OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).
METHODS: Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
METHODS: Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included.
METHODS: The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).
METHODS: The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding.
RESULTS: We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients\' underlying conditions.

Although previous studies have focused on hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with COVID-19 vaccines, literature on such ADRs with other vaccines is limited, particularly on a global scale. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the global burden of vaccine-associated hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal ADRs and identify the vaccines implicated in these occurrences. This study utilized data from the World Health Organization (WHO) international pharmacovigilance database to extract reports of vaccine-associated hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal ADRs from 1967 to 2023 (total reports = 131 255 418). Through global reporting counts, reported odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and information components (IC) with IC0.25, the study examined the association between 16 vaccines and the incidence of hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal ADRs across 156 countries. Of the 6 842 303 reports in the vaccine-associated ADRs, 10 786 reports of liver injury, 927 870 reports of gastrointestinal symptoms, 2978 reports of pancreas and bile duct injury, and 96 reports of intra-abdominal hemorrhage between 1967 and 2023 were identified. Most hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal ADRs surged after 2020, with the majority of reports attributed to COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. Hepatitis A vaccines exhibited the highest association with liver injury (ROR [95% CI]: 10.30 [9.65-10.99]; IC [IC0.25]: 3.33 [3.22]), followed by hepatitis B, typhoid, and rotavirus. Specifically, ischemic hepatitis had a significant association with both Ad5-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Gastrointestinal symptoms were associated with all vaccines except for tuberculosis vaccines, particularly with rotavirus (11.62 [11.45-11.80]; 3.05 [3.03]) and typhoid (11.02 [10.66-11.39]; 3.00 [2.96]). Pancreas and bile duct injury were associated with COVID-19 mRNA (1.99 [1.89-2.09]; 0.90 [0.83]), MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), and papillomavirus vaccines. For intra-abdominal hemorrhage, inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccines (3.93 [1.86-8.27]; 1.71 [0.41]) had the highest association, followed by COVID-19 mRNA (1.81 [1.42-2.29]; 0.77 [0.39]). Most of these ADRs had a short time to onset, within 1 day, and low mortality rate. Through a global scale database, the majority of ADRs occurred within 1 day, emphasizing the importance of healthcare workers\' vigilant monitoring and timely management.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals play an essential role in reporting adverse drug reactions as part of pharmacovigilance activities. However, adverse drug reactions reported by healthcare professionals remain low.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate healthcare professionals\' knowledge, awareness, attitude, and practice on pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting, explore the causes of the underreporting issue, and provide improvement strategies.
METHODS: This systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases for original papers, including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Scholar ID. Recent publications from 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2022 were selected. The following terms were used in the search: \"awareness\", \"knowledge\", \"adverse drug reaction\", \"pharmacovigilance\", \"healthcare professional\", and \"underreporting factor\". Articles were chosen, extracted, and reviewed by the two authors.
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were selected for systematic review. This review found that 24.8%-73.33% of healthcare professionals were unaware of the National Pharmacovigilance Center. Around 20%-95.7% of healthcare professionals have a positive attitude toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting, while 12%-60.8% of healthcare professionals have experience reporting any adverse drug reaction in their practice. The most frequently highlighted barriers to pharmacovigilance were a lack of awareness and knowledge regarding what, when, and to whom to report.
CONCLUSIONS: Underreporting issues require immediate attention among healthcare professionals due to a lack of awareness and knowledge of pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting. Educational and training program interventions have been suggested by most studies to address these issues.

BACKGROUND: Flumazenil is a competitive benzodiazepine (BZD) antagonist most used for treating delirium in BZD overdoses. Since its introduction, many have expressed concerns about its safety secondary to the risk of inducing BZD withdrawal and refractory seizures.
OBJECTIVE: What is the incidence of adverse drug events after the administration of flumazenil in patients with suspected iatrogenic BZD delirium?
METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients from a single center from 2010 to 2013. Patients experiencing delirium after receiving BZDs in the hospital were included if they had a bedside toxicology consult and were administered flumazenil. Patients were excluded if they were given BZDs for ethanol withdrawal or if they did not have mental status documentation before and after flumazenil administration. Descriptive statistics were calculated.
METHODS: The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse drug events after flumazenil administration. The secondary outcome was the efficacy of flumazenil determined by the patient\'s mental status.
RESULTS: A total of 501 patient records were reviewed, and 206 patients were included in the final analysis. Of those patients, 172 (83.5%) experienced an objective improvement in their mental status within 1 hour after flumazenil administration. A total of 5 patients experienced adverse events (2.4%), 95% confidence interval (0.78, 5.54). Of these, 3 patients experienced minor agitation or restlessness without pharmacologic intervention. Two patients experienced moderate agitation or restlessness that resolved with haloperidol or physostigmine administration. No patients had a reported seizure, 95% confidence interval (0.0, 1.77).
CONCLUSIONS: Flumazenil seems to be a safe and effective intervention for the reversal of delirium secondary to iatrogenic BZD administration.

