Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among ambulatory cancer patients: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The pharmacotherapeutic treatment of patients with cancer is generally associated with multiple side-effects. Drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions between anti-cancer drugs or interactions with medication to treat comorbidity can reinforce or intensify side-effects.</p> <p>The aim of the present study is to gain more insight into the prevalence of drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among patients being treated in the outpatient day care departments for oncology and hematological illnesses. For the first time the prevalence of drug interactions with OTC-drugs in cancer patients will be studied. Possible risk factors for the occurrence of these drug-related problems will also be studied.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multicenter cross-sectional observational study of the epidemiology of drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions is performed among all oncology and hemato-oncology patients treated with systemic anti-cancer drugs at the oncology and hematology outpatient day care department of the VU University medical center and the Zaans Medical Center.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In this article the prevalence of potential drug interactions in outpatient day-care patients treated with anti-cancer agents is studied using a novel more extensive screening method. If this study shows a high prevalence of drug interactions clinical pharmacists and oncologists must collaborate to develop a pharmaceutical screening programme, including an automated electronic warning system, to support drug prescribing for ambulatory cancer patient. This programme could minimize the occurrence of drug related problems such as drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions, thereby increasing quality of life.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This study is registered, number NTR2238.</p

A clinical evaluation of amlexanox oral adhesive pellicles in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis and comparison with amlexanox oral tablets: a randomized, placebo controlled, blinded, multicenter clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Amlexanox has been developed as a 5 percent topical oral paste for the treatment of patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) in most European countries. However, it is not yet available in China and has not been generally accepted in clinical treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of amlexanox oral adhesive pellicles in the treatment of minor recurrent aphthous ulcers, and compare the results with those of amlexanox oral adhesive tablets in order to analyse the difference between the two dosage forms of amlexanox.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel, multicenter clinical study. A total of 216 patients with minor recurrent aphthous ulcers (MiRAU) were recruited and randomized to amlexanox pellicles or placebo pellicles. Pellicles were consecutively applied four times per day, for five days. The size and pain level of ulcers were measured and recorded on treatment days 0, 4 and 6. Finally, the results were compared with those of our previous 104 cases treated with amlexanox tablets.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Amlexanox oral adhesive pellicles significantly reduced ulcer size (P= 0.017 for day 4, P=0.038 for day 6) and alleviated ulcer pain (P=0.021 for day 4, P=0.036 for day 6). No significant difference was observed in the treatment effectiveness between the pellicle and tablet form of amlexanox.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Amlexanox oral adhesive pellicles are as effective and safe as amlexanox oral adhesive tablets in the treatment of MiRAU for this Chinese cohort. However, pellicles seem to be more comfortable to use when compared with the dosage form of tablets. Therefore, in clinical practice, amlexanox oral adhesive pellicles may be a better choice for RAS patients.</p> <p>Trials registration</p> <p>Nederlands Trial Register NTR1727.</p

Drug information resources used by nurse practitioners and collaborating physicians at the point of care in Nova Scotia, Canada: a survey and review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Keeping current with drug therapy information is challenging for health care practitioners. Technologies are often implemented to facilitate access to current and credible drug information sources. In the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, legislation was passed in 2002 to allow nurse practitioners (NPs) to practice collaboratively with physician partners. The purpose of this study was to determine the current utilization patterns of information technologies by these groups of practitioners. METHODS: Nurse practitioners and their collaborating physician partners in Nova Scotia were sent a survey in February 2005 to determine the frequency of use, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness of personal digital assistant (PDA), computer, and print drug information resources. Two surveys were developed (one for PDA users and one for computer users) and revised based on a literature search, stakeholder consultation, and pilot-testing results. A second distribution to nonresponders occurred two weeks following the first. Data were entered and analysed with SPSS. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (14 NPs and 13 physicians) of 36 (75%) recipients responded. 22% (6) returned personal digital assistant (PDA) surveys. Respondents reported print, health professionals, and online/electronic resources as the most to least preferred means to access drug information, respectively. 37% and 35% of respondents reported using "both print and electronic but print more than electronic" and "print only", respectively, to search monograph-related drug information queries whereas 4% reported using "PDA only". Analysis of respondent ratings for all resources in the categories print, health professionals and other, and online/electronic resources, indicated that the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties and pharmacists ranked highly for frequency of use, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness by both groups of practitioners. Respondents' preferences and resource ratings were consistent with self-reported methods for conducting drug information queries. Few differences existed between NP and physician rankings of resources. CONCLUSION: The use of computers and PDAs remains limited, which is also consistent with preferred and frequent use of print resources. Education for these practitioners regarding available electronic drug information resources may facilitate future computer and PDA use. Further research is needed to determine methods to increase computer and PDA use and whether these technologies affect prescribing and patient outcomes