METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to March 2024 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of any type or concentration of TCSs with placebo or no treatment in boys with any degree of physician diagnosed phimosis. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) using a consistency model within a frequentist approach was employed. The primary outcome was partial or complete resolution of phimosis reported as a pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Relative ranking was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs, containing 2057 participants were identified. NMA suggested that, compared with control, the high (RR 3.19 (95% CI 1.42 to 7.16), moderate (RR 2.68 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.83) and low (RR 3.05 (95% CI 1.63 to 5.71) potency TCSs statistically significantly increased complete or partial clinical resolution of phimosis. The SUCRA plot revealed that high potency (SUCRA = 0.76) was ranked first followed by low and moderate TCSs. When we assessed comparative efficacy among TCSs based on potency, none of the classes were superior to others. The certainty of the evidence for an effect of moderate potent TCSs was that of moderate GRADE quality.
CONCLUSION: Moderate to low potency TCSs are of comparable therapeutic effect in the treatment of phimosis to that of highly potent formulations. More high-quality RCTs are warranted.
AIMS: To systematically review the current state of PGx in the primary care settings and determine the enablers and challenges of its implementation.
DESIGN: A scoping review was carried out by adhering to Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage methodological framework and the 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute and Levac et al. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE and PubMed were searched up to 17 July 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All peer-reviewed studies in English, reporting the enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx in the primary care settings were included.
DATE EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Information was synthesised based on the reported enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx testing in the primary care settings. Information was then presented to stakeholders for their inputs.
RESULTS: 78 studies discussing the implementation of PGx testing are included, of which 57% were published between 2019 and 2023. 68% of the studies discussed PGx testing in the primary care setting as a disease-specific themes. Healthcare professionals were the major stakeholders, with primary care physicians (55%) being the most represented. Enablers encompassed various advantages such as diagnostic and therapeutic benefits, cost reduction and the empowerment of healthcare professionals. Challenges included the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, insufficient training for healthcare professionals, ethical and legal aspects of PGx data, low patient awareness and acceptance and the high costs linked to PGx testing.
CONCLUSION: PGx testing integration in primary care requires increased consumer awareness, comprehensive healthcare provider training on legal and ethical aspects and global feasibility studies to better understand its implementation challenges. Managing high costs entails streamlining processes, advocating for reimbursement policies and investing in research on innovation and affordability research to improve life expectancy.
DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted that adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were searched up to 23 February 2024.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND SETTING: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method primary research studies. There was no limitation on the publication date, geographical locations or the study settings.
PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists, doctors, nurses and students from these respective professional groups in any country.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The levels of healthcare staff and students' KAPs about disposal of unwanted medications.
DATE EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was conducted by four of the researchers independently. The study details were categorised into three main domains, that is, KAP using the KAP model. Other relevant information was also extracted, and synthesised in overall themes, such as challenges and recommendations.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies from 18 countries (Asia n=21, the USA n=7, Africa n=5, EU n=2, South America n=2) were included. 86.5% (n=32) investigated participants' knowledge of medication disposal. Although there was a good level of awareness about the environmental impacts, there were significant gaps in knowledge regarding correct disposal methods, available services, guidelines and training. Thirty studies explored participants' attitudes towards medication disposal. There was a generally positive attitude towards the need for environmentally safe disposal practices. Thirty-five studies evaluated participants' practices in relation to medication disposal. Although there was generally a positive attitude and some understanding of appropriate disposal methods, the majority of the participants did not follow the practice guidelines, especially outside healthcare settings.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare staff and students have fair knowledge and positive attitudes towards medicine disposal, their actual practices are lacking. One significant challenge identified is the limited awareness about proper disposal methods coupled with a lack of established services or guidelines. Even in cases where take-back programmes are available, they often face issues with accessibility. To tackle these challenges, it is suggested that governmental bodies should establish and enforce clear policies on medication disposal while also expanding educational initiatives to increase understanding among professionals and students. Furthermore, improving access to take-back programmes is crucial for ensuring safe medication disposal and minimising potential environmental and health hazards.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024503162.