the GRADE approach was used for meta-analyses of RCTs.Results: In meta-analyses of cohort studies, 52 of the 91 examined associations were statistically significant (P ≤ .05). Convincing evidence emerged from main analysis for the association between PPI use and risk of all-site fracture and chronic kidney disease in the elderly population. However, none of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analyses. The use of PPI is also associated with an increased risk of mortality due to COVID-19 infection and other related adverse outcomes, but the quality of evidence was weak. In meta-analyses of RCTs, 38 of the 63 examined associations were statistically significant. However, no associations were supported by high or moderate-quality evidence.Conclusion: This study's findings imply that most putative adverse outcomes associated with PPI use may not be supported by high-quality evidence and are likely to have been affected by underlying confounding factors. Future research is needed to confirm the causal association between PPI use and risk of fracture and chronic kidney disease.
To improve long-term outcomes of therapies for chronic diseases, health promotion and lifestyle modifications are the most promising and sustainable strategies. In addition, advances in digital technologies provide new opportunities to address limitations of drug-based treatments, such as medication non-adherence, adverse effects, toxicity, drug resistance, drug shortages, affordability, and accessibility. Pharmaceutical drugs and biologics can be combined with digital health technologies, including mobile medical apps (digital therapeutics), which offer additional clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. Promises of drug+digital combination therapies are recognized by pharmaceutical and digital health companies, opening opportunities for integrating pharmacotherapies with non-pharmacological interventions (metapharmacology). Herein we present unique features of digital health technologies which can deliver personalized self-care modalities such as breathing exercises, mindfulness meditation, yoga, physical activity, adequate sleep, listening to preferred music, forgiveness and gratitude. Clinical studies reveal how aforementioned complimentary practices may support treatments of epilepsy, chronic pain, depression, cancer, and other chronic diseases. This article also describes how digital therapies delivering “medicinal” self-care and other non-pharmacological interventions can also be personalized by accounting for: 1) genetic risks for comorbidities, 2) adverse childhood experiences, 3) increased risks for viral infections such as seasonal influenza, or COVID-19, and 4) just-in-time stressful and traumatic circumstances. Development and implementation of personalized pharmacological-behavioral combination therapies (precision metapharmacology) require aligning priorities of key stakeholders including patients, research communities, healthcare industry, regulatory and funding agencies. In conclusion, digital technologies enable integration of pharmacotherapies with self-care, lifestyle interventions and patient empowerment, while concurrently advancing patient-centered care, integrative medicine and digital health ecosystems.
Introduction We utilized the Pooled Resource Open‐Access Clinical Trials (PRO‐ACT) database to investigate whether melatonin use among patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was associated with slower disease progression and prolonged survival. Methods This retrospective analysis of the PRO‐ACT database addresses the impact of melatonin on progression and overall survival of ALS. A Cox proportional hazards ratio model was performed to investigate the effect that melatonin had on time to death. For secondary outcome measures, linear mixed effects regression models were used to ascertain the effect of melatonin on change in standardized ALS Functional Rating Scale (sALSFRS) and percentage predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) scores. Results Melatonin users had a significantly decreased annualized hazard death rate compared with the non–melatonin users (hazard ratio, 0.241; 95% confidence interval, 0.088‐0.659; P = .0056). The melatonin users also had a slower rate of decline in sALSFRS score (t = 2.71; P = .0069) and change in percent predicted FVC score (t = 2.94; P = .0035) compared with the non–melatonin users. Discussion Our findings suggest that melatonin may be beneficial for patients with ALS. Due to the nature of this database, our results are solely intended to be hypothesis‐generating and no strong associations can be made. Given the low cost and favorable safety profile of melatonin, the hypotheses generated warrant further investigation.
Objective: To evaluate the pharmacist-led diabetes collaborative drug therapy management services in a family medicine and internal medicine clinic. Design: Mixed methods of evaluation based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Results: Reach: 71.3% of patients who were independently consulted (n = 184/258) and 1.6% (n = 11/680) of patients who triggered a best practice advisory (BPA) were enrolled. Effectiveness: 27.7% of patients (n = 54/195) enrolled were lost to follow-up. Adoption: 55% of eligible providers (n = 77/140) have placed a consult. Implementation: Providers independently choose to refer patients and are also prompted to place consults by a BPA that triggers for patients with an HbA1c ≥ 9%. Common reasons providers did not place a consult include: alignment with workflow, patient refusal, and patients followed by other services. Regarding patient perceptions, patients valued the service. Patients reported increased accountability with disease state maintenance and increased self-efficacy. Regarding how to improve the service, patients wanted more information on expectations before engaging with the pharmacist. Patients suggested to replicate this service for pain, cancer, and blood pressure management. Maintenance: 96.7% of providers (n = 30/31) reported they were very likely/likely to place a consult in the future and 60% of providers (n = 18/30) reported they were very likely/likely to place a consult when prompted by the BPA. Conclusion: These results can be utilized to make improvements to the pharmacist-led diabetes collaborative drug therapy management service to ensure sustainability. This study also provides lessons learned and strategies for future adoption, implementation, and maintenance of similar services for other disease states.
