BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear.METHODS: In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization.RESULTS: A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .).
Aims: Prescribing errors among junior doctors are common in clinical practice because many lack prescribing competence after graduation. This is in part due to inadequate education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in the undergraduate medical curriculum. To support CP&T education, it is important to determine which drugs medical undergraduates should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision by the time they graduate. Currently, there is no such list with broad-based consensus. Therefore, the aim was to reach consensus on a list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education in the Netherlands. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted among pharmacists, medical specialists, junior doctors and pharmacotherapy teachers from all eight Dutch academic hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate whether it was essential that medical graduates could prescribe specific drugs included on a preliminary list. Drugs for which ≥80% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed were included in the final list. Results: In all, 42 (65%) participants completed the two Delphi rounds. A total of 132 drugs (39%) from the preliminary list and two (3%) newly proposed drugs were included. Conclusions: This is the first Delphi consensus study to identify the drugs that Dutch junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. This list can be used to harmonize and support the teaching and assessment of CP&T. Moreover, this study shows that a Delphi method is suitable to reach consensus on such a list, and could be used for a European list.
MULTIFILE
Rational prescribing is essential for the quality of health care. However, many final-year medical students and junior doctors lack prescribing competence to perform this task. The availability of a list of medicines that a junior doctor working in Europe should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without supervision could support and harmonize teaching and training in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) in Europe. Therefore, our aim was to achieve consensus on such a list of medicines that are widely accessible in Europe. For this, we used a modified Delphi study method consisting of three parts. In part one, we created an initial list based on a literature search. In part two, a group of 64 coordinators in CPT education, selected via the Network of Teachers in Pharmacotherapy of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, evaluated the accessibility of each medicine in his or her country, and provided a diverse group of experts willing to participate in the Delphi part. In part three, 463 experts from 24 European countries were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi study. In total, 187 experts (40%) from 24 countries completed both rounds and evaluated 416 medicines, 98 of which were included in the final list. The top three Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code groups were (1) cardiovascular system (n = 23), (2) anti-infective (n = 21), and (3) musculoskeletal system (n = 11). This European List of Key Medicines for Medical Education could be a starting point for country-specific lists and could be used for the training and assessment of CPT.
