A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of a Computerized Pictorial Medication Calendar Medication Taking Behaviour

OBJECTIVES The primary was to determine if a pictorial medication calendar would improve patient adherence to supportive medication regimens for adult patients receiving chemotherapy treatment. The secondary objectives were to: a) assess if the pictorial medication calendar would improve concordance with prescribed supportive care medication regimens, b) assess patient satisfaction associated with using the calendar and c) determine whether this tool affects participants' quality of life. METHODS Prospective, open-label, RCT with participants randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either routine care or routine care plus the intervention. Adherence was measured using pill count and diary. Concordance was measured by assessment of symptoms of nausea and vomiting in relation to PRN antiemetic use. Medication use and self-efficacy was evaluated using the MUSE scale. Participant satisfaction was evaluated using surveys created by the research team. A correlation analysis was performed between pills dispensed and taken as per the different adherence tools and a line of best fit was plotted where possible. A mean score difference was performed for the MUSE Scale results from baseline to end of study. A regression analysis was performed to determine if the symptoms of nausea and vomiting could predict the number of PRN anti-emetics taken. Data on participant satisfaction was analyzed graphically. RESULTS The correlation between scheduled pills dispensed and taken as per pill count was p0, where Pr (T>t)= 0.67, t (15)= -0.46 was chosen. Of the 17 participants for which results were available for the survey, 8 of the intervention group participants and 3 of the control group participants completely disagreed that the medication regimen was complicated, 1 participant in the intervention group and 2 in the control group moderately disagreed, none of the participants neither agreed nor disagreed, 1 in the intervention arm and 2 in the control arm moderately agreed and no participants completely agreed. Participants that received the calendar found it useful for medication taking behaviours. Approximately 80% of participants either moderately or completely agreed that the diary helped keep track of medications, with which medications to take, when to take them and how many times per day. DISCUSSION There appeared to be a correlation between scheduled pills taken as per the pill count and as per the diary, however the correlation was not statistically significant. Participants in both arms tended to take the majority of all prescribed medications according to both pill count and diary. There appeared to be a trend towards predictability of PRN anti-emetic use with increased symptoms, however this trend was only visible with pill count and not with the ORN anti-emetic pills taken as per diary recording. The MUSE scale results between the intervention and control arm did not appear to be significantly different. Of the intervention arm participants who answered the questions related to the calendar, the majority either moderately or completely agreed that it was a useful tool. Therefore, at this point it cannot be assumed that medication use and self-efficacy is improved with the use of the calendar. Participants in the control arm found the treatment regimen less complicated overall. The pictorial medication calendar tool may have played a factor in this response as those in the intervention arm would have not only been given routine care, but also would have received further information from the pictorial medication calendar. CONCLUSION Therefore, it appeared that the calendar was a useful tool, subjectively to participants involved in the study for ease of medication use. Furthermore, it also appears that participants who received the diary felt that their regimen was less complex. However, at this point it cannot be stated that the tool significantly affects adherence in a statistically significant manner as further data collection is required

Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

IMPORTANCE Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence. OBJECTIVE To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. EVIDENCE REVIEW This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches. FINDINGS A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed

Considering Sex and Gender in Therapeutics throughout the Product Life Cycle: A Narrative Review and Case Study of Gilteritinib

