Corrigendum: Therapy by physician-pharmacist combination and economic returns for cancer pain management in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1073939.].

Therapy by physician-pharmacist combination and economic returns for cancer pain management in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: To examine whether joint management of cancer pain by physicians and pharmacists in clinics provides economic advantages from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: From February 2018 to March 2020, 100 patients who visited the joint cancer pain clinic at the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University were included. These patients were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention groups. The control group received regular outpatient services from a physician, while the intervention group received regular outpatient services from a physician and medication education provided by a pharmacist. The study considered various direct costs, including drug expenses, physician-pharmacist outpatient services, adverse event management, consultations, examinations, and readmissions. The outcome indicators considered were the cancer pain control rate and the reduction in pain scores. Decision tree modeling, single-factor sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of joint physician-pharmacist outpatient services compared to physician-alone outpatient services. Results: The intervention group showed a significantly higher cancer pain control rate than the control group (0.69 vs. 0.39, p = 0.03). In the decision tree model, the intervention group had a significantly lower pain score than the control group (0.23 vs. 0.14). The cost per person in the intervention group was $165.39, while it was $191.1 per person in the control group. The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of self-management for patients in the control group was identified as the primary sensitivity factor. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the joint clinic group had a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness compared to the physician clinic group. In addition, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated an absolute advantage in the incremental cost-effectiveness of the joint clinic group over the outpatient physician group. Conclusion: The participation of pharmacists in joint cancer pain clinic services led to improved pain management for patients, demonstrating a clear advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Post-Marketing Safety Concerns with Upadacitinib: A Disproportionality Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting system.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib was approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, and atopic dermatitis. This study assessed the adverse events (AEs) associated with upadacitinib by mining data from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: Disproportionality analyses, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms, were employed to quantify the signals of upadacitinib-associated AEs. RESULTS: A total of 3,837,420 reports of AEs were collected from the FAERS database, of which 4494 reports were identified with upadacitinib as the "primary suspect (PS)". Upadacitinib-induced AEs occurrence targeted 27 system organ clases (SOCs). A total of 200 significant disproportionality PTs conforming to the four algorithms were simultaneously retained. Unexpected significant AEs, such as arthralgia, musculoskeletal stiffness, diverticulitis, and cataract might also occur. The median onset time of upadacitinib-associated AEs was 65 days (interquartile range [IQR] 21-182 days), and most of the onsets occurred within the first 1, 2, 3, and 4 months after initiation of upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: This study found potential new AEs signals and might provide important support for clinical monitoring and risk identification of upadacitinib.

Signal mining and analysis for central nervous system adverse events due to taking oxycodone based on FAERS database. / 基于FAERSæ•°æ®åº“çš„ç¾Ÿè€ƒé ®ä¸­æž¢ç¥žç»ç³»ç»Ÿä¸è‰¯äº‹ä»¶ä¿¡å·æŒ–æŽ˜åŠåˆ†æž.

