Search

Objective: Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up is the Professional Pharmaceutical Care Service aimed at detecting Drug-Related Problems for the prevention and resolution of negative medicine outcomes. The Dader Method is considered a clear and simple tool to develop Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up. This research aims to analyze the evolution of the international scientific production related to Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up and the Dader Method to show the current situation of this Professional Pharmacy Assistance Service. In addition, from the data obtained, we give a critical perspective on the implementation of the Dader Method in Community Pharmacy, considering its advantages and disadvantages based on the published scientific literature. Methods: Using bibliometrics tools, indicators were obtained to analyze the international production of scientific articles on Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up and the Dader Method during the period (1999-2022) through the Scopus database. Results: The results showed a growth in the international scientific production of publications on Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up, obtaining 30,287 papers, placing the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Spain as the five most productive countries. The publication of 83 papers on the Dader Method places Spain with the highest number of publications, followed by other Spanish or Portuguese speaking countries, among which Brazil and Colombia have the most prominent number of published papers in Latin America. The most frequent international journal covering the topic of Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up was the American Journal of Health-Pharmacy (12.4%), while on the Dader Method, the journal Pharmaceutical Care Spain (21.7%) is in the first position, followed by Farmacia Hospitalaria (8.4%). Conclusion: The publications on the Dader method highlighs the greater productivity of the University of Granada and the author María José Faus Dáder. The inclusion of patients in the PTF service using the Dader Method, is more frequent in the hospital context, and is based on the presence of defined chronic pathologies (mainly diabetes), polymedication or specialized care follow-up, with elderly population being the most represented in all cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity is used in the evaluation of hemolysis risk in patients being assessed for G6PD deficiency. A long-acting 8-aminoquinoline drug (tafenoquine) used in malaria treatment is contraindicated in patients with G6PD deficiency (<70% normal G6PD activity). The current state of G6PD reporting practices to support clinical eligibility assessment is poorly understood. Objective.--: To assess clinical laboratory reporting practices for G6PD testing. Design.--: In October 2019 and October 2020, voluntary questionnaires were distributed to 327 and 324 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists G6PD proficiency testing (PT). Results.--: Two hundred fifty-seven and 119 laboratories responded to the 2019 and 2020 questionnaires, respectively. Few laboratories have received clinical questions about average normal G6PD activity (US/Canada, 2.0% [3 of 149]; international, 8.4% [9 of 107]), whereas slightly more have determined the average normal G6PD activity for their own assay and patient populations (US/Canada, 6.7% [10 of 149]; international, 19.4% [21 of 108]). Few laboratories report G6PD activity in percent of normal format (US/Canada, 2.7% [4 of 149]; international, 8.3% [9 of 108]). The most common unit of measurement in use for quantitative G6PD reporting is unit per gram of hemoglobin. Reference intervals vary based on assay, reaction temperature, and participant laboratory and demonstrate moderate correlation (r = .46-.51) to G6PD activity measured from a "normal" PT challenge specimen. Nearly half of participants (47.8% [85 of 178]) categorized a quantitatively "intermediate" G6PD PT challenge as "normal" when using qualitative assays. Conclusions.--: Percent of normal G6PD activity reporting would facilitate patient eligibility assessment for drugs, such as tafenoquine. Quantitative assays are better able to differentiate "intermediate" specimens than qualitative assays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction is prevalent in multiple sclerosis (MS) and can have a negative effect on several aspects of the daily lives of individuals with MS. In 2010, members of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) were surveyed to understand MS clinicians' screening, assessment, and treatment practices for cognitive problems. Given the advancements made in the field in the past decade, it was deemed time to reevaluate how cognitive dysfunction is managed in the clinical setting. METHODS: An online questionnaire was completed by 56 CMSC members. They were asked to describe their clinical practices, procedures for screening and further evaluation, and treatment recommendations for cognitive dysfunction. Participants were also asked whether their practice had changed in terms of the number of cognitive screenings, prescriptions for cognitive problems, and referrals for neuropsychological assessment and cognitive remediation in the past 5 years to allow for clinicians who had not been in practice for 10 years. RESULTS: Participants reported an increase in the number of cognitive screenings and referrals for neuropsychological assessments and cognitive remediation during the past 5 years. Compared