OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utilization of coxibs and traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs) indicated for postoperative orthopaedic pain control using defined daily dose (DDD) and ratio of use density to use rate (UD/UR).
METHOD: A retrospective drug utilization review (DUR) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at an inpatient department of a private teaching hospital in Seremban, Malaysia was conducted. Patients' demographic characteristics, medications prescribed, clinical lab results, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores and length of hospital stay were documented. Orthopaedic surgeries, namely arthroscopy, reconstructive, and fracture fixation, were included. Stratified random sampling was used to select patients. Data were collected through patients' medical records. The DDD per 100 admissions and the indicator UD/UR were calculated with the World Health Organization's DDD as a benchmark. The inclusion criteria were patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery prescribed with coxibs (celecoxib capsules, etoricoxib tablets, parecoxib injections) and tNSAIDs (dexketoprofen injections, diclofenac sodium tablets). Data were analysed descriptively. This research was approved by the academic institution and the hospital research ethics committee.
RESULT: A total of 195 records of patients who received NSAIDs were randomly selected among 1169 cases. In term of the types of orthopaedic surgery, the ratio of included records for arthroscopy:fracture fixation:reconstructive surgery was 55.4:35.9:8.7. Most of the inpatients had low rates of common comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease as supported by their baseline parameters. The majority were not prescribed with other concomitant prescriptions that could cause drug interaction (74.9%), or gastroprotective agents (77.4%). Overall, DDDs per 100 admissions for all NSAIDs were less than 100, except for parecoxib injections (389.23). The UD/UR for all NSAIDs were less than 100, except for etoricoxib tablets (105.75) and parecoxib injections (108.00).
DISCUSSION: As per guidelines, the majority (96.9%) received other analgesics to ensure a multimodal approach was carried out to control pain. From the UD/UR results, the arthroscopy surgery was probably the most appropriate in terms of NSAID utilization.
CONCLUSION: The prescribing pattern of NSAIDs except parecoxib was appropriate based on adverse effect and concurrent medication profile. The findings of this DUR provide insight for a low-risk patient population at a private specialized teaching hospital on the recommended use of NSAIDs for postoperative orthopaedic pain control.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.
METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, controlled trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis visiting outpatient rheumatology clinics in Karachi, Pakistan. We will enroll patients with established diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months. The patients would be randomized through a computer-generated list into the control group, i.e., usual care or into the intervention group, i.e., pharmaceutical care, in a ratio of 1:1, after providing signed written consent. The study will take place in two patient-visits over the course of 3 months. Patients in the intervention group would receive intervention from the pharmacist while those in the control group will receive usual care. Primary outcomes include change in mean score from baseline (week 0) and at follow up (week 12) in disease knowledge, adherence to medications and rehabilitation/physical therapy. The secondary outcomes include change in the mean direct cost of treatment, HRQoL and patient satisfaction with pharmacist counselling.
DISCUSSION: This is a novel study that evaluates the role of the pharmacist in improving treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The results of this trial could set the foundation for future delivery of care for this patient population in Pakistan. The results of this trial would be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03827148 . Registered on February 2019.