Identifying health outcomes of pharmaceutical clinical services in patients with cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a major public health problem that imposes limitations on patients being treated. One of the strategies to improve health outcomes in cancer patients and promote the safety of their treatment is the provision of pharmaceutical clinical services (PCS). However, there is no evidence of health outcomes that are influenced by such services. OBJECTIVE: Identify the health outcomes influenced by PCS in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in the following databases: Cochrane Library, LILACS, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, and using the PRISMA Statement In addition to the search, we analyzed the references of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The descriptors used were defined by the MeSH keywords "neoplasms," "pharmacists," and "pharmaceutical services". We analyzed the studies with an observational design published until March 2018 that used PCS and related them with the health outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the eligibility criteria, and then extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 658 articles were found in the initial search, of which eight met the inclusion criteria. Six studies evaluated clinical outcomes: four assessed adverse reactions, one identified six barriers that prevented patients' adherence to medication and solved three of these barriers, and two evaluated PCS related to drug-related problems (DRP) in identification and resolution. Four studies identified a humanistic outcome: two evaluated the quality of life of patients on cancer treatment associated with improvement of symptoms, two investigated pain, and two performed a patient satisfaction survey on PCS. This systematic review identified only one study with an economic outcome, addressing the reduction of medical expenses related to the treatment of neutropenia that affects cancer patients. Most of the studies showed good methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified health outcomes associated with PCS in cancer patients: clinical (adverse drug reaction, DRP resolution, adherence, and pain), humanistic (quality of life and satisfaction), and economic outcomes (reduction of treatment costs for cancer).

Conceptualizing and measuring potentially inappropriate drug therapy.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Elderly people are the principal consumers of prescription drugs. The more the medication used by the patient, the greater the likelihood there is of the patient being subjected to potentially inappropriate drug therapy (PIDT). PIDT has been measured in the literature with both implicit and explicit tools. The purpose of this review was to assess the use of tools to detect PIDT in various studies and to determine which terms are used to refer to PIDT in practice. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the following steps: the first was identification. In this step, studies were selected from different combinations of the descriptors 'aged', 'elderly', 'inappropriate prescribing' and 'drug utilization' in three different languages, using the Embase, Medline, Scielo, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Second, the papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria for data extraction were carefully examined by three evaluators to determine the tools used and terms that referred to PIDT. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: From the combinations of keywords, 8610 articles were found. At the end of the selection process, 119 of the articles complied with the specified criteria. The degree of agreement among evaluators was moderate for the study titles (κ1  = 0·479) and substantial for abstracts (κ2  = 0·647). With respect to the PIDT evaluation criteria used by the studies, 27·7% used two criteria. Of the 27 evaluation criteria identified, the Beers criteria were used by 82·3% of the studies. More than 50 different terms to identify PIDT were found in the literature. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This review is the first study to conceptualize and discuss terms that refer to PIDT. At present, there is no consensus regarding terms used to refer to PIDT, with over 50 different terms currently in use. This review shows an increase in the number of articles aimed at evaluating PIDT using implicit and explicit tools.