A systematic review of the impact of simulation on students' confidence in performing clinical pharmacy activities.

BACKGROUND: Although confidence does not automatically imply competence, it does provide pharmacy students with a sense of empowerment to manage a pharmacotherapeutic problem independently. Among the methods used in higher education, there is growing interest in simulation. AIM: To evaluate the impact of simulation on pharmacy students' confidence in performing clinical pharmacy activities. METHOD: Articles that reported the use of simulation among pharmacy students with fully described outcomes about confidence were included. Studies for which it was impossible to extract data specific to pharmacy students or simulation were excluded. The search was carried out in Medline, Embase, Lissa and PsycInfo from inception to August the 31th, 2022. The results were synthesized into 4 parts: confidence in collecting information, being an expert in a procedure/pathology, counselling and communicating, and other results. The quality assessment of included studies was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool "MMAT" tool. RESULTS: Among the 39 included articles, the majority were published in the last 5 years and conducted in the United States. The majority included pharmacy students in years 1 through 3 (69.2%). The most common study design was the pre-post uncontrolled design (66.7%). Studies measuring the effects of human and/or virtual simulation were mainly focused on confidence to counsel and/or communicate with patients and colleagues (n = 20). Evaluations of the effects of these types of simulation on confidence in information gathering by health professionals were also well represented (n = 16). CONCLUSION: Simulation-based training generally yielded positive impact on improving pharmacy students' confidence in performing clinical pharmacy activities. Rigorous assessment methods and validated confidence questionnaires should be developed for future studies.

Effect of Remifentanil vs Neuromuscular Blockers During Rapid Sequence Intubation on Successful Intubation Without Major Complications Among Patients at Risk of Aspiration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is uncertain whether a rapid-onset opioid is noninferior to a rapid-onset neuromuscular blocker during rapid sequence intubation when used in conjunction with a hypnotic agent. Objective: To determine whether remifentanil is noninferior to rapid-onset neuromuscular blockers for rapid sequence intubation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial among 1150 adults at risk of aspiration (fasting for <6 hours, bowel occlusion, recent trauma, or severe gastroesophageal reflux) who underwent tracheal intubation in the operating room at 15 hospitals in France from October 2019 to April 2021. Follow-up was completed on May 15, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive neuromuscular blockers (1 mg/kg of succinylcholine or rocuronium; n = 575) or remifentanil (3 to 4 µg/kg; n = 575) immediately after injection of a hypnotic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was assessed in all randomized patients (as-randomized population) and in all eligible patients who received assigned treatment (per-protocol population). The primary outcome was successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt without major complications, defined as lung aspiration of digestive content, oxygen desaturation, major hemodynamic instability, sustained arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, and severe anaphylactic reaction. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 7.0%. Results: Among 1150 randomized patients (mean age, 50.7 [SD, 17.4] years; 573 [50%] women), 1130 (98.3%) completed the trial. In the as-randomized population, tracheal intubation on the first attempt without major complications occurred in 374 of 575 patients (66.1%) in the remifentanil group and 408 of 575 (71.6%) in the neuromuscular blocker group (between-group difference adjusted for randomization strata and center, -6.1%; 95% CI, -11.6% to -0.5%; P = .37 for noninferiority), demonstrating inferiority. In the per-protocol population, 374 of 565 patients (66.2%) in the remifentanil group and 403 of 565 (71.3%) in the neuromuscular blocker group had successful intubation without major complications (adjusted difference, -5.7%; 2-sided 95% CI, -11.3% to -0.1%; P = .32 for noninferiority). An adverse event of hemodynamic instability was recorded in 19 of 575 patients (3.3%) with remifentanil and 3 of 575 (0.5%) with neuromuscular blockers (adjusted difference, 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-4.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults at risk of aspiration during rapid sequence intubation in the operating room, remifentanil, compared with neuromuscular blockers, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority with regard to successful intubation on first attempt without major complications. Although remifentanil was statistically inferior to neuromuscular blockers, the wide confidence interval around the effect estimate remains compatible with noninferiority and limits conclusions about the clinical relevance of the difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03960801.

Assessment of remifentanil for rapid sequence induction and intubation in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents compared to rapid-onset paralytic agents: study protocol for a non-inferiority simple blind randomized controlled trial (the REMICRUSH study).

BACKGROUND: Rapid-onset paralytic agents are recommended to achieve muscle relaxation and facilitate tracheal intubation during rapid sequence induction in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. However, opioids are frequently used in this setting. The study's objective is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of remifentanil compared to rapid-onset paralytic agents, in association with an hypnotic drug, for tracheal intubation in patients undergoing  procedure under general anesthesia and at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. METHODS: The REMICRUSH (Remifentanil for Rapid Sequence Induction of Anaesthesia) study is a multicenter, single-blinded, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing remifentanil (3 to 4 µg/kg) with rapid-onset paralytic agents (succinylcholine or rocuronium 1 mg/kg) for rapid sequence induction in 1150 adult surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation during general anesthesia. Enrolment started in October 2019 in 15 French anesthesia units. The expected date of the final follow-up is October 2021. The primary outcome is the proportion of successful tracheal intubation without major complications. A non-inferiority margin of 7% was chosen. Analyses of the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations are planned. DISCUSSION: The REMICRUSH trial protocol has been approved by the ethics committee of The Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer II and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals. The REMICRUSH trial is the first randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether remifentanil with hypnotics is non-inferior to rapid-onset paralytic agents with hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia for full stomach patients considering successful tracheal intubation without major complication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03960801. Registered on May 23, 2019.

Evaluation of the Ability of Emergency Room Doctors at a French University Hospital Center to Identify Adverse Drug Events.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous adverse drug events (ADEs) are not identified by doctors in medical emergencies, and they are a barrier to optimal treatment of patients. Identification of the factors that influence awareness of ADEs by doctors could allow events that compromise patient safety to be avoided. The aims of this study were to quantify the recognition of ADEs by emergency room (ER) doctors and to identify the factors associated with the lack of identification of drug-related risks. METHODS: This study was carried out at the ER of a French teaching hospital between January 1, 2014, and the December 31, 2017. A previously used form was administered to the patients being treated in the ER, and it was completed using medical files to identify ADEs. The ADEs were then validated by a doctor and a senior pharmacist. RESULTS: Of the 1870 included patients, 279 (14.9%) exhibited an ADE. Of these 279 ADEs, 201 (72%) had been identified by the doctor. The probability of an ADE being identified was higher when the drug was directly linked with the main ailment of the patient (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.97). Adverse drug events were identified less well when their severity was limited (spontaneous regression without treatment) (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ADEs are identified less well when their severity is limited, as well as when the ADE is not directly linked with the main ailment of the patient.

What do adult outpatients included in clinical trials know about the investigational drugs being assessed: A cross-sectional study in France.

This study aimed to assess patient investigational medication knowledge and to identify factors associated with medication understanding by adult outpatients included in clinical trials. A cross-sectional prospectively designed survey was conducted on consecutive volunteers at 21 university teaching hospitals (in France) from February to December 2014. Investigational medication understanding was assessed at the time of the first dispensing using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire based on information obtained from the literature that provided an 8-point score. Demographic and other baseline data were collected using structured interviews. Of the 236 participants, 139 (58.9%) of the respondents were male, and the median age was 54.9 years (range: 18-83 years). The mean understanding score was 6.24 and 72.5% of the patients had a score of 6 or higher. In univariate analysis, the medication understanding score was negatively correlated with age (r = -0.15, p = 0.0247) and positively correlated with the level of education (r = 0.25, p = 0.0002). In multivariate analysis, prognostic factors of a higher medication understanding score were: graduation from high school or a higher level of education; HIV infection; phase II/III/IV studies; mention of the drug on the prescription form, and the dispensing of a single investigational medication. Only a quarter of the adult outpatients included in clinical trials had a maximum possible investigational medication understanding score. Being old and having a low level of education were found to be important risk factors for inadequate medication understanding. This and other data suggest that sponsors should encourage initiatives aimed at improving investigational medication understanding in adults enrolled in clinical trials.

Effectiveness of an antenatal maternal supplementation with prebiotics for preventing atopic dermatitis in high-risk children (the PREGRALL study): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting 10%-15% of children in Europe. There is a need for new primary preventive therapeutic strategies in at-risk populations. Recent research has indicated that atopic diseases are associated with a disrupted gut microbial 'balance' in early life raising the possibility that interventions which yield optimal patterns of microflora could improve host's health. Prebiotics, sugars with immunomodulatory properties that stimulate the diversity of the digestive microbiota, are ideal candidates for such research. So far, most clinical trials have focused on improving infant gut colonisation postnatally. However, prenatal life is a crucial period during which different tolerance mechanisms are put in place. We aim to determine whether antenatal prebiotics supplementation prevents AD in high-risk children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, trial to evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal prebiotic maternal supplementation (galacto-oligosaccharide/inulin) in pregnant women versus placebo on the occurrence of AD at 1 year of age in at-risk children (defined as having a maternal history of atopic disease). Participating women will be randomised to daily ingestion of a prebiotics or placebo (maltodextrin) from 20 weeks' gestation until delivery. The primary outcome is the prevalence of AD at 1 year of age, using the version of the UK Working Party Diagnostic Criteria optimised for preventive studies. Key secondary endpoints are AD severity, quality of life and prebiotics tolerance. The target sample size is 376 women (188 patients per group) which will provide 80% power to detect a 33% reduction of the risk of AD in the verum group (α=0.05). The primary analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the institutional ethical review board of 'Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Ouest-Outre-Mer III' of the University Hospital Centre of Bordeaux (2017/13). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03183440; Pre-results.