Treatment guidelines difer signifcantly, not only between Europe and North America but also among European countries [1–4]. Reasons for these diferences include antimicrobial resistance patterns, accessibility to and reimbursement policies for medicines, and culturally and historically determined prescribing attitudes. The European Association of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics’ Education Working Group has launched several initiatives to improve and harmonize European pharmacotherapy education, but international diferences have proven to be a major barrier to these eforts [5–7]. While we have taken steps to chart these diferences [6, 8], it will probably not be possible to fully resolve them. Rather than viewing these diferences as a barrier, we should perhaps see them as an opportunity for intercultural learning by providing students and teachers a valuable lesson in the context-dependent nature of prescribing medication and the diferent interpretations of evidence-based medicine. Here, we extend our experience with interprofessional student-run clinics [9, 10], to report on our first experiences with the “International and Interprofessional Student-run Clinic.” We organized three successful video meetings with medical and pharmacy students of the Amsterdam UMC, location VU University (the Netherlands), and the University of Bologna (Italy). During these meetings, one of the students presented a real-life case of a patient on polypharmacy. Then, in a 45-min session, the students split into smaller groups (break-out rooms) to review the patient’s medication, using the prescribing optimization method and STOPP/ START criteria [11, 12]. The teachers rotated between the diferent rooms and assisted the students when necessary. Teachers and students reconvened for 60 min for debriefng, with students presenting their fndings and suggestions to revise the medication list and teachers stimulating discussion and indicating how they would alter the medication list. Participation was voluntary, and the meetings were held in the evenings to accommodate students in clinical rotations. Third-to-fnal-year medical and pharmacy students participated in the three meetings (n=17, n=20, n=12, respectively). They reported learning a lot from each other, gaining an international and interprofessional perspective. Moreover, they learned to always consider the patient’s perspective, that evidence-based medicine is context-dependent, and that guidelines should be adapted to the patient’s situation.
MULTIFILE
Background: Acne vulgaris is a multifaceted skin disorder, affecting more than 85% of young individuals worldwide. Pharmacological therapy is not always desirable because of the development of antibiotic resistance or the potential risk of adverse effects. Non‐pharmacological therapies can be viable alternatives for conventional therapies. However, sufficient evidence‐based support in the efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological therapies is lacking. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of several non‐pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Methods: A systematic literature review, including a best‐evidence synthesis, was performed to identify literature. Three electronic databases were accessed and searched for studies published between January 2000 and May 2017. Results: Thirty‐three eligible studies were included in our systematic review. Three main types of non‐pharmacological therapies were identified laser‐ and light‐based therapies, chemical peels and fractional microneedling radiofrequency. The majority of the included studies demonstrated a significant reduction in acne lesions. However, only seven studies had a high methodologic quality. Based on these seven trials, a best‐evidence synthesis was conducted. Strong evidence was found for glycolic acid (10–40%). Moderate evidence was found for amino fruit acid (20–60%), intense pulsed light (400–700 and 870–1200 nm) and the diode laser (1450 nm). Initially, conflicting evidence was found for pulsed dye laser (585–595 nm). The most frequently reported side‐effects for non‐pharmacological therapies included erythema, tolerable pain, purpura, oedema and a few cases of hyperpigmentation, which were in most cases mild and transient. Conclusion: Circumstantial evidence was found for non‐pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, the lack of high methodological quality among included studies prevented us to draw clear conclusions, regarding a stepwise approach. Nevertheless, our systematic review including a best‐evidence synthesis did create order and structure in resulting outcomes in which a first step towards future research is generated.
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
Carboxylated cellulose is an important product on the market, and one of the most well-known examples is carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). However, CMC is prepared by modification of cellulose with the extremely hazardous compound monochloracetic acid. In this project, we want to make a carboxylated cellulose that is a functional equivalent for CMC using a greener process with renewable raw materials derived from levulinic acid. Processes to achieve cellulose with a low and a high carboxylation degree will be designed.