OBJECTIVES: Central nervous system adverse events (AEs) occur when oxycodone is used in combination with benzodiazepines, antidepressants and anticonvulsants. There have been no reports of central nervous system AEs with oxycodone alone or in combination with oxycodone. Based on USA Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data, this study aims to explore the risk signals of central nervous system AEs with oxycodone alone or in combination with benzodiazepines, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, and to provide a reference for the safe and rational use of this drug. METHODS: Extracted AEs data from the FAERS for oxycodone alone and in combination with benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants from Q1 2004 to Q2 2021. The risk signal mining analysis of AEs was performed using the proportional imbalance method and Bayesian method. Number of reports ≥3 and lower 95% CI limit of reporting odds ratio (ROR)>1; number of reports ≥3, proportional reporting ratio (PRR)≥2 and χ2≥4; lower information components (IC) lower 95% CI limit (IC025)>0; empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) lower 95% CI limit (EBGM05)>2, and N>0 were defined as positive signals. RESULTS: A total of 5 793 reports of central nervous system AEs with oxycodone alone were tapped, and 366, 622, and 740 reports of combined benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants, respectively. Consumers and physicians were the main reporting population. The age distribution of oxycodone alone was mainly from 61 to 80 years old. The age distribution of oxycodone in combination with related drugs was mainly from 46 to 60 years old. The risk of AEs was greater in women than in men, and the United States was the predominant reporting country. Oxycodone alone was strongly associated with myoclonus [ROR=2.92, 95% CI 2.28 to 3.76); PRR=2.92, χ2(77.49); IC=1.52, IC025(0.65); EBGM=2.89, EBGM05(2.33)], delirium [ROR=4.69, 95% CI 4.24 to 5.21; PRR=4.66, χ2(1 052.64); IC=2.17, IC025(1.81); EBGM=4.50, EBGM05 (4.13)], mental disorder [ROR=2.95, 95% CI 2.53 to 3.44; PRR=2.94, χ2(206.93); IC=1.56, IC025(0.96); EBGM=2.95, EBGM05(2.58)], and acute central respiratory depression [ROR=2.87, 95% CI 2.68 to 3.08); PRR=2.82, χ2(971.62); IC=1.52, IC025(1.33), EBGM=2.87, EBGM05 (2.76)]. Combination of benzodiazepines was most strongly associated with mental disorder [ROR=10.08, 95% CI 9.38 to 10.78; PRR=9.90, χ2(64.06); IC=3.33, IC025 (1.65); EBGM=10.08, EBGM05(5.61)], and tremor [ROR=3.09, 95% CI 2.76 to 3.42); PRR=3.08, χ2(48.93); IC=1.63, IC025 (1.17); EBGM=3.09, EBGM05(2.34)]. Combination of antidepressants was most strongly associated with delirium [ROR=13.23, 95% CI 12.23 to 14.23; PRR=12.87, χ2(43.86); IC=3.69, IC025(1.36); EBGM=12.23, EBGM05 (5.32)] and somnolence [ROR=6.74, 95% CI 6.15 to 7.33); PRR=6.73, χ2(53.42); IC=2.75, IC025(1.52); EBGM=6.73, EBGM05(4.10)]. Combination of anticonvulsants was most strongly associated with myoclonus [ROR=17.89, 95% CI 17.46 to 18.32; PRR=17.72, χ2(971.39); IC=4.16, IC025(2.70); EBGM=17.89, EBGM05(12.46)] and delirium [ROR=4.86, 95% CI 4.45 to 5.27); PRR=4.82, χ2(69.49); IC=2.28, IC025 (1.51); EBGM=4.86, EBGM05(3.44)]. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pharmacovigilance studies of the FAERS database, clinical medication monitoring of oxycodone alone and in combination with benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants should be strengthened to be alert to the occurrence of central nervous system-related AEs.

Evaluation of anticholinergic burden in elderly outpatients and the risk factors. / è€å¹´é—¨è¯Šæ‚£è€ æŠ—èƒ†ç¢±èƒ½å¤„æ–¹è´Ÿæ‹ è¯„ä»·åŠå ¶å±é™©å› ç´ .

OBJECTIVES: The use of anticholinergic drugs in the elderly may lead to negative events such as falls, delirium, urinary retention and cognitive decline, and the higher the number of anticholinergic drugs use, the more such negative events occur. This study aims to analyze the risk factors associated with the prescription of total anticholinergic drugs in elderly outpatients and evaluate the rationality of anticholinergic drugs, and to provide a reference for reducing the adverse effects of anticholinergic drugs. METHODS: A list of drugs with anticholinergic activity based on the Beers criteria was established. The basic information (such as age and gender), clinical diagnosis, and medications of elderly outpatient were extracted from hospital electronic medical records, and the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) Scale was used to calculate the anticholinergic burden for each patient. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the potential risk factors for the occurrence of problems such as multiple medication and insomnia. RESULTS: A total of 1 840 prescriptions for elderly patients were reviewed. Of these patients, ACB score was more than or equal to 1 in 648 (35.22%) patients. Number of prescription medication (95% CI: 1.221 to 1.336) and insomnia (95% CI: 3.538 to 6.089) were independent factors affecting ACB scores (both P<0.01). Medications for patients of ACB scores were most commonly treated with the central nervous system drugs (such as alprazolam and eszopiclone) and for the cardiovascular system drugs (such as metoprolol and nifedipine). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high rate of ACB drugs use in geriatric patients, and the clinical focus should be on multiple medication prescriptions, especially on the central nervous system drugs (such as alprazolam and eszopiclone) and cardiovascular system drugs (such as metoprolol and nifedipine). The prescription review should be emphasized to reduce adverse reactions to anticholinergic drugs in elderly patients.