药剂师干预与药物不良事件和潜在药物不良事件的关联。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.5853
W N Kelly, M J Ho, T Smith, K Bullers, D W Bates, A Kumar
{"title":"药剂师干预与药物不良事件和潜在药物不良事件的关联。","authors":"W N Kelly, M J Ho, T Smith, K Bullers, D W Bates, A Kumar","doi":"10.1002/pds.5853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a frequent cause of injury in patients. Our aim was to assess whether pharmacist interventions compared with no pharmacist intervention results in reduced ADEs and potential adverse drug events (PADEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases through September 19, 2022 for any RCT assessing the effect of a pharmacist intervention compared with no pharmacist intervention and reporting on ADEs or PADEs. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. A random-effects model was used to pool summary results from individual RCTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results showed a statistically significant reduction in ADE associated with pharmacist intervention compared with no pharmacist intervention (RR = 0.86; [95% CI 0.80-0.94]; p = 0.0005) but not for PADEs (RR = 0.79; [95% CI 0.47-1.32]; p = 0.37). The heterogeneity was insignificant (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) for ADEs and substantial (I<sup>2</sup> = 77%) for PADEs. Patients receiving a pharmacist intervention were 14% less likely for ADE than those who did not receive a pharmacist intervention. The estimated number of patients needed to prevent one ADE across all patient locations was 33.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs seeking to understand the association of pharmacist interventions with ADEs and PADEs. The risk of having an ADE is reduced by a seventh for patients receiving a pharmacist care intervention versus no such intervention. The estimated number of patients needed to be followed across all patient locations to prevent one preventable ADE across all patient locations is 33.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 7","pages":"e5853"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association of Pharmacist Interventions With Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events.\",\"authors\":\"W N Kelly, M J Ho, T Smith, K Bullers, D W Bates, A Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pds.5853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a frequent cause of injury in patients. Our aim was to assess whether pharmacist interventions compared with no pharmacist intervention results in reduced ADEs and potential adverse drug events (PADEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases through September 19, 2022 for any RCT assessing the effect of a pharmacist intervention compared with no pharmacist intervention and reporting on ADEs or PADEs. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. A random-effects model was used to pool summary results from individual RCTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results showed a statistically significant reduction in ADE associated with pharmacist intervention compared with no pharmacist intervention (RR = 0.86; [95% CI 0.80-0.94]; p = 0.0005) but not for PADEs (RR = 0.79; [95% CI 0.47-1.32]; p = 0.37). The heterogeneity was insignificant (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) for ADEs and substantial (I<sup>2</sup> = 77%) for PADEs. Patients receiving a pharmacist intervention were 14% less likely for ADE than those who did not receive a pharmacist intervention. The estimated number of patients needed to prevent one ADE across all patient locations was 33.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs seeking to understand the association of pharmacist interventions with ADEs and PADEs. The risk of having an ADE is reduced by a seventh for patients receiving a pharmacist care intervention versus no such intervention. The estimated number of patients needed to be followed across all patient locations to prevent one preventable ADE across all patient locations is 33.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\"33 7\",\"pages\":\"e5853\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5853\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5853","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:药物不良事件(ADEs)是导致患者受伤的一个常见原因。我们的目的是评估药剂师干预与无药剂师干预相比是否会减少药物不良事件(ADEs)和潜在药物不良事件(PADEs):截至 2022 年 9 月 19 日,我们在 MEDLINE、Embase 和其他两个数据库中检索了所有评估药师干预与无药师干预效果的 RCT,并报告了 ADE 或 PADE。采用 Cochrane RCT 工具评估偏倚风险。采用随机效应模型汇总各 RCT 的汇总结果:结果:15 项 RCT 符合纳入标准。汇总结果显示,与无药剂师干预相比,药剂师干预可在统计学上显著减少 ADE(RR = 0.86;[95% CI 0.80-0.94];p = 0.0005),但 PADEs(RR = 0.79;[95% CI 0.47-1.32];p = 0.37)则没有显著减少。ADEs的异质性不显著(I2 = 0%),PADEs的异质性显著(I2 = 77%)。接受药剂师干预的患者发生 ADE 的几率比未接受药剂师干预的患者低 14%。据估计,在所有患者地点预防一次 ADE 所需的患者人数为 33.结论:据我们所知,这是首次对 RCT 进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,旨在了解药剂师干预与 ADE 和 PADE 之间的关系。接受药剂师护理干预与不接受药剂师干预相比,患者发生 ADE 的风险降低了七分之一。据估计,在所有患者所在地预防一次可预防的 ADE 所需的随访患者人数为 33 人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Association of Pharmacist Interventions With Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events.

Background: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a frequent cause of injury in patients. Our aim was to assess whether pharmacist interventions compared with no pharmacist intervention results in reduced ADEs and potential adverse drug events (PADEs).

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases through September 19, 2022 for any RCT assessing the effect of a pharmacist intervention compared with no pharmacist intervention and reporting on ADEs or PADEs. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. A random-effects model was used to pool summary results from individual RCTs.

Results: Fifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results showed a statistically significant reduction in ADE associated with pharmacist intervention compared with no pharmacist intervention (RR = 0.86; [95% CI 0.80-0.94]; p = 0.0005) but not for PADEs (RR = 0.79; [95% CI 0.47-1.32]; p = 0.37). The heterogeneity was insignificant (I2 = 0%) for ADEs and substantial (I2 = 77%) for PADEs. Patients receiving a pharmacist intervention were 14% less likely for ADE than those who did not receive a pharmacist intervention. The estimated number of patients needed to prevent one ADE across all patient locations was 33.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs seeking to understand the association of pharmacist interventions with ADEs and PADEs. The risk of having an ADE is reduced by a seventh for patients receiving a pharmacist care intervention versus no such intervention. The estimated number of patients needed to be followed across all patient locations to prevent one preventable ADE across all patient locations is 33.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
期刊最新文献
Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Time-To-Event Analysis Approaches in Pharmacoepidemiology. Hydrochlorothiazide Use and Risk of Skin Cancer: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. The Oncology QCARD Initiative: Fostering efficient evaluation of initial real-world data proposals. Validation Study of the Claims-Based Algorithm Using the International Classification of Diseases Codes to Identify Patients With Coronavirus Disease in Japan From 2020 to 2022: The VENUS Study. A Validated Algorithm to Identify Hepatic Decompensation in the Veterans Health Administration Electronic Health Record System.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1