Evaluation of an enhanced depression and anxiety screening with targeted pharmacist intervention.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a major source of morbidity but often goes undiagnosed. Broader screening is recommended, and pharmacists could contribute. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of community pharmacy depression and anxiety screening and describe the medication-related problems (MRPs) identified, pharmacist interventions, and provider responses for high-risk patients. METHODS: This pilot was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023 at an independently owned community pharmacy in the Midwest United States. Patients aged 18-45 years with ready prescriptions were identified through weekly reports, and tags were placed on prescription bags. A convenience sample of patients fluent in English were offered the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD2), with follow-up PHQ9 and GAD7 for at-risk individuals. High-risk individuals met with the pharmacist for consultation and recommendations were discussed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for participant demographics, questionnaire responses, MRPs, and provider responses. Patient profiles were examined 2 months after the workup to identify medication changes. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients volunteered to be screened for anxiety and depression; of these, 41% scored in the high-risk category for depression or anxiety and met with the pharmacist for the consultation. The pharmacist identified multiple MRPs. The most common was the need for additional therapy and inadequate dosages. Patients were reluctant for the pharmacist to follow up with their prescriber and were unreachable for telephone follow-up. Profiles reviewed 2 months after assessment showed half of the at-risk patients had one or more mental health medication changes. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists may have a role in the screening and management of patient mental health, although there were challenges with screening uptake and follow-up. The pharmacist identified multiple MRPs for this high-risk group for which greater routine monitoring and follow-up may be beneficial. More work seems needed to engage both patients and prescribers.

Evaluation of an enhanced depression and anxiety screening with targeted pharmacist intervention.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a major source of morbidity but often goes undiagnosed. Broader screening is recommended, and pharmacists could contribute. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of community pharmacy depression and anxiety screening and describe the medication-related problems (MRPs) identified, pharmacist interventions, and provider responses for high-risk patients. METHODS: This pilot was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023 at an independently owned community pharmacy in the Midwest United States. Patients aged 18-45 years with ready prescriptions were identified through weekly reports, and tags were placed on prescription bags. A convenience sample of patients fluent in English were offered the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD2), with follow-up PHQ9 and GAD7 for at-risk individuals. High-risk individuals met with the pharmacist for consultation and recommendations were discussed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for participant demographics, questionnaire responses, MRPs, and provider responses. Patient profiles were examined 2 months after the workup to identify medication changes. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients volunteered to be screened for anxiety and depression; of these, 41% scored in the high-risk category for depression or anxiety and met with the pharmacist for the consultation. The pharmacist identified multiple MRPs. The most common was the need for additional therapy and inadequate dosages. Patients were reluctant for the pharmacist to follow up with their prescriber and were unreachable for telephone follow-up. Profiles reviewed 2 months after assessment showed half of the at-risk patients had one or more mental health medication changes. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists may have a role in the screening and management of patient mental health, although there were challenges with screening uptake and follow-up. The pharmacist identified multiple MRPs for this high-risk group for which greater routine monitoring and follow-up may be beneficial. More work seems needed to engage both patients and prescribers.

Use of ibuprofen for the closure of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants: a systematic review of meta-analyses.

Aim: To systematically review ibuprofen, including versus indomethacin and paracetamol/acetaminophen, for the closure of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and gray literature were searched to summarize ibuprofen outcomes in closure of PDA in published meta-analyses (MAs). Results: Seven MAs were included. Including high dose (HD) use, ibuprofen is equivalent/superior to indomethacin, and inferior/equivalent to paracetamol. Oral ibuprofen had higher efficacy than IV ibuprofen, including compared with indomethacin and paracetamol. Ibuprofen had safety advantages over indomethacin. Indomethacin and paracetamol had safety advantages over IV ibuprofen. HD of ibuprofen increases efficacy, but not toxicity. Conclusion: Evidence on ibuprofen effectiveness and safety, including the dosage forms, is limited by heterogeneity in doses and the levels of methods quality and risk of bias.

Caffeine for the Treatment of Apnea in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Overview of Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Caffeine is a common treatment for neonatal intensive care management of the developmental complication of apnea of prematurity in preterm infants. There are several systematic reviews (SRs) on the performance of caffeine in the treatment of apnea. The evidence provided by those, however, is depressed by an information overload due to high heterogeneity in the characteristics as well as the quality of these SRs. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to provide a systematic overview of SRs on the use of caffeine for the management of neonatal apnea. Such overviews are a recent method used to assess and filter top evidence among SRs, enabling enhanced access to targeted information of interest. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted via EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and PubMed since inception to January 2020. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and data extraction, and assessed the quality of methods and the risk of bias in included SRs based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tools. Extracted data related to study type, characteristics, patients, intervention, comparator, regimen, and outcome measures. RESULTS: Seven SRs with meta-analyses (SRMAs) were included in the current overview, involving a total of 63,315 neonates. SRMAs included randomized clinical and observational studies, with various types of patients, comparators, and outcomes. The quality of SRMAs ranged from critically low (n = 1), low (n = 1), moderate (n = 2), to high (n = 3), and the risk of bias was unclear (n = 2), low (n = 4), and high (n = 1). The effectiveness of caffeine with regard to treatment success and the rate of apnea was not significantly different from that of theophylline or doxapram in two SRMAs. Against control, in one SRMA, while caffeine reduced the rate of failure as well as the need for pressure ventilation, it did not significantly reduce mortality. This comparative effectiveness of caffeine was based on high-quality SRMAs with a low risk of bias. The effectiveness against apnea seems to be enhanced via the administration of early (0-2 days) or high doses of caffeine in one and three SRMAs, respectively. This, nevertheless, was based on lower-quality SRMAs with a higher risk of bias. Safety outcomes were mostly based on comparative SRMAs of different drug regimens, whereby, less tachycardia and lower risk for complications were reported with lower and earlier caffeine administrations, respectively. The evidence behind this, however, was limited in quantity and quality. CONCLUSION: While limited in quantity, there is evidence of non-inferior effectiveness of caffeine against other methylxanthines or doxapram for the management of apnea in neonates. Owing to the limited quality, however, limited evidence exists in support of an optimal administration regimen for caffeine. Further controlled studies are, therefore, needed to confirm the comparative usefulness of caffeine as well as to assess its different potential regimens, including in relation to safety.