Background: Biological sex–related factors influence pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease processes that may affect the predictability of drug dosing and adverse effects, which may in turn have clinical consequences for patients’ lives. Nonetheless, sex-related factors are not always taken into account in clinical trial design or clinical decision-making, for multiple reasons, including a paucity of studies that clearly and objectively study and measure sex-disaggregated and sex-related outcomes, as well as gaps in regulatory and policy structures for integrating these considerations. Objectives: To complete a narrative review and use a case study to understand available evidence, inform future research, and provide policy considerations that incorporate information on sex- and gender-related factors into clinician-facing resources. Methods: A comprehensive review of available literature was conducted using a sex- and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA Plus) approach to identify sex- and/or gender-disaggregated information for gilteritinib, a chemotherapeutic agent. Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid), Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to March 18, 2021. The information was then summarized and compared with the Canadian product monograph for this drug. Results: Of 311 records screened, 3 provided SGBA Plus information as a component of outcomes, rather than just as categories or demographic characteristics. Of these, 2 were case studies, and 1 was a clinical trial. No studies from the ClinicalTrials.gov database that were in progress at the time of this review provided details about sex-disaggregated outcomes. The Canadian product monograph did not include sex-disaggregated outcome data. Conclusions: The available evidence from clinical trials, other published literature, and guidance documents does not provide details about sex-disaggregated outcomes for gilteritinib. This paucity of available evidence may create a challenge for clinicians who are making decisions about the efficacy and safety of prescribed therapies in sex-specific populations that have not been well studied. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Les facteurs liés au sexe biologique influencent les processus pharmacocinétiques, pharmacodynamiques et pathologiques, qui peuvent avoir une incidence sur la prévisibilité du dosage des médicaments et des effets indésirables. Ceci peut à son tour avoir des conséquences cliniques sur la vie des patients. Néanmoins, les facteurs liés au sexe ne sont pas toujours pris en compte dans la conception des essais cliniques ou la prise de décision clinique, et cela pour de nombreuses raisons – notamment le manque d’études qui examinent et mesurent clairement et objectivement les résultats ventilés par sexe et liés au sexe ainsi que les lacunes dans les réglementations et structures politiques pour intégrer ces considérations. Objectifs : Mener un examen narratif et utiliser une étude de cas pour comprendre les preuves disponibles, éclairer les recherches futures et fournir des considérations politiques qui intègrent des informations sur les facteurs liés au sexe et au genre dans les ressources destinées aux cliniciens. Méthodes : Une revue complète de la littérature disponible a été réalisée à l’aide d’une analyse comparative fondée sur le sexe et le genre Plus (ACSG Plus) pour identifier les informations ventilées par sexe et/ou par genre pour le giltéritinib, un agent chimiothérapeutique. Des recherches systématiques ont été effectuées dans MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid), Scopus et ClinicalTrials.gov, depuis la création de chaque base de données jusqu’au 18 mars 2021. Ces informations ont ensuite été résumées et comparées avec la monographie canadienne de produit pharmaceutique pour ce médicament. Résultats : Sur les 311 documents examinés, 3 ont fourni des informations ACSG Plus en tant que composante des résultats, plutôt que simplement en tant que catégories ou caractéristiques démographiques. Parmi ceux-ci, 2 étaient des études de cas et 1 était un essai clinique. Aucune étude de la base de données ClinicalTrials.gov en cours au moment de cette revue n’a fourni de détails sur les résultats ventilés par sexe. La monographie de produit canadienne ne comprenait pas de données sur les résultats ventilées par sexe. Conclusions : Les preuves disponibles issues d’essais cliniques, d’autres publications et de documents d’orientation ne fournissent pas de détails sur les résultats ventilés par sexe pour le giltéritinib. Ce manque d’éléments probants disponibles peut constituer un défi pour les cliniciens qui prennent des décisions sur l’efficacité et l’innocuité des thérapies prescrites chez des populations sexospécifiques qui n’ont pas été bien étudiées

Sex, Gender, and the Regulation of Prescription Drugs: Omissions and Opportunities

The regulation of prescription drugs is an important health, safety, and equity issue. However, regulatory processes do not always consider evidence on sex, gender, and factors such as age and race, omissions that advocates have highlighted for several decades. Assessing the impact of sex-related factors is critical to ensuring drug safety and efficacy for females and males, and for informing clinical product monographs and consumer information. Gender-related factors affect prescribing, access to drugs, needs and desires for specific prescribed therapies. This article draws on a policy-research partnership project that examined the lifecycle management of prescription drugs in Canada using a sex and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA+) lens. In the same time period, Health Canada created a Scientific Advisory Committee on Health Products for Women, in part to examine drug regulation. We report on grey literature and selected regulatory documents to illustrate the extent to which sex and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA+) is utilized in regulation and policy. We identify omissions in the management of prescription drugs, and name opportunities for improvements by integrating SGBA+ into drug sponsor applications, clinical trials development, and pharmacovigilance. We report on recent efforts to incorporate sex disaggregated data and recommend ways that the management of prescription drugs can benefit from more integration of sex, gender, and equity

Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

IMPORTANCE: Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence. OBJECTIVE: To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. EVIDENCE REVIEW: This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches. FINDINGS: A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed