Preparing Pharmacists for the Digital Age: How Pharmacy Courses are Adapting to Challenges and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: As the digitalization of health accelerates, the fusion of pharmacy and informatics becomes crucial. Pharmacy education must adapt to equip professionals for this evolving landscape. This study aims to compare pharmacy curricula in Brazil and the United States of America, focusing on health informatics, to uncover challenges and opportunities in training pharmacists for the digital era. METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive analysis was conducted on pharmacy curricula from leading Brazilian and American universities in early 2024. Two independent researchers collected data, concentrating on health informatics-related courses. Curriculum analysis used the n-gram technique for linguistic pattern identification in course descriptions. RESULTS: The analysis included curricula from 147 Brazilian and 140 American institutions. American programs had more health informatics courses, with greater integration into pharmacy and higher workloads. Brazilian courses were fewer, less specialized, and less integrated with pharmacy practice. Bi-gram analysis showed that the United States emphasized pharmaceutical practice and technologies, while Brazil focused more broadly on public health. Challenges include Brazil's slower integration of health informatics, impacting competitiveness. The study highlights opportunities to enhance curricula in both countries, emphasizing the importance of health informatics courses. CONCLUSION: US pharmacy programs are further developed by providing specialized, high-quality digital health education with extensive coursework, reflecting a curriculum aligned with digital advancements. This stands in stark contrast to Brazilian programs, which show a need for comprehensive curriculum revision to effectively prepare pharmacists for the digital age. This study underscores the urgency for global pharmacy education reform and its alignment with the rapid evolution of digital health.

Comparing medication adherence tools scores and number of controlled diseases among low literacy patients discharged from a Brazilian cardiology ward.

Background Adherence to prescribed drug therapy is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular causes of death. In view of the relevance for public health, it is important to understand the relation between medication adherence tools' scores, especially in low literacy patients discharged from a cardiology ward. Objectives We aimed to assess: (a) the association between number of controlled clinical conditions and adherence tools scores, and (b) the correlation between the scores of three instruments to assess adherence. Methods We conducted a prospective study and included patients discharged from a specialized cardiovascular ward in Brazil. The results of the Beliefs about Medicines questionnaire (BMQ), the Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale (ARMS) and the MedTake test were compared. Results Of 53 included patients, most of them were elderly, and did not complete primary school. On average, there were six health conditions per patient, where two of them were not controlled. ARMS was the only tool that was associated with number of controlled health conditions (r = -0.312, p < 0.05). Moreover, ARMS (average score 15.6 ± 3.4) had significant correlation with MEDTAKE (r = 0.535, p < 0.01) and BMQ (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). BMQ and MEDTAKE were also positively correlated (r = 0.311, p < 0.05). Conclusions Clinically, higher ARMS scores (>12) suggest assumed non-adherence. It is also negatively correlated with the number of controlled clinical conditions in low literacy elderlies with cardiovascular diseases.

Efficacy and safety of biologic therapies for systemic lupus erythematosus treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of biologic drugs compared with placebo for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treatment. METHODS: A systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies compared with placebo in adult SLE patients treatment was performed. Data from studies performed before September 2013 were collected from several databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, SCIELO, Scopus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts). Study eligibility criteria included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials; regarding treatment with biologic agents in SLE adult patients; and published in English, German, Portuguese, and Spanish. Extracted data were statistically analyzed in a meta-analysis using the Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 software. Efficacy outcomes included the SELENA-SLEDAI (Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment version of the SLE Disease Activity Index) score, the SRI (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index), normalization of low C3 (<90 mg/dL), anti-double-stranded DNA positive to negative, and no new BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group index) 1A or 2B flares. Data on safety profile included adverse events, serious and severe adverse events, death, malignancy, infections, and infusion reactions. We also evaluated withdrawals from treatment due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized placebo-controlled trials met the criteria for data extraction for systematic review. A meta-analysis regarding the efficacy and safety of belimumab compared with placebo involving four of these trials was undertaken and the remainder contributed to a meta-analysis of the safety of biologic agents. In addition, two trials allowed the performance of a meta-analysis regarding the efficacy and safety of rituximab compared with placebo. Belimumab was more effective than placebo in most evaluated outcomes. No significant differences in the safety and tolerability data were observed between the belimumab and placebo groups. No differences were observed between the rituximab and placebo groups for the efficacy outcomes or safety parameters. Extracted data from the 13 studies were pooled, allowing assessment of the safety of biologic drugs. The meta-analysis revealed a satisfactory safety profile of these agents when used for SLE treatment, as there were no significant differences between the two evaluated groups (biologic agents and placebo) for all outcomes analyzed. CONCLUSION: Belimumab exhibited a satisfactory profile regarding efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Rituximab showed no superiority over placebo in terms of efficacy, despite its suitable safety profile. Biologic agents exhibited a good safety profile for SLE treatment, indicating that these agents are promising therapies and should be further investigated.