The introduction of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic in the Spring semester of 2020 sent many educational units, elementary to higher education, scrambling to move content to remote learning. Within a professional program, this push highlighted gaps or potential pitfalls in preparing students to enter the health care field. This article highlights lessons learned in remote teaching during the pandemic from six unique colleges and schools of pharmacy: Auburn University, Drake University, Purdue University, University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy in St. Louis, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, and University of Utah. These lessons learned pertain to remote content delivery, student engagement, skill development, and assessments within the classroom and experiential settings. Within the classroom setting, the challenges, literature, personal experiences, and key recommendations for lecture‐based learning, group‐based learning, lab‐based learning, and assessments are described. Similarly, for the experiential setting, the challenges, literature, personal experiences, and key recommendations are also described, including training learners for remote patient care as well as examples for remote experiential activities and assessment. Forging ahead, there will be a continued need for future research for remote learning within pharmacy education.
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare student learning outcomes, behaviors, and attitudes in a non-prescription drug and self-care therapeutics course taught in the second professional (P2) year vs the first professional (P1) year at one pharmacy school. Methods: Mean performance of students by class year on case consultations and exam scores was compared. Focus groups with student volunteers and course teaching assistants (TAs) and one-on-one interviews with a subset of instructors were conducted by an outside educational evaluation specialist to capture perceptions of student learning behaviors and attitudes. Results: There was no difference in performance on graded case consultations (mean difference = 0.16, P = .74, 95% CI [−0.77 to 1.09]), mid-term examinations (mean difference = 0.53, P = .62, 95% CI [−1.59 to 2.65]), or final examinations (mean difference = 0.73, P = .57, 95% CI [−1.83 to 3.30]) between P1 and P2 students. P1 students reported being more consistent in completing pre-class readings and in feeling less distracted by other courses than did P2 students. Students, TAs, and instructors consistently spoke about advantages of the course in the P1 year (e.g., less stress and greater eagerness to learn and apply skills at work) and disadvantages in the P2 year (e.g., distraction from concurrent P2 integrated pharmacotherapeutics course and tension between real-world experience and constraints of grading rubric). Conclusion: P1 students, despite one year earlier in their curriculum, performed equally well as P2 students. All stakeholders agree that the advantages of teaching a self-care course on students’ learning behaviors and attitudes in the P1 year outweigh disadvantages.
Background: Implementation of a clinical pharmacist in the primary care setting can offset provider time spent managing chronic diseases using Collaborative Practice Agreements (CPAs). The pharmacist-physician co-visit model presents an opportunity for pharmacists to increase patient access to their primary care provider (PCP). Studies of the co-visit model show that co-visits increase clinic efficiency by allowing the PCP to see additional patients and achieve more health care goals compared with independent visits. Objectives: The aim of this study was to increase patient access to their PCP by utilizing a pharmacist-physician co-visit model at the Madsen Health Center Family Medicine (MHC FM) Clinic. The primary outcome was to identify the number of co-visits completed compared to the number of possible co-visits, and the number of appointment slots made available. The secondary outcomes were to track the time spent with patients and to obtain provider feedback via a survey. Methods: The co-visit model was implemented as a 4-month pilot study at the MHC FM Clinic. Complex care appointments lasting 40 minutes were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Potential co-visit appointments were identified one week prior then provider consent was obtained to change the appointment into two separate 20-minute visits. Schedules were reviewed to determine if the appointment slot opened by the co-visit was filled by another patient. Upon completion of the study, a survey was distributed to providers to collect feedback. Results: A total of five co-visits were completed out of a possible 19 (26%). All the appointments made available were filled by another patient. On average, the provider and pharmacist spent 15 and 14 minutes with the patient, respectively. Conclusion: Implementation of the physician-pharmacist co-visit model increased the availability of the PCP to see more patients without disrupting clinic workflow and provider schedules.
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.