Prescribing cascades in ambulatory care: A structured synthesis of evidence.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-11 DOI:10.1002/phar.2880
Faiza Shahid, Ann Doherty, Emma Wallace, Sven Schmiedl, G Caleb Alexander, Tobias Dreischulte
{"title":"Prescribing cascades in ambulatory care: A structured synthesis of evidence.","authors":"Faiza Shahid, Ann Doherty, Emma Wallace, Sven Schmiedl, G Caleb Alexander, Tobias Dreischulte","doi":"10.1002/phar.2880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The strength of evidence for specific ambulatory care prescribing cascades, in which a marker drug is used to treat an adverse event caused by an index drug, has not been well characterized. To perform a structured, systematic, and transparent review of the evidence supporting ambulatory care prescribing cascades. Ninety-four potential prescribing cascades identified through a previously published systematic review. Systematic search of the literature to further characterize prescribing cascades. (1) Grading of evidence based on observational studies investigating associations between index and marker drugs, including: Level I-strong evidence [i.e. multiple high-quality studies]; Level II-moderate evidence [i.e. single high-quality study]; Level III-fair evidence [no high-quality studies but one or more moderate-quality studies]; and Level IV-poor evidence [other]. (2) Listing of the adverse event associated with the index drug in the product's United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label. (3) Synthesis of the evidence supporting mechanisms linking index drugs and associated adverse events. Of 99 potential cascades, 94 were supported by one or more confirmatory observational studies and were therefore included in this review. The 94 cascades related to 30 types of adverse drug reactions affecting 10 different anatomic/physiologic systems and were investigated by a total of 88 confirmatory studies, including prescription sequential symmetry analysis (n = 51), cohort (n = 30), and case-control (n = 7) studies. Overall, the evidence from observational studies was strong for 18 (19.1%) prescribing cascades, moderate for 61 (64.9%), fair for 13 (13.8%), and poor for 2 (2.1%). Although the evidence supporting mechanisms that link index drugs and associated adverse events was variable, FDA labels included information about the adverse event associated with the index drug for most (n = 86) but not all of the 94 prescribing cascades. Although we identified 18 of 94 prescribing cascades supported by strong clinical evidence and most adverse events associated with index drugs are included in FDA label, the evidentiary basis for prescribing cascades varies, with many requiring further evidence of clinical relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":20013,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2880","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The strength of evidence for specific ambulatory care prescribing cascades, in which a marker drug is used to treat an adverse event caused by an index drug, has not been well characterized. To perform a structured, systematic, and transparent review of the evidence supporting ambulatory care prescribing cascades. Ninety-four potential prescribing cascades identified through a previously published systematic review. Systematic search of the literature to further characterize prescribing cascades. (1) Grading of evidence based on observational studies investigating associations between index and marker drugs, including: Level I-strong evidence [i.e. multiple high-quality studies]; Level II-moderate evidence [i.e. single high-quality study]; Level III-fair evidence [no high-quality studies but one or more moderate-quality studies]; and Level IV-poor evidence [other]. (2) Listing of the adverse event associated with the index drug in the product's United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label. (3) Synthesis of the evidence supporting mechanisms linking index drugs and associated adverse events. Of 99 potential cascades, 94 were supported by one or more confirmatory observational studies and were therefore included in this review. The 94 cascades related to 30 types of adverse drug reactions affecting 10 different anatomic/physiologic systems and were investigated by a total of 88 confirmatory studies, including prescription sequential symmetry analysis (n = 51), cohort (n = 30), and case-control (n = 7) studies. Overall, the evidence from observational studies was strong for 18 (19.1%) prescribing cascades, moderate for 61 (64.9%), fair for 13 (13.8%), and poor for 2 (2.1%). Although the evidence supporting mechanisms that link index drugs and associated adverse events was variable, FDA labels included information about the adverse event associated with the index drug for most (n = 86) but not all of the 94 prescribing cascades. Although we identified 18 of 94 prescribing cascades supported by strong clinical evidence and most adverse events associated with index drugs are included in FDA label, the evidentiary basis for prescribing cascades varies, with many requiring further evidence of clinical relevance.

门诊护理中的处方级联:证据的结构化综合。
重要性:特定门诊护理处方级联的证据强度尚未得到很好的表征,在该级联中,一种标志性药物用于治疗由指标药物引起的不良事件。目的:对支持门诊护理处方级联的l证据进行结构化、系统和透明的审查设计、设置和参与者:通过先前发表的系统审查确定的94个潜在处方级联。系统检索文献,以进一步描述处方级联。主要结果:(1)基于调查指标药物和标志药物之间相关性的观察性研究对证据进行分级,包括:I级-有力证据[即多项高质量研究];二级-中等证据[即单一高质量研究];三级-公正证据[没有高质量研究,但有一项或多项中等质量研究];四级-证据不足[其他]。(2) 美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)标签中与指标药物相关的不良事件列表。(3) 将指标药物和相关不良事件联系起来的证据支持机制的综合。结果:在99个潜在级联反应中,94个得到了一项或多项验证性观察性研究的支持,因此被纳入本综述。94个级联反应涉及影响10个不同解剖/生理系统的30种药物不良反应,共88项验证性研究对其进行了研究,包括处方序列对称性分析(n=51)、队列研究(n=30)和病例对照研究(n=7)。总体而言,观察性研究的证据对18个(19.1%)处方级联反应有力,对61个(64.9%)中等,对13个(13.8%)尚可,对2个(2.1%)较差。尽管支持指标药物和相关不良事件联系机制的证据是可变的,美国食品药品监督管理局的标签包括与大多数(n=86)但不是所有94个处方级联的指标药物相关的不良事件的信息。结论:尽管我们确定了94个处方级联中的18个,并得到了强有力的临床证据的支持,而且大多数与指标药物相关的不良事件都包括在FDA标签中,但处方级联的证据基础各不相同,许多需要进一步的临床相关性证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacotherapy
Pharmacotherapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.40%
发文量
93
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmacotherapy is devoted to publication of original research articles on all aspects of human pharmacology and review articles on drugs and drug therapy. The Editors and Editorial Board invite original research reports on pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, and drug interaction studies, clinical trials, investigations of specific pharmacological properties of drugs, and related topics.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信