Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 4(3): e003431, 2014 Mar 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24682573

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the rates and causality of adverse event(s) (AE) associated with natural health product (NHP) use, prescription drug use and concurrent NHP-drug use through active surveillance in community pharmacies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of screened patients. SETTING: 10 community pharmacies across Alberta and British Columbia, Canada from 14 January to 30 July 2011. PARTICIPANTS: The participating pharmacy staff screened consecutive patients, or agents of patients, who were dropping or picking up prescription medications. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were screened to determine the proportions of them using prescription drugs and/or NHPs, as well as their respective AE rates. All AEs reported by the screened patients who took a NHP, consented to, and were available for, a detailed telephone interview (14%) were adjudicated fully to assess for causality. RESULTS: Over a total of 105 pharmacy weeks and 1118 patients screened, 410 patients reported taking prescription drugs only (36.7%; 95% CI 33.9% to 39.5%), 37 reported taking NHPs only (3.3%; 95% CI 2.4% to 4.5%) and 657 reported taking prescription drugs and NHPs concurrently (58.8%; 95% CI 55.9% to 61.6%). In total, 54 patients reported an AE, representing 1.2% (95% CI 0.51% to 2.9%), 2.7% (95% CI 0.4% to 16.9%) and 7.3% (95% CI 5.6% to 9.6%) of each population, respectively. Compared with patients who reported using prescription drugs, the patients who reported using prescription drugs and NHPs concurrently were 6.4 times more likely to experience an AE (OR; 95% CI 2.52 to 16.17; p<0.001). Combined with data from Ontario, Canada, a national proportion was calculated, which found that 45.4% (95% CI 43.8% to 47.0%) of Canadians who visit community pharmacies take NHPs and prescription drugs concurrently, and of those, 7.4% (95% CI 6.3% to 8.8%) report an AE. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of community pharmacy patients use prescription drugs and NHPs concurrently; these patients are at a greater risk of experiencing an AE. Active surveillance provides a means of detecting such AEs and collecting high-quality data on which causality assessment can be based.


Assuntos
Produtos Biológicos/efeitos adversos , Interações Medicamentosas , Farmácias , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/efeitos adversos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Colúmbia Britânica , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ontário , Farmacêuticos , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/uso terapêutico , Características de Residência , Inquéritos e Questionários
2.
PLoS One ; 7(9): e45196, 2012.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23028841

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Many consumers use natural health products (NHPs) concurrently with prescription medications. As NHP-related harms are under-reported through passive surveillance, the safety of concurrent NHP-drug use remains unknown. To conduct active surveillance in participating community pharmacies to identify adverse events related to concurrent NHP-prescription drug use. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participating pharmacists asked individuals collecting prescription medications about (i) concurrent NHP/drug use in the previous three months and (ii) experiences of adverse events. If an adverse event was identified and if the patient provided written consent, a research pharmacist conducted a guided telephone interview to gather additional information after obtaining additional verbal consent and documenting so within the interview form. Over a total of 112 pharmacy weeks, 2615 patients were screened, of which 1037 (39.7%; 95% CI: 37.8% to 41.5%) reported concurrent NHP and prescription medication use. A total of 77 patients reported a possible AE (2.94%; 95% CI: 2.4% to 3.7%), which represents 7.4% of those using NHPs and prescription medications concurrently (95%CI: 6.0% to 9.2%). Of 15 patients available for an interview, 4 (26.7%: 95% CI: 4.3% to 49.0%) reported an AE that was determined to be "probably" due to NHP use. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Active surveillance markedly improves identification and reporting of adverse events associated with concurrent NHP-drug use. Although not without challenges, active surveillance is feasible and can generate adverse event data of sufficient quality to allow for meaningful adjudication to assess potential harms.


Assuntos
Sistemas de Notificação de Reações Adversas a Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Produtos Biológicos/efeitos adversos , Interações Ervas-Drogas , Farmacêuticos , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Idoso , Canadá , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Farmácias , Vigilância em Saúde Pública , Inquéritos e Questionários
3.
Nicotine Tob Res ; 11(6): 670-8, 2009 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19395685

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Our main objective was to estimate smoking prevalence as well as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of self-reported smoking among pregnant women in Edmonton, Canada, at 15-16 weeks of gestation. METHODS: We used serum samples to assemble a cohort of pregnant women who underwent an optional second-trimester screening for chromosomal and developmental anomalies. We determined cotinine concentrations for 92 self-reported smokers (11% of the cohort) and for 285 self-reported nonsmoking mothers, using adapted urinary cotinine assay. Self-reports were collected at the time of delivery. In a validation study, serum cotinine was determined for known smokers and nonsmokers and used, within a Bayesian statistical framework, to define the distribution of cutoffs that differentiate true smokers from nonsmokers. This distribution of cutoffs was used to construct multiple two-by-two tables to obtain the distribution of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and prevalence. RESULTS: Sensitivity was poor (M = 47.4%, SD = 17.3%), but specificity was nearly perfect (M = 94.9%, SD = 1.1%). PPV (M = 66.6%, SD = 11.7%) was smaller than NPV (M = 84.7%, SD = 14.3%). In our sample, the prevalence of true smoking at 15-16 weeks of gestation was described by a skewed distribution with a mean of 21.6% (SD = 13.8%) and a median of 16.6%. DISCUSSION: The strength of the present study includes blinding of subjects to the intention to test their sera for a biomarker of smoking. A limitation was the use of a nonrandom sample restricted to pregnancies that resulted in live births. We discuss data collection methods that would elicit more accurate smoking histories from pregnant women.


Assuntos
Cotinina/sangue , Exposição Materna/estatística & dados numéricos , Complicações na Gravidez/epidemiologia , Autorrevelação , Fumar/epidemiologia , Adulto , Biomarcadores/sangue , Canadá/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Comportamento Materno , Gravidez , Complicações na Gravidez/sangue , Cuidado Pré-Natal/métodos , Valores de Referência , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Fumar/sangue , Fumar/psicologia , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA