1. |
- van der Voort, Tim, et al.
(author)
-
Appropriate antibiotic prescribing among final-year medical students in Europe
- 2019
-
In: International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. - : ELSEVIER. - 0924-8579 .- 1872-7913. ; 54:3, s. 375-379
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Little is known about undergraduate education on antibiotic prescribing in Europe and even less about the antibiotic prescribing skills of nearly-graduated medical students. This study aimed to evaluate the antibiotic prescribing skills of final-year medical students across Europe and the education they received during medical training. In a cross-sectional study, final-year medical students from 17 medical schools in 15 European countries were asked to prescribe for two written case reports of infectious diseases (acute bronchitis and community-acquired pneumonia). The appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy was determined using a scoring form based on local guidelines. Teachers from each medical school were asked to complete a standardised questionnaire about the teaching and assessment of undergraduate education on antibiotic use. In total, 856 final-year medical students (95.6%) completed the assessment and 16 teachers (94.1%) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 52.7% (range 26-83%) of the 1.683 therapies prescribed were considered appropriate. The mean number of contact hours for undergraduate education on antimicrobials was 25.6 (range 2-90). Differences in education styles were found to have a significant impact on students performance, with a problem-based learning style being associated with more appropriate antimicrobial prescribing than a traditional learning style (46.0% vs. 22.9%; P amp;lt; 0.01). Although there are differences between medical schools, final-year medical students in Europe lack prescribing skills for two common infectious diseases, possibly because of inadequate undergraduate education on antibiotic use and general prescribing. To improve students skills, interactive teaching methods such as prescribing for simulated and real patients should be used. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. and International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.
|
|
2. |
- Yndigegn, Troels, et al.
(author)
-
Design and rationale of randomized evaluation of decreased usage of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (REDUCE-AMI)
- 2022
-
In: European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy. - : Oxford University Press. - 2055-6837 .- 2055-6845. ; 9:2, s. 192-197
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Most trials showing benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction (MI) included patients with large MIs and are from an era before modern biomarker-based MI diagnosis and reperfusion treatment. The aim of the Randomized Evaluation of Decreased Usage of betabloCkErs after Acute Myocardial Infarction (REDUCE-AMI) trial is to determine whether long-term oral beta-blockade in patients with an acute MI and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) reduces the composite endpoint of death of any cause or recurrent MI.METHODS: It is a registry-based, randomized, parallel, open-label, multicenter trial performed at 38 centers in Sweden, one center in Estonia and six centers in New Zealand. About 5000 patients with an acute MI who have undergone coronary angiography and with EF ≥ 50% will be randomized to long-term treatment with beta-blockade or not. The primary endpoint is the composite endpoint of death of any cause or new non-fatal MI. There are several secondary endpoints, including all-cause death, cardiovascular death, new MI, readmission because of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, symptoms, functional status, health related quality of life after 6-10 weeks and after 1 year of treatment. Safety endpoints are bradycardia, AV-block II-III, hypotension, syncope or need for pacemaker, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and stroke.CONCLUSION: The results from REDUCE-AMI will add important evidence regarding the effect of beta-blockers in patients with MI and preserved EF and may change guidelines and clinical practice.
|
|