Patient Versus Physician Perspective in the Management of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia During Treatment with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a chronic disease with treatment-free remission (TFR) increasingly regarded as a feasible goal of treatment. However, various factors may influence adherence to international guidelines for CML management. This study aimed to compare the reporting of care between patients with CML and their treating doctors. METHODS: Parallel patient and physician online surveys were conducted between September 22, 2021, and March 15, 2022, which focused on the perceptions of 1882 adult patients with CML and 305 physicians regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment options, monitoring and toxicities, TFR, and challenges faced. RESULTS: Among the enrolled patients, 69.9% received first-line imatinib treatment, 18.6% received nilotinib, and 4.7% received dasatinib. Among the patients treated with imatinib, 36.7% switched to other TKIs due to imatinib resistance/intolerance (71.1%), exploration of more potent TKIs to achieve TFR (8.9%), and treating physicians' recommendation (14.0%), with a median duration of initial treatment of 14 months [interquartile range (IQR) 6-36]. Most (91.8%) physicians agreed that the breakpoint cluster region-Abelson 1 (BCR::ABL1) transcript level should be assessed every 3 months, but only 42.7% of individuals committed to 3-monthly testing and only 17.8% strictly followed their treating physicians' recommendation. Half of the patients aimed for TFR; however, just 45.2% of physicians considered TFR as one of the top three goals for their patients. The major concern in obtaining TFR was patients' adherence. Fatigue was often distressing for patients with TKIs, while physicians were more concerned about platelet and neutrophil counts. A total of 12% and 20.8% of patients reported moderate/severe anxiety and depression, respectively, while only 53.7% of physicians had concerns about their patients' mental health. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 69.2% of patients reported a reduction in their income. Among these patients, 61.8% maintained their current treatment, while 7.3% switched to cheaper alternatives or discontinued treatment, with over 80% of these patients belonging to the low-income group. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming challenges in patient-physician communication and treatment access is key to improving disease management and quality of life, especially for patients with low income. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05092048.

Pharmacists' medication reconciliation interventions during admission and transfer from an emergency department at a tertiary care hospital: a randomized pilot study and evaluation of physician and patient perceptions.

AIM: The study aimed to assess the impact of pharmacist interventions during the transition of care. BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies can occur at various levels of transition, such as during admission, the transition from emergency to special wards or from special to general wards, and during discharge. Discrepancies can be detected through the process of medication reconciliation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare discrepancies among patients exposed to pharmacist intervention groups and those who were not and assess the perception of healthcare professionals and patients towards integrating pharmacists in the transition care process. METHODS: A pharmacist-led interventional study was conducted for six months on patients above 18 years of age and either sex who were admitted to the emergency department, had chronic diseases, and subsequently transferred to another department (any). The patients were randomized into intervention and control groups. The pharmacist performed a medication reconciliation and medication review to identify discrepancies in every transition in both the groups, and then reported to the treating physician to resolve in the intervention group. RESULTS: Among the 73 patients recruited in the study, 152 discrepancies were identified. The total discrepancies observed in the control and intervention groups were 78 (51.3%) and 74 (48.6%), respectively. The majority, 35.53%, were found during the transition from emergency to special wards. The physician, upon pharmacist recommendations, accepted and resolved 48 discrepancies in the intervention group. The healthcare professional acceptance rate of pharmacist interventions was 64.86%. CONCLUSION: The transitions of care are at risk for errors due to medication discrepancies, and pharmacists could potentially identify and resolve discrepancies. Healthcare professionals and patients reported to be satisfied by the involvement of clinical pharmacists in the healthcare team.

Informant Discrepancies in Child Maltreatment Reporting: A Systematic Review.

Potential informants on child maltreatment include the youth who has experienced the alleged maltreatment, and the youth's caregivers, social workers and case files. When multiple informants are compared, they often disagree about whether or not a youth has experienced maltreatment. Such determinations are critical as endorsement-or lack of endorsement-of maltreatment can have significant consequences on the child's safety, future living arrangements and referral for treatment and services. The current study provides a systematic review of the literature on informant discrepancies in child maltreatment. Three databases-PsychINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed-were used to identify studies for the review and 13 articles met inclusion criteria. Results showed that more youth tend to report physical, sexual and emotional abuse than seen in case files. By contrast, more case files include neglect than reported by youth. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Medication Interaction and Physicians' Compliance Assessment through Medication Reconciliation Forms in a University Affiliated Hospital.

