Clinical pharmacists' contributions to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A systematic review.

AIMS: The goal of the present review was to identify studies that assess how pharmaceutical services contribute to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of published studies describing results from clinical services provided by pharmacists working with HSCT, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines ( PROSPERO registration number CRD42017062391). A search strategy was applied within PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and LILACS databases in April 2017. Inclusion criteria were observational or experimental studies that addressed the following research question: "What are a clinical pharmacist's main contributions to HSCT?" The quality of selected studies was evaluated using the Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: We identified 1838 studies, and seven were included in the systematic review. The results indicated that clinical pharmacy is useful during HSCT treatment within both inpatient and outpatient settings. Pharmaceutical contributions identified included management of pharmacotherapy-related problems, participation in discussions with clinical teams, drug reconciliation, patient and team education regarding pharmacotherapy, preparation of guidelines and educational materials, and evaluation of medication adherence. These activities favored the control and prevention of pharmacotherapy-related problems, the maintenance of immunosuppressive serum levels, improvement in patients' clinical and nutritional status, facilitated medication adherence, and provided economic and humanistic gains. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small number of articles discussing the topic under analysis, the results were unanimous in confirming the positive impact of pharmacists' contributions to clinical practice for HSCT.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs palliative care: A systematic review. / [Artículo traducido] Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by two independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of the 5,791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1,050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4,741), and full reading (n = 41), only one study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to two groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only one of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.