RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The clinical activities developed by pharmacists in a hospital environment can improve health outcomes and generate savings for hospitals. However, to determine whether pharmaceutical interventions are cost effective, it is essential to define a method according to which cost-effectiveness is intended to be measured. In addition, the quality of economic assessments and the amount of information present in systematic reviews in the literature make it difficult to analyze the effects of this intervention. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide an overview of systematic reviews on the pharmacoeconomic impact of the performance of pharmaceutical care in hospitals. METHODS: A systematic search of the Cochrane Library databases, PubMed or MEDLINE, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Open Thesis will be performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The search will involve the use of keywords determined using the Medical Subject Headings database to define the search terms and include the following terms: "pharmacoeconomics," "pharmaceutical care," and "hospital." The study designs to be included will be systematic reviews of good quality. Studies will be included that address pharmacoeconomics; studies that evaluated pharmaceutical care in hospitals; and studies published in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. The primary outcome sought in the systematic reviews will be the cost ratio in monetary units and the outcomes in monetary or natural units. The secondary economic outcomes considered will be determined based on factors associated with the drugs and translated into benefit, efficacy, or utility. RESULTS: It is intended to start this overview in January 2023. Thus far, only previous searches have been carried out to contextualize the theme and build the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: This overview will determine the pharmacoeconomic impact of pharmaceutical care interventions in the hospital environment. In addition, this study will point out which clinical outcomes in natural units are impacted by the performance of pharmaceutical care and the strengths and limitations of each approach. It will also identify gaps in the literature and areas for future work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019140665; https://tinyurl.com/bddwnz43.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to survey the published literature for articles that describe the use of herbal supplements by elderly patients and to summarize important aspects of selected studies, including most commonly used supplements, study type, study location, and potential hazards of herbal supplement use. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted on three scientific/medical databases: Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Search results were examined for articles involving the use of herbal products in the elderly population that met selection criteria. RESULTS: Initial searches yielded 1297 articles. Of these original results, only 16 met specific selection criteria. Twelve (75%) of studies identified were performed in North America. Nine studies (56.25%) were conducted in the United States. Seven of the studies were cross-sectional (43.8%). The most commonly reported were gingko biloba, garlic, ginseng, aloe vera, chamomile, spearmint, and ginger. Of these, gingko and garlic are the most commonly used among community-dwelling elderly. Both of these supplements have the potential to interact with anticoagulants and produce bruising or bleeding problems. CONCLUSIONS: The use of herbal supplements is common among the elderly, a population that takes a disproportionate share of prescription medications compared to that taken by younger populations. Among the problems uncovered by these studies was a lack of dialog between medical professionals and patients about the use of herbal supplements. Prescribers need to consider the use of herbal supplements and discuss the matter with their elderly patients when making decisions about pharmacological treatments.