The results suggest that the collaborative care model proposed is feasible and more effective than the usual care in the reduction and individualized control of A1C levels in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.
ObjectiveTo assess the effect of pharmacist interventions on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients and to examine factors that could explain the variation across studies.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and LILACS databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2015. The search strategy included the use of MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, type 2 diabetes, and randomized controlled trials. RCTs published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that evaluated the effect of pharmacist intervention on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic outpatients were included. Two independent authors executed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Mean differences in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were estimated using random-effect models, and heterogeneity was evaluated by subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ResultsThe literature search yielded 963 records of potential interest, of which 30 were included in the systematic review and 22 in the meta-analysis. Most of these RCTs were conducted in the United States in patients in outpatient clinics using face-to-face contact only. All RCTs performed patient education, and most executed the medication review. The appraised sample showed uncertain or high risk of bias in most of the items evaluated, resulting in low-quality studies. In comparison with usual care, pharmacist interventions were associated with significant reductions in HbA1c levels (-8.5% [95% CI: -1.06, -0.65]; P < 0.0001; I2 = 67.3%). Subgroup analysis indicated differences of heterogeneity by country, baseline HbA1c levels, setting, intervention frequency, and random allocation. Age and HbA1c levels partly explained the variability across studies by meta-regression.ConclusionsOur findings confirmed that pharmacist interventions improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with usual care and suggest that younger patients or with higher baseline HbA1c levels may be the main beneficiaries of pharmacist care.Protocol PROSPERO Registration NumberCRD42014007457
SummaryWhat is known and objectives: Most antineoplastic drugs are highly toxic and have low therapeutic indexes, which can result in drug-related problems. In this context, pharmacist interventions may play an important role in the success of the treatment.The objective of this study was to examine the effects of pharmacist interventions on adult outpatients with cancer using antineoplastic drugs.
Methods:A literature search was performed using PubMed, ISI Web of Science and LILACS databases from January 1990 to April 2016, using MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, cancer and outpatient care. Studies published in English, Portuguese or Spanish on the effects of pharmacist interventions in outcome measures in adult outpatients with cancer were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction with a consensus process. The articles were analysed according to previously established criteria, such as country, study design, setting, population, type of cancer, description of the intervention and control groups, outcomes, main conclusions and study limitations.
Results and discussion:A total of 874 records were identified, of which 11 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted mainly in the United States and included patients aged >50 years. Most studies had a before-after design. Pharmacist interventions primarily included educating and counselling patients on the management of adverse events. Rates of nausea and vomiting control, medication adherence and patient satisfaction were the most common outcome measures; a significant benefit in these parameters as a result of pharmacist interventions was noted in most studies.
What is new and conclusion:The findings from this systematic review indicate that pharmacist interventions can improve outcome measures in outpatients with cancer.However, the collective quality of the studies was poor and gaps identified indicate that further research is needed to provide more robust results.
K E Y W O R D Scancer, pharmaceutical care, pharmacists, systematic review
INTRODUÇÃONo século XX, com o aumento da eficiência da prevenção de doenças e atendimento médico, a expectativa de vida, menor que quarenta anos até a década de 1940, ultrapassou os sessenta e cinco anos (década de 1990) (WHO, 1997). Todavia, com o crescimento dos custos com equipamentos, materiais e medicamentos, surgiu a impossibilidade do acesso universal aos recursos e tecnologia moderna disponíveis (Crozara, 2001).Assim, visto que os medicamentos se apresentam como um dos fatores responsáveis pelos gastos com saú-de, a questão de sua utilização de modo adequado nunca esteve tão presente no cotidiano da população, nem foi tão discutida: segundo Nascimento (2003), o número de reportagens publicadas em jornais e revistas da grande imprensa escrita sobre medicamentos e saúde durante os anos 70, 80 e 90 foram 26, 135 e 250, respectivamente. É de conhecimento geral a necessidade de formulação e aplicação de política de medicamentos que favoreça a
Aripiprazole exhibited efficacy similar to that of other antipsychotic drugs and a better safety profile than that of typical (i.e., less some extrapyramidal side effects) and atypical (i.e., less metabolic changes) antipsychotic drugs.
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.