Key performance indicators for pharmaceutical services: A systematic review.

Background: Key performance indicators (KPIs) are a set of indicators that improve the quality of services provided by pharmacists. They enable the monitoring and evaluation of result progress and optimize decision-making for stakeholders. Currently, there is no systematic review regarding KPIs for pharmaceutical services. Objectives: To identify and assess the quality of KPIs developed for pharmaceutical services. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and LILACS from the inception of the database until February 5th, 2024. Studies that developed a set of KPIs for pharmaceutical services were included. The indicators were evaluated using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Results: Fifteen studies were included. The studies were conducted in different regions, most of which were developed for clinical services in hospitals or ambulatory settings, and used similar domains for the development of KPIs such as medication review, patient safety, and patient counseling. Literature review combined with the Delphi technique was the method most used by the studies, with content validity by inter-rater agreement. Regarding methodological quality, most studies described information on the purpose, definition, and stakeholders' involvement in the set of KPIs. However, little information was observed on the strategy for risk adjustment, instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results, the detailed description of the numerator and denominator, evidence scientific, and the feasibility of the set of KPIs. Only one study achieved a high methodological quality in all domains of the AIRE tool. Conclusion: Our findings showed the potential of KPIs to monitor and assess pharmacy practice quality. Future studies should expand KPIs for other settings, explore validity evidence of the existing KPIs, provide detailed descriptions of evidence, formulation, and usage, and test their feasibility in daily practice.

Role of pharmacist in the management of Hansen's Disease: A scoping review.

Background: Stakeholders and healthcare professionals have an essential role in the elimination of Hansen's Disease. Of these, pharmacists provide core services that assist the management of these patients with the supply of medicines and clinical actions. Objectives: To summarize evidence on the role of pharmacist in the management of Hansen's Disease. Methods: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Sciences, LILACS, and Google Scholar for studies published until September 29th, 2022 without language restriction. Studies that reported actions provided by pharmacists in the management of patients with Hansen's Disease were included. The pharmacist interventions identified in the studies were described based on key domains in DEPICT v.2. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction and any disagreements were resolved by third and fourth authors. Results: A total of 751 records were identified, of which 8 studies fully met the eligibility criteria. Most of them were conducted in Brazil (n = 5), in an ambulatory setting (n = 8) and the most common study design was descriptive cross-sectional (n = 6). Different roles of pharmacists were identified, such as medication review, therapeutic drug monitoring, patient education, drug information, and dispensing. All studies described pharmacist interventions for patients through one-on-one contact and face-to-face. Pharmacists were responsible for patient counseling (n = 8), suggestions for change in therapy (n = 2), and monitoring results report (n = 2). The studies reported benefits associated with pharmacist interventions, despite the limited descriptions regarding these actions. Conclusions: Few studies that described the activities of pharmacists in the management of Hansen's Disease were found. As the studies did not offer a satisfactory level of description and quality, further research should be conducted to strengthen this field.

Evaluation of mobile applications focused on the care of patients with anxiety disorders: A systematic review in app stores in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate the quality of mobile apps available in Brazil focused on the care of patients with anxiety disorders. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted until October 2021 on Play Store (Android) and Apple Store (iOS) in Brazil, using the terms "anxiety," "phobia," "panic attack," and "social phobia." Two independent authors identified the apps and performed data extraction and quality assessment using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Pearson's correlation was used to analyze the relationship between user star rating and the quality defined by the MARS instrument. RESULTS: A total of 3,278 potential apps were identified, of which 71 fully met the eligibility criteria. Most apps were made available on the Play Store (91.74%), in English (69.01%), and updated in the last two years (90.14%). Approximately half of the apps (50.70%) did not inform the developer's country and most of them did not report the user star rating (70.42%). The target population was indicated as free by most apps (85.92%), with generalized anxiety disorder being the most addressed disorder (74.65%), followed by panic disorder (33.80%). The three main purposes of the apps were education (83.10%), self-assessment (38.03%), and meditation/breathing (32.39%). Only 31 apps (43.66%) had acceptable quality (above 3.0) and the average total MARS quality score of 2.93 (2.20 to 3.90), with the functionality section receiving the highest score (3.90) and the lowest scoring sections being engagement (2.16). The apps that were rated stars by users (29.58%) showed a negative Pearson correlation (ρ = -0.100), evidencing a difference in the user's evaluation and that performed using the MARS instrument. CONCLUSION: Gaps in the quality of apps focused on the care of patients with anxiety disorders were evidenced since most were classified as having low quality through the MARS instrument. Thus, users are recommended to use these apps with caution.

Female representation among editorial boards of social, clinical, and educational pharmacy journals.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies on editorial team members of healthcare journals have been showing disparities in this distribution. However, there are limited data with respect to pharmacy journals. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the distribution of women among editorial board members of social, clinical, and educational pharmacy research journals around the globe. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between September and October 2022. Data were extracted from Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports The top 10 journals in each region of the world (continents) were analyzed. Editorial board members were categorized into four groups and determined based on information available on the journal's website. The sex was classified in binary form through name and photography, the personal and institutional web pages, or the Genderize program. RESULTS: A total of 45 journals were identified in the databases, of which 42 of them were analyzed. We identified 1482 editorial board members with only 527 (35.6%) being female. Analyzing the subgroups, there were 47 total editors-in-chief, 44 total co-editors, 272 associate editors, and 1119 editorial advisors. Of these, 10 (21.27%), 21 (47.72%), 115 (42.27%), and 381 (34.04%) were female, respectively. Only 9 journals (21.42%) presented more females among their editorial board members. CONCLUSION: A notable sex disparity among social, clinical, and educational pharmacy journals' editorial board members was identified. Efforts should be made to involve more female sex in their editorial teams.

