Background: Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen is increasingly used around the world for pain control for a variety of indications. However, it is unclear whether IV administration offers advantages over oral administration. Objective: To identify, summarize, and critically evaluate the literature comparing analgesic efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics for IV and oral dosage forms of acetaminophen. Data Sources: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases was supplemented with keyword searches of Science Direct, Wiley Library Online, and Springer Link databases for the period 1948 to November 2014. The reference lists of identified studies were searched manually. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized controlled trials comparing IV and oral dosage forms of acetaminophen were included if they assessed an efficacy, safety, or pharmacokinetic outcome. For each study, 2 investigators independently extracted data (study design, population, interventions, follow-up, efficacy outcomes, safety outcomes, pharmacokinetic outcomes, and any other pertinent information) and completed risk-of-bias assessments. Data Synthesis: Six randomized clinical trials were included. Three of the studies reported outcomes pertaining to efficacy, 4 to safety, and 4 to pharmacokinetics. No clinically significant differences in efficacy were found between the 2 dosage forms. Safety outcomes were not reported consistently enough to allow adequate assessment. No evidence was found to suggest that increased bioavailability of the IV formulation enhances efficacy outcomes. For studies reporting clinical outcomes, the results of risk-of-bias assessments were largely unclear. Conclusions: For patients who can take an oral dosage form, no clear indication exists for preferential prescribing of IV acetaminophen. Decision-making must take into account the known adverse effects of each dosage form and other considerations such as convenience and cost. Future studies should assess multiple-dose regimens over longer periods for patients with common pain indications such as cancer, trauma, and surgery.

The best available evidence supports the use of short-course (10 days) PPI post-endoscopic variceal ligation to reduce ulcer size if ulcer healing is a concern. Practices such as high-dose infusion and prolonged use should be discouraged until evidence of benefit becomes available.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and evaluate the published literature pertaining to boceprevir and telaprevir, and to provide clinicians with suggestions for use in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.METHODS: A standardized search strategy was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and International Pharmaceuticals Abstracts databases using the search terms “boceprevir”, “telaprevir”, “boceprevir and hepatitis C” and “telaprevir and hepatitis C”. A manual search of references was performed to identify articles missed by the electronic search. Studies were included in the review if they assessed either boceprevir or telaprevir in comparison with standard of care in chronic hepatitis C patients.RESULTS: The studies identified assessed boceprevir and telaprevir in genotype-1 hepatitis C patients. In both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, sustained virological response rates were achieved more often with boceprevir or telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin compared with pegylated interferon and ribavirin alone. Both medications were well tolerated, with anemia presenting as the most treatment-limiting adverse effect.CONCLUSIONS: Boceprevir and telaprevir will revolutionize the management of hepatitis C genotype 1 patients and will most likely decrease the burden of end-stage disease worldwide. However, current clinical limitations include establishing appropriate and cost-effective treatment durations, and use in special populations such as transplant patients and patients coinfected with HIV. Future research will need to clarify these clinical obstacles to clearly define the role of these agents in hepatitis C management.

No abstract

BackgroundInterprofessional education (IPE) is an emerging concept in the Middle East with a number of health professional degree programs continually striving to meet international accreditation requirements to enhance the quality of education and ensure high standards are maintained. Using the College of Pharmacy at Qatar University (CPH QU) as a model, this article describes the IPE initiatives coordinated through the College’s IPE Committee, with representation from fourteen programs at four Healthcare institutions: Qatar University; Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar; the University of Calgary in Qatar; and the College of North Atlantic in Qatar. These activities are based on the model proposed by the University of British Columbia across the different pharmacy professional years. Learning objectives for these initiatives were selected from the IPE shared competency domains and competency statements developed for Qatar context.MethodA meeting with six faculty members, who have been instrumental to designing and executing the IPE activities in the previous 2 years, was convened. Faculty members reflected on IPE activities and collaborations with other participating programs. A structured SWOC (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges) framework was used to guide discussion. The discussion was recorded and notes were taken during the meeting. Raised points were categorized into each SWOC category for the final analysis.ResultsImplementation of IPE program is a major undertaking with a number of challenges that require invested time to overcome. This article highlights the importance of incorporating IPE into healthcare curricula to graduate students ready for collaborative practice in the workforce. Learning objectives for IPE initiatives need to be based on shared competency domains. When developing and implementing an IPE program it is necessary to align activities under a strong theoretical framework. This should be done under the leadership of an IPE steering group or committee to oversee the integration of IPE into the healthcare curriculum.ConclusionThe article presents many lessons learned through IPE implementation that are relevant to other academic institutions keen to incorporate IPE into their programs and also provides a successful model for integrating IPE into healthcare curricula.