Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.More hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.The duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).Both enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use. Heterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomesWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.

mTOR signalling, embryogenesis and the control of lung development.

The existence of a nutrient sensitive "autocatakinetic" regulator of embryonic tissue growth has been hypothesised since the early 20th century, beginning with pioneering work on the determinants of foetal size by the Australian physiologist, Thorburn Brailsford-Robertson. We now know that the mammalian target of rapamycin complexes (mTORC1 and 2) perform this essential function in all eukaryotic tissues by balancing nutrient and energy supply during the first stages of embryonic cleavage, the formation of embryonic stem cell layers and niches, the highly specified programmes of tissue growth during organogenesis and, at birth, paving the way for the first few breaths of life. This review provides a synopsis of the role of the mTOR complexes in each of these events, culminating in an analysis of lung branching morphogenesis as a way of demonstrating the central role mTOR in defining organ structural complexity. We conclude that the mTOR complexes satisfy the key requirements of a nutrient sensitive growth controller and can therefore be considered as Brailsford-Robertson's autocatakinetic centre that drives tissue growth programmes during foetal development.

Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is a novel ciliopathy.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé (BHD) syndrome is an autosomal dominant disorder where patients are predisposed to kidney cancer, lung and kidney cysts and benign skin tumors. BHD is caused by heterozygous mutations affecting folliculin (FLCN), a conserved protein that is considered a tumor suppressor. Previous research has uncovered multiple roles for FLCN in cellular physiology, yet it remains unclear how these translate to BHD lesions. Since BHD manifests hallmark characteristics of ciliopathies, we speculated that FLCN might also have a ciliary role. Our data indicate that FLCN localizes to motile and non-motile cilia, centrosomes and the mitotic spindle. Alteration of FLCN levels can cause changes to the onset of ciliogenesis, without abrogating it. In three-dimensional culture, abnormal expression of FLCN disrupts polarized growth of kidney cells and deregulates canonical Wnt signalling. Our findings further suggest that BHD-causing FLCN mutants may retain partial functionality. Thus, several BHD symptoms may be due to abnormal levels of FLCN rather than its complete loss and accordingly, we show expression of mutant FLCN in a BHD-associated renal carcinoma. We propose that BHD is a novel ciliopathy, its symptoms at least partly due to abnormal ciliogenesis and canonical Wnt signalling.

Hand hygiene: a way out of the deadlock.

Hospital-acquired infection costs money and lives. Improving compliance with hand hygiene is proving an intractable problem as initial gains often lack sustainability. A growing field of research suggests that health service managers may have a critical role in dealing with this issue, which crosses all professional boundaries.

Unsaturated fatty acid regulation of cytochrome P450 expression via a CAR-dependent pathway.

The liver is responsible for key metabolic functions, including control of normal homoeostasis in response to diet and xenobiotic metabolism/detoxification. We have shown previously that inactivation of the hepatic cytochrome P450 system through conditional deletion of POR (P450 oxidoreductase) induces hepatic steatosis, liver growth and P450 expression. We have exploited a new conditional model of POR deletion to investigate the mechanism underlying these changes. We demonstrate that P450 induction, liver growth and hepatic triacylglycerol (triglyceride) homoeostasis are intimately linked and provide evidence that the observed phenotypes result from hepatic accumulation of unsaturated fatty acids, which mediate these phenotypes by activation of the nuclear receptor CAR (constitutive androstane receptor) and, to a lesser degree, PXR (pregnane X receptor). To our knowledge this is the first direct evidence that P450s play a major role in controlling unsaturated fatty acid homoeostasis via CAR. The regulation of P450s involved in xenobiotic metabolism by this mechanism has potentially significant implications for individual responses to drugs and environmental chemicals.