AIMSThe aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the impact of in-hospital pharmacist-led medication reviews in paediatric and adult patients. METHODSRelevant studies were identified from the Medline and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were included if they met the following criteria (without any language or date restrictions): design: randomized controlled trial; intervention: in-hospital pharmacist-led medication review (experimental group) vs. usual care (control group); participants: paediatric or adult population. The primary outcome was all-cause readmissions and/or emergency department (ED) visits at different time points. The secondary outcomes were all-cause readmissions, all-cause ED visits, drug-related readmissions, mortality, length of hospital stay, adherence and quality of life. We calculated the relative risk (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study. We used fixed and/or random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. RESULTSWe systematically reviewed 19 randomized controlled trials (4805 participants). The readmission rates did not differ between the experimental group and the control group (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.89; 1.05, p = 0.470). The secondary outcomes did not differ between the two groups, except for in drug-related readmissions, which were lower in the experimental group (RR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.14; 0.45, p < 0.001), and all-cause ED visits (RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.59; 0.85 p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONThe low-quality evidence in this analysis suggests an impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews on drug-related readmissions and all-cause ED visits. Few studies reported on adherence and quality of life. More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews on patient-relevant outcomes, including adherence and quality of life. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT• Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation interventions are an effective strategy to reduce medication discrepancies, and have a greater impact when conducted at either hospital admission or discharge. However, pharmacist-led medication reviews at hospital settings programmes have not shown great interest in the use of post-hospital healthcare. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS• In this article, we further explore the clinical impact of pharmacist-led medication review at the hospital setting. We show that pharmacist-led medication reviews have an impact on drug-related readmission, all-cause ED visits and adherence. We also show the quality and strength of evidence from these studies is low.

Cyclosporin A is an essential immunosuppressive drug, but it is potentially toxic to the kidney and liver. Ursodeoxycholic acid, a hydrophilic bile acid, has been reported to improve cholestasis in liver disease in man. The purpose of this work was to examine whether tauroursodeoxycholate could reduce cyclosporin A-induced hepatic or renal injuries in the rat. After randomization into three groups (N = 8), rats received daily for 17 days: cyclosporin A intraperitoneally alone (30 mg/kg) or cyclosporin A intraperitoneally and tauroursodeoxycholate (60 mg/kg) by gavage; control received the cyclosporin A excipient. Under tauroursodeoxycholate, cholestatic parameters (bile flow, bile salt secretion, serum bile salts, serum bilirubin) improved significantly without affecting cyclosporin A blood levels, and excretion of the drug and its metabolites in bile increased by 47%. Serum creatinine levels were better preserved, although not significantly. These results show that tauroursodeoxycholate prevents cyclosporin A-induced cholestasis in long-term treatment in rats, possibly by facilitating the drug elimination in bile.

Background: Rituximab’s originator MabThera® or Rituxan® has demonstrated high efficacy in multiple sclerosis (MS). Because of the patent expiration, rituximab biosimilars have been developed. However, because a biosimilar is not the exact copy of the originator, the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar may significantly differ. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar Truxima® and the originator MabThera® in MS. Methods: Consecutive MS patients receiving MabThera® or Truxima® were prospectively followed during 1 year after treatment introduction. Allocation to each treatment depended on the period of introduction and not the physician’s choice. Lymphocyte count, clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and adverse events were compared. Results: In total, 105 and 40 patients received MabThera® and Truxima®, respectively. The two groups did not differ in baseline characteristics. Effect on CD19+ lymphocytes and disease activity were similar during follow-up. EDSS remained stable, with no difference between groups. Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of the rituximab biosimilar Truxima® seem equivalent to the originator MabThera® in MS patients. Truxima® could represent a relatively cheap and safe therapeutic alternative to MabThera® and could improve access to highly efficient therapy for MS in low- or middle-income countries.