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}
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
