Background: Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen is increasingly used around the world for pain control for a variety of indications. However, it is unclear whether IV administration offers advantages over oral administration. Objective: To identify, summarize, and critically evaluate the literature comparing analgesic efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics for IV and oral dosage forms of acetaminophen. Data Sources: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases was supplemented with keyword searches of Science Direct, Wiley Library Online, and Springer Link databases for the period 1948 to November 2014. The reference lists of identified studies were searched manually. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized controlled trials comparing IV and oral dosage forms of acetaminophen were included if they assessed an efficacy, safety, or pharmacokinetic outcome. For each study, 2 investigators independently extracted data (study design, population, interventions, follow-up, efficacy outcomes, safety outcomes, pharmacokinetic outcomes, and any other pertinent information) and completed risk-of-bias assessments. Data Synthesis: Six randomized clinical trials were included. Three of the studies reported outcomes pertaining to efficacy, 4 to safety, and 4 to pharmacokinetics. No clinically significant differences in efficacy were found between the 2 dosage forms. Safety outcomes were not reported consistently enough to allow adequate assessment. No evidence was found to suggest that increased bioavailability of the IV formulation enhances efficacy outcomes. For studies reporting clinical outcomes, the results of risk-of-bias assessments were largely unclear. Conclusions: For patients who can take an oral dosage form, no clear indication exists for preferential prescribing of IV acetaminophen. Decision-making must take into account the known adverse effects of each dosage form and other considerations such as convenience and cost. Future studies should assess multiple-dose regimens over longer periods for patients with common pain indications such as cancer, trauma, and surgery.
PK course contents were perceived to lack depth and relevance to practice, and pharmacist had no experiential training that included aspects of PK. These, and other issues, result in poor application of PK in practice.
Objectives Antimicrobial resistance is a worldwide public health issue that requires emergent action. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have been proposed as a strategy to minimise resistance. Although ASPs were implemented in governmental hospitals in Qatar since 2015, a formal evaluation of these programs has not been conducted. We aimed to assess the status of ASPs in Qatar and to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges (SWOC) to further enhance ASPs within Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC). Methods Lead stakeholders of ASPs in HMC filled a questionnaire adapted from the 2019 Centers for Disease Control Prevention checklist for ASPs. Notes were taken by research team to assist in formulating a SWOC analysis. Key findings All hospitals (12/12) had an infectious diseases physician and pharmacist designated as an ASP leader (major strength identified). Almost all hospitals lack a financial statement and information technology resources to support ASPs (major weaknesses identified). Nine hospitals had an antibiotic pre-authorisation policy and adopted a prospective audit with feedback strategy. Among hospitals surveyed, 11 hospitals tracked antibiotic use by measuring the defined daily dose, and only four hospitals tracked rates of Clostridioides difficile infection. Qatar’s rich economy supports the allocation of financial resources and budgeting to improve ASPs despite the increased emergence of resistant organisms and the limited resources currently available to expand ASPs across the country’s healthcare settings. Conclusions Although ASPs were implemented in all governmental hospitals in Qatar, national efforts and more resources are needed to further develop and improve these programs.
Objectives To critically appraise published international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for management of febrile neutropenia in adult patients with cancer and to determine opportunities for improved development and reporting. Methods A literature search identified CPGs for adult cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Four independent assessors evaluated each included CPG according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Standardized scores were calculated for each guideline and polled collectively. Reliability of assessment was determined using a two-way random model intraclass correlation coefficients. Key findings Eight CPGs were independently evaluated by four assessors. Collectively, the highest scoring domain was editorial independence (83.3), followed by clarity of presentation (55.4), scope and purpose (53.4), stakeholder involvement (53.1), rigour of development (52.7) and applicability (47.8). Overall assessments ranged from 28.6 to 96.4 of 100 possible points. Three (37.5%) guidelines were recommended for use without alterations, two (25%) guidelines were recommended with alterations, and three (37.5%) guidelines were not recommended for implementation into practice. Reliability varied between guidelines with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.41 to 0.82. Conclusions Clinical practice guidelines for febrile neutropenia in adult patients with cancer were moderately rated with a 37.5% of guidelines being recommended for use in practice. Guideline developers should focus on improving CPG applicability and rigour in the development and reporting processes. Critical appraisal of guidelines should become a standard practice prior to implementation into clinical settings.
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.