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.

暂无摘要。

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is one of the most common diseases in men, with a prevalence rate of 50% in their 50s to 80% in their 80s, and is mostly treated with chronic drug therapy. The aim of this study was to analyze adverse drug reactions (ADR) to drugs used in benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) treatment reported to HALMED from 2008 to 2021. Data on ADR reports in Croatia were obtained from the VigiFlow national database and on the use of drugs for BPH in Croatia from Drug Utilization Reports from HALMED. In the observed period, the number of reports on each BPH drug, total number of reports, seriousness of reported ADR, patient age and sex, type of reporter, and most reported ADRs were analyzed. Results showed that 438 ADR reports were received, of which 45.95% on tamsulosin as the most frequently used drug for BPH. Of all reports, 84% were non-serious, 96% were reported in men and 82% in patients older than 45 years. The most frequently reported ADRs were consistent with the known safety profile of BPH drugs. Pharmacists were the most common (47%) reporters of ADRs for BPH drugs, while 33% were reported by physicians. Analysis of the reported ADRs showed that most frequently reported ones were in line with the known safety profile of BPH drugs. However, given the prevalence of the disease and the extent of the use of BPH drugs, it could be argued that the number of reports could be higher (i.e., 34 reports/year). Reporting on ADRs is necessary to better understand the safety profile of drugs in the post-authorization period, and more information on the safe use of medicines could be collected by raising awareness of healthcare professionals.

Coagulation disorders in critically ill patients presenting with bleeding can be multicausal. The drugs applied can interfere and impair the coagulation cascade. Point-of-care (POC) coagulation assays may resolve difficult therapeutic situations in critical illness. We report on a 73-year-old critically ill male patient with massive hematuria after bladder lithotripsy. The patient was on low molecular weight heparin therapy due to recent pulmonary embolism. He was subjected to repeated surgical hemostasis which was ineffective despite massive transfusion protocol and normal standard coagulation profile. Additional POC coagulation assays were obtained and were indicative of platelet dysfunction. We revised his medical therapy and suspected the possible drug influence on platelet aggregation. After discontinuation of target drug, platelet aggregation increased whereas hematuria stopped. Coagulation disorders in intensive care unit patients are often multifactorial. Standard laboratory tests are unreliable in complex refractory bleeding and may result in inappropriate therapeutic decisions. Stepwise approach with assessment of clinical parameters, present therapy, and a combination of POC coagulation tests is the key to optimal therapeutic management.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors and associated adverse drug events (ADE) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In recent years, the prevention of medication errors has become a high priority in healthcare systems. In order to improve medication safety, computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are increasingly being integrated into the medication process. Accordingly, a growing number of studies have investigated the medication safety-related effectiveness of CDSS. However, the outcome measures used are heterogeneous, leading to unclear evidence. The primary aim of this study is to summarize and categorize the outcomes used in interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS on medication safety in primary and long-term care.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS targeting medication safety and patient-related outcomes. We extracted methodological characteristics, outcomes and empirical findings from the included studies. Outcomes were assigned to three main categories: process-related, harm-related, and cost-related. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.
RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (n = 31) used process-related outcomes, followed by harm-related outcomes (n = 11). Only three studies used cost-related outcomes. Most studies used outcomes from only one category and no study used outcomes from all three categories. The definition and operationalization of outcomes varied widely between the included studies, even within outcome categories. Overall, evidence on CDSS effectiveness was mixed. A significant intervention effect was demonstrated by nine of fifteen studies with process-related primary outcomes (60%) but only one out of five studies with harm-related primary outcomes (20%). The included studies faced a number of methodological problems that limit the comparability and generalizability of their results.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness of CDSS is currently inconclusive due in part to inconsistent outcome definitions and methodological problems in the literature. Additional high-quality studies are therefore needed to provide a comprehensive account of CDSS effectiveness. These studies should follow established methodological guidelines and recommendations and use a comprehensive set of harm-, process- and cost-related outcomes with agreed-upon and consistent definitions.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023464746.