Instruments to assess the role of the clinical pharmacist: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The clinical pharmacist is an essential member of the healthcare team and plays an important role in health care in the primary care and the hospital setting. Knowledge regarding the instruments that evaluate the different activities of the clinical pharmacist, as well as the evaluation of the psychometric properties of these instruments, is necessary. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the PubMed and Scopus electronic databases without time and language restrictions. For the search strategy, the "pharmaceutical services," "validity studies," and "professional performance" domains were used. To assess the quality of the instruments, the five sources of validity evidence of contemporary psychometry were used, and the Joanna Briggs Institute's standardized instrument was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. After screening 4096 articles, 32 studies were selected. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included, and 32 instruments were identified to be used by pharmacists acting in various pharmaceutical practice scenarios. It was found that the available instruments were developed or adapted from others, with variation in the methods, constructs, dimensions, and domains, as well as the psychometric properties. Most of the instruments addressed community pharmacies, and evidence of content validity and internal structure was found most frequently. A standardized and validated instrument that comprehensively assessed the performance of the clinical pharmacist, addressing clinical activities, was not identified for all practice environments. CONCLUSIONS: Without standardized and validated instruments specifics to assess the performance of the clinical pharmacist, it is hard to establish the main clinical activities performed by pharmacists in their pharmaceutical practice environments and to propose training actions to improve professional practice. Despite the large number of instruments available and considered validated by the authors, it is questioned to what extent the validity indicators presented in the different studies really show the validation status. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD 42018099912.

Economic evaluations on the use of aripiprazole for patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES: Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder and is associated with substantial economic and social burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis is important to assess the costs of different therapeutic options. However, there is a lack of information on the reporting quality of economic evaluations, cost drivers, as well as updated data focused on aripiprazole, an antipsychotic drug commonly prescribed in schizophrenia. This study evaluates and summarizes the evidence of economic evaluations of the use of aripiprazole in schizophrenia. In addition, we aimed to identify cost drivers and critically assess the reporting qualities of these studies. METHODS: A comprehensive literature research was conducted using PubMed, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CEA Registry and LILACS databases dated until March 2018. Full economic analyses of aripiprazole in schizophrenia that were based on decision analytical models and published in English, Portuguese or Spanish languages were included. Two independent authors identified the studies and performed data extraction and quality assessment using 24 items from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 79 potential studies were identified, of which 17 studies performing model-based economic evaluations fully met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 15 were industry-funded studies. A trend favouring olanzapine, lurasidone and paliperidone could be observed, whereas aripiprazole was extensively described as a dominated alternative. However, notably, 93% of the industry-funded studies presented results favouring their sponsors, only two of them being the manufacturer of aripiprazole. Cost drivers were usually related to the relapse rates/probabilities regardless of the funding source. The overall quality of reporting of the economic analyses was poor, with most studies scoring around 12-13 points. The most frequent problems were the lack of description of relevance of the outcome measures, characteristics of the base case population and report of precision measures for all the parameters of the model. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: No consistent conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole could be drawn due to the context-specific costs, conflicting parameters of effectiveness and safety, and bias related to industry sponsorship. Cost drivers, though, were usually related to the relapse rates/probabilities. In addition, poor reporting quality of the studies performing full economic analysis requires further improvement to ensure greater transparency of the findings.

Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia: an overview of systematic reviews.

PURPOSE: To conduct an overview to summarize the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, for articles published until March 31, 2017. We included systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy, and/or the safety of aripiprazole, for patients with schizophrenia. Two authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) tool were used to appraise the quality of evidence and the risk of bias in the reviews, respectively. RESULTS: Fourteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Aripiprazole showed efficacy similar to that of both typical and atypical antipsychotic drugs (except olanzapine and amisulpride). Aripiprazole caused significantly lower weight gain and alterations in glucose and cholesterol levels, as compared to clozapine, risperidone, and olanzapine. In addition, aripiprazole caused significantly fewer general extrapyramidal side effects, less use of antiparkinsonian drugs, and akathisia, compared with typical antipsychotic drugs and risperidone. The overall quality of evidence in the reviews ranged from "very low" to "moderate," principally because of the risk of bias of original trials, inconsistency, and imprecision in the outcomes. According to the ROBIS tool, there are four reviews with "high" risk of bias and five with "unclear" risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole exhibited efficacy similar to that of other antipsychotic drugs and a better safety profile than that of typical (i.e., less some extrapyramidal side effects) and atypical (i.e., less metabolic changes) antipsychotic drugs.

Efficacy and safety of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide in multiple myeloma: An overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses.

This overview summarizes evidence for the efficacy and safety of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. We searched the Medline, Scopus, and LILACS databases through August 2016, including systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and/or safety of bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Two authors performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using AMSTAR and GRADE instruments. Twenty-nine studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. All three drugs significantly improved overall response and progression-free survival; however, only bortezomib showed significantly greater overall survival compared with the control arm (induction therapy, continuous therapy, or at any phase of treatment). The main concerns on adverse events were thrombosis/embolism events, peripheral neuropathy, and second primary malignancies. The most common problems detected in systematic reviews were non-registration of the study protocol and conflicts of interest not clearly acknowledged. Future research should adhere to quality assessment tools so that best evidence can be used in decision-making. Protocol PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016036062.