with 2010, participants endorsed greater use of person-administered screening measures, such as the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, and fewer prescriptions for medications to improve cognitive functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practices are becoming more in line with the literature, with increased use of cognitive screening and remediation. Continued attention to cognitive problems will be an ongoing important component of MS-related care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration aimed to evaluate whether 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy are noninferior to 6 months. Our study objectives were to characterize medical oncologists' perspectives toward the results of the IDEA collaboration and to evaluate how IDEA impacted prescribing patterns of adjuvant FOLFOX and CAPOX in colon cancer. Materials and Methods: A list of questions developed by four medical oncologists regarding IDEA results were formulated and distributed online to gastrointestinal medical oncologists globally. Descriptive statistics and chi‐square tests were used to summarize information. Results: Of 174 responses, 145 were complete and analyzed. Responses were obtained globally from South America (53%); the U.S. and Canada (28%); Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (12%); and Asia (7%). Most clinicians (98%) were aware of the IDEA study. Prior to IDEA, clinicians preferred FOLFOX over CAPOX (81% vs. 19%). Subsequent to IDEA, 55% of clinicians preferred CAPOX over FOLFOX (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.0–8.5; p <.01 compared with pre‐IDEA). Two thirds (68%) of responders tailored duration of adjuvant therapy based on risk stratification. Most oncologists (76%) were more willing to discontinue oxaliplatin early if toxicities develop after the results of IDEA. Half of responders (50%) found that IDEA increased their confidence in decision making for adjuvant treatment; 36% were unchanged, and 15% indicated decreased confidence. Less than half (48%) were comfortable communicating the study results and the concept of a noninferiority trial with patients. Conclusion: IDEA appears to have shifted clinician preference from FOLFOX to CAPOX for adjuvant therapy, and most clinicians now use a risk‐stratified approach in determining duration of adjuvant therapy. Patient education resources may facilitate better communication of IDEA results to patients. Implications for Practice: This global survey illustrates that most gastrointestinal medical oncologists now use a risk‐stratified approach for determining the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. Clinicians are five times more likely to choose CAPOX over FOLFOX after the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration results. This article reports medical oncologists' perspectives on the results of the IDEA Collaboration and assesses the real‐world update of this data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The diagnostic process for patients presenting with cognitive decline and suspected dementia is complex. Physicians face challenges distinguishing between normal aging, mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, and other dementias. Although there is some evidence for improving attitudes towards the importance of prompt diagnosis, there is limited information describing how physicians approach this diagnostic challenge in practice. This was explored in the present study. Across-sectional survey of primary care and specialist physicians, in 5 European countries, Canada, and the United States, was conducted. Participants were asked about their use of cognitive screening tools and diagnostic technologies, as well as the rationales and barriers for use. In total, 1365 physicians participated in the survey, 63% of whom were specialists. Most physicians stated they use objective cognitive tools to aid the early detection of suspected mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease in patients. The Mini-Mental State Examination was the most common tool used for initial screening; respondents cited speed and ease of use but noted its lack of specificity. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker and amyloid positron emission tomography tests, respectively, had been used by only 26% and 32% of physicians in the preceding 6 months, although patterns of use varied across countries. The most commonly cited reasons for not ordering such tests were invasiveness (for cerebrospinal fluid biomarker testing) and cost (for amyloid positron emission tomography imaging). Data reported by physicians reveal differences in the approaches to the diagnostics process in Alzheimer's. A higher proportion of primary care physicians in the United States are routinely incorporating cognitive assessment tools into annual visits, but this is due to country differences in clinical practice. The value of screening tools and regular use could be discussed further with physicians; however, lack of specificity associated with cognitive tools and the investment required from patients and the healthcare system are limiting factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) to surgically manage ulcerative colitis may involve multiple separate surgical procedures, impacting treatment costs, length of stay in hospital, complication rates and patient outcomes, and there is currently no accepted standard of care regarding the number of stages that should be performed. The purpose of this study was to compare the practice patterns of Canadian and American colorectal surgeons regarding the surgical management of ulcerative colitis. