(1) Background: As prescribers, physicians play a decisive role in applying and promoting pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in clinical practices. So far, little is known about physicians’ perspectives on PGx testing in China. The aim of this study was to assess physicians’ knowledge of, attitude towards, and experience of PGx testing in China. (2) Methods: A 39-question online survey was developed. Participants were physicians recruited through two platforms, MEDLINKER and “Dazhuanjia”. (3) Results: A total of 450 respondents completed the survey and 366 questionnaires were eligible for analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Among all included physicians, 275 (75.1%) had heard of PGx testing before. More than half rated their knowledge of PGx testing as “Fair” (61.5%) while 20.0% chose “Excellent” or “Good” and 18.6% chose “Poor” or “Terrible”. “Guidelines, consensus, and treatment paths for disease diagnosis and treatment” (72.7%) were the most preferred sources of information about PGx testing. Respondents were confident in their personal capacity to conduct PGx, with an average score of 3.30 ± 0.09 (out of 5.00). Most respondents (75.6%) believed that PGx could “help to improve efficacy and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions”. Targeted cancer therapy (score 78.95 ± 1.26 out of 100) was considered the field where PGx testing had its highest value. Lack of professionals and knowledge (n = 186, 67.6%), high costs of testing (n = 170, 61.8%), and lack of hospitals to offer PGx testing (n = 166, 60.4%) were identified as the primary obstacles to increasing the uptake of PGx testing in China. Academic conference (n = 213, 72.4%) was considered the most efficient way for physicians to obtain information about PGx testing. (4) Conclusions: Physicians in China have poor knowledge about PGx testing; nonetheless, they generally had confidence in their capacity to order PGx testing and positive attitudes towards the use of PGx testing in routine clinical practices. Future efforts to promote the uptake of PGx testing should focus on foundational education and practical training.
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.
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.