Factors associated with intention of clinical pharmacists and candidates to provide pharmaceutical care: application of theory planned behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Postgraduate education programs in clinical pharmacy have become widespread in Türkiye. This study aimed to identify factors associated with the intention of Turkish clinical pharmacists and candidates (who were graduates and students of postgraduate clinical pharmacy programs) to provide pharmaceutical care. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted between June 2021 and May 2022. After searching relevant studies, an expert panel discussion, translation, cultural adaptation, and a pilot study developed a 52-item Turkish scale based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TBP). Cronbach alpha for each construct was calculated after an explanatory factor and test-retest reliability analysis. An online survey link was sent to all graduates or candidates of postgraduate clinical pharmacy programs in Türkiye. After univariate regression analysis, the multiple linear regression model was performed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six participants completed the survey (response rate: 59.1%). The Cronbach's alpha for attitude (9 items), subjective norm (6 items), perceived behavioural control (5 items), self-efficacy (6 items), intention (11 items) and past behaviour (15 items) were 0.945, 0.720, 0.751, 0.864, 0.934 and 0.955 respectively. The multiple linear regression analysis found a higher score of the subjective norm (p = 0.016), a higher score of self-efficacy (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001) and having PhD (p = 0.038) were associated with increased intention score. CONCLUSIONS: It was shown that higher self efficacy and positive beliefs of their peers and other healthcare professionals were associated with their higher intention score for providing pharmaceutical care. Younger age and having a PhD were other factors associated with their intention to provide pharmaceutical care.

Evaluation of drug interaction between cyclosporine and lercanidipine: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: Cyclosporine is an immunosuppressive drug with a high potential for drug interactions that is frequently used in renal transplant patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the change in cyclosporine concentration in patients taking cyclosporine and lercanidipine concurrently. METHODS: The potential drug interactions in renal transplant patients who received lercanidipine and cyclosporine concurrently in a university hospital between January 2008 and January 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients had renal transplantation from deceased donors or living related donors. The Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS) criteria were used to assess the causality of cyclosporine and lercanidipine drug interaction. RESULTS: The study included six renal transplant patients. The median cyclosporine concentration before lercanidipine use was 325 ng/mL (min-max 101-356) and 592.5 ng/mL (min-max 198-799) thereafter (p=0.028). Serum creatinine and proteinuria levels did not change significantly during lercanidipine treatment (p=0.686 and p=0.116, respectively). According to the DIPS evaluation, cyclosporine and lercanidipine interaction was classified as "possible (score 3)". CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of cyclosporine and lercanidipine increases the concentration of cyclosporine, which may result in side effects during effective treatment in renal transplant patients. Therefore, cyclosporine concentrations should definitely be monitored while patients are taking lercanidipine.

Assessment of Clinically Relevant Drug Interactions by Online Programs in Renal Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) with immunosuppressive drugs are frequently observed in renal transplant recipients. Drug interaction programs are acknowledged as a fundamental tool to alert physicians to pDDIs, but there is a high concern about variation among different programs in terms of quality and reliability of information. OBJECTIVES: To (a) characterize the difference in severity levels of pDDIs with tacrolimus and cyclosporine provided by 3 drug interaction programs and (b) identify clinically relevant DDIs with these immunosuppressive drugs in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: This study was conducted in a nephrology outpatient clinic at the University Research & Training Hospital between November 2017 and February 2018. A clinical pharmacist attended clinic visits with physicians and evaluated drug interactions. Micromedex, Medscape, and Lexicomp drug interaction programs were used to identify pDDIs and their severities. Furthermore, Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS) criteria were applied to identify clinically relevant drug interactions seen in clinic patients. Finally, a clinical pharmacist intervened to manage clinically relevant drug interactions identified by DIPS. RESULTS: 80 patients (54 under tacrolimus; 26 under cyclosporine treatment) were included in this study. The 3 drug interaction programs generated 648 pDDIs, 63 of which were different drug interaction pairs. Ninety-eight pDDIs were common to all 3 drug interaction programs. Sixty-three different drug interaction pairs were evaluated according to severity level, and 3 drug interaction pairs were at the same level (moderate) among the programs. The Fleiss' kappa overall interrater agreement was poor. The kappa revealed a moderate agreement for interaction pairs with a "severe" rating and a slight agreement for interaction pairs with a "major" rating. According to the DIPS evaluation, 11 pDDIs were classified as "possible," and the percentage of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions was 4.0% (10/248), 4.2% (11/265), and 8.2% (11/135) for Medscape, Lexicomp, and Micromedex, respectively. Although daily doses of immunosuppressive drugs were not changed, the blood concentrations of these drugs increased after administration of an interacting drug. As a result, in order to maintain normal therapeutic range of concentrations, dose reduction or drug change was applied where appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Interaction checker programs are commonly used by health institutions, since they provide quick and summarized information on mechanism and management of drug interactions, when no clinical pharmacist is present to interpret. However, the likelihood of detecting clinically relevant DDIs by interaction checker programs is relatively low, and there are inconsistencies among different programs. Individualized patient monitoring should be maintained by a multidisciplinary health care team that includes a clinical pharmacist, and decision making should be based on professional assessment of the renal transplant patient. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Evaluation of internal medicine physicians' attitudes toward the treatment of dyslipidemia.

Objectives: Dyslipidemia is one of the risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular events decrease with decreasing LDL-C levels and all guidelines emphasize the importance of LDL-C lowering. However, implementation in real life is suboptimal. This study aimed to evaluate the treatment approaches to the dyslipidemia of physicians. Methods: This study was conducted as an online survey for internal medicine specialists and residents. The survey included questions on the physicians' demographics, their attitudes toward dyslipidemia management in three different case scenarios and questions. The physicians were asked to indicate their treatment and guideline preferences in the three cases. Results: Among the 366 participants 67.5% were internal medicine specialists and 18.9% were internal medicine residents. Fourteen percent of physicians did not use guidelines in clinical practice. Five percent of specialists and 10.1% of residents doubted the necessity of dyslipidemia treatment, 30% of both specialists and residents were affected by the patient's reluctance. The specialists were more likely to state that reaching the target LDL-C should be a priority compared to the residents (p = 0.003). Most physicians (58.7%) treated the patients according to the guideline recommendations if the patients were at high risk. They were less likely to get to guideline recommendation goals if the patients were at low risk (29.8%). Conclusion: Despite overwhelming evidence, some physicians did not use guidelines and some physicians doubted the necessity of dyslipidemia treatment. A significant proportion of physicians were affected by the patient's reluctance. There is a clear need to educate physicians about the importance of guidelines.