Medication interactions are associated with various unwanted adverse drug reactions. Medication Reconciliation involves a process in which a complete list of patient's previously prescribed medications are recorded and subsequently evaluated within the context of concomitantly prescribed medications and present medical condition during the hospitalization. Medical records of randomly selected 270 patients hospitalized in internal medicine, cardiovascular and infectious diseases wards were evaluated. Drug interactions were checked by LexiComp® database. Each interaction was assigned a risk rating of A, B, C, D, or X. The progression from A to X was based on increased urgency for responding to the data. Completed reconciliation forms were attached to patient charts for evaluation of physicians' compliance. Drug interactions were observed in 65.2% (176/270) of cases. The risk rating of interactions was categorized as C, D and X in 54.2%, 32.4%, and 13.4% of cases, respectively. There was a positive correlation between the number of prescribed medications and the rate of interactions (p-value < 0.001, Kendall's correlation coefficient = 0.487). Moreover, the length of hospitalization and the rate of drug interactions were significantly correlated (p-value < 0.001, Kendall's correlation coefficient = 0.350). Cardiovascular agents constituted the largest proportion of interactions (25%) followed by antibiotics (18%) and immunosuppressive agents (6%). In 59.6% of cases, no corrective action was taken by the physicians. Medication discrepancies occur commonly in hospital settings. Structured medication reconciliation may have a positive impact on prevention of medication errors.

Autopsia y certificados médicos de defunción en fallecidos relacionados con la COVID-19

RESUMEN Introducción: La pandemia de la COVID-19 ha sido la mayor del siglo actual y motivo de numerosos trabajos científicos. En Cuba se ha constituido el Grupo Temporal de Anatomía Patológica para estudiar las autopsias de los fallecidos por la COVID-19 (más de 400). Los certificados médicos de defunción, documentos de inestimable valor, en Cuba se reparan de acuerdo a los resultados de las autopsias, para elevar su calidad. Objetivos: Evaluar los resultados de las autopsias con diagnósticos de COVID-19, comparadas con los certificados médicos de defunción. Métodos: Se evaluaron los diagnósticos de causas de muerte de 65 autopsias del año 2020 con sus certificados médicos de defunción. Los diagnósticos fueron procesados en el Sistema Automatizado de Registro y Control de Anatomía Patológica. Se analizaron las causas directas de muerte, causas básicas de muerte, causas de muerte intermedias y causas de muerte contribuyentes. Se definió la coincidencia total de ambos diagnósticos, coincidencia parcial, no coincidencia o discrepancia diagnóstica y datos insuficientes. Resultados: Las discrepancias diagnósticas de causa básica y directa de muerte son 46,2 % y 60,0 % del total de casos y 19,4 % y 64,5 % cuando la COVID-19 fue causa básica de muerte. Las elevadas cifras de discrepancias diagnósticas, se corresponden con las reportadas en estudios previos, tanto en diagnósticos clínicos como en los certificados médicos de defunción. Conclusiones: Existe elevadas cifras de discrepancias diagnósticas en los resultados de las autopsias con diagnósticos de COVID-19, comparadas con los certificados médicos de defunción.

ABSTRACT Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has been the largest in the current century and the reason for numerous scientific works. In Cuba, the Temporary Group of Pathological Anatomy has been established to study the autopsies of those who died from COVID-19 (more than 400). The medical death certificates, documents of inestimable value, in Cuba are repaired according to the results of the autopsies, to raise their quality. Objectives: To evaluate the results of autopsies with COVID-19 diagnoses, compared to medical death certificates. Methods: The diagnoses of causes of death of 65 autopsies of the year 2020 were evaluated with their medical death certificates. The diagnoses were processed in the Automated System for the Registration and Control of Pathology. Direct causes of death, basic causes of death, intermediate causes of death, and contributing causes of death were analyzed. The total agreement of both diagnoses was defined, partial agreement, diagnostic mismatch or discrepancy, and insufficient data. Results: Diagnostic discrepancies of basic and direct cause of death are 46.2 % and 60.0 % of all cases and 19.4 % and 64.5 % when COVID-19 was basic cause of death. The high figures for diagnostic discrepancies correspond to those reported in previous studies, both in clinical diagnoses and in medical death certificates. Conclusions: There are high numbers of diagnostic discrepancies compared with the results of autopsies with COVID-19 diagnoses, compared to medical death certificates.