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to all practisng fellows of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) in Canada and the United States. Surgeons were asked to describe their typical practices for 3 clinical scenarios. Results: Questionnaires were mailed to 40 Canadian and 873 American ASCRS fellows with response rates of 86% and 62%, respectively. In the case of a patient who has had a prior colectomy, who is not taking steroids and in whom a tension-free IPAA is possible, 44% of Canadian surgeons would perform IPAA alone and 56% would perform IPAA with a loop ileostomy. In contrast, only 26% of American surgeons would perform IPAA alone and 74% would perform IPAA with a loop ileostomy (p = 0.002). In the case of a patient who has not had previous surgery, who is taking 10 mg/day of prednisone and in whom a tension-free IPAA is possible, the majority of both Canadian and American surgeons would perform an IPAA with a loop ileostomy (93% and 89%, respectively, p = 0.06). In the case of a patient who has not had previous surgery, who is taking 40 mg/day of prednisone and in whom a tension-free IPAA is possible, 45% of Canadian surgeons would perform a subtotal colectomy with an end ileostomy compared with 14% of American surgeons (p < 0.001). Conclusion: There are significant differences in the surgical management of ulcerative colitis between Canadian and American colorectal surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Acute gastroenteritis is a very common emergency department (ED) diagnosis accounting for greater than 1.5 million outpatient visits and 200,000 hospitalizations annually among children in the United States. Although guidelines exist to assist clinicians, they do not clearly address topics for which evidence is new or limited, including the use of antiemetic agents, probiotics, and intravenous (IV) fluid rehydration regimens. This study sought to describe the ED treatments administered to children with acute gastroenteritis and to compare management between Canadian and U.S. physicians practicing pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). Methods: Members of PEM research networks located in Canada and the United States were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, Internet-based survey. Participants were included if they are attending physicians and provide care to patients < 18 years of age in an ED. Results: In total, 235 of 339 (73%) eligible individuals responded. A total of 103 of 136 Canadian physicians (76%) report initiating oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in children with moderate dehydration, compared with 44 of 94 (47%) of their U.S. colleagues (p < 0.001). The latter more often administer antiemetic agents to children with vomiting (67% vs. 45%; p = 0.001). American physicians administer larger IV fluid bolus volumes (p < 0.001) and over shorter time periods (p = 0.001) and repeat the fluid boluses more frequently (p < 0.001). Probiotics are routinely recommended by only 35 of 230 respondents (15%). Conclusions: The treatment of pediatric gastroenteritis varies by geographic location and differs significantly between Canadian and American PEM physicians. Oral rehydration continues to be underused, particularly in the United States. Probiotic use remains uncommon, while ondansetron administration has become routine. Children frequently receive IV rehydration, with the rate and volume administered being greater in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although intravenous (IV) magnesium (Mg) can decrease hospitalizations in children with severe acute asthma, its use is often limited to resistant disease, and disposition may be determined prior to its use. Since knowledge about practice patterns of IV Mg would enhance knowledge translation and guide future research, we surveyed pediatric emergency physicians with interest in clinical research to determine the frequency, indications, adverse events, and barriers to use of IV Mg in children with severe acute asthma. A cross-sectional online survey of two national pediatric emergency physician associations in Canada and the United States was conducted using a modified Dillman technique. Response rates were 124 of 180 (69%) in Canada and 75 of 108 (69%) in the United States. Although 88% of participants report knowing that Mg is effective, only 14 of 199 (7%) give it to prevent hospitalizations and 142 of 199 (71%) give it to prevent admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thirty-eight percent of respondents use Mg in < 5% of stable children with severe acute asthma, while 79% use it in 50% or more of the ICU candidates with concern about impending respiratory failure. Seventy-nine percent of the participants report that < 5% of their patients given Mg are discharged home from the ED. Twenty-four percent of respondents who administer Mg have encountered associated severe hypotension requiring therapy, and 2% have witnessed-related apnea. Factors affecting Mg use include concern about side effects expressed by 24% of physicians and a belief that IV therapy is not necessary, expressed by 31%. Intravenous Mg appears to be uncommonly used in stable children with severe acute asthma and does not frequently play a role in reducing hospitalizations. Further research to justify its enhanced use and to better establish its true adverse effect profile is indicated. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1189-1196 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]