Pharmacogenomics—defined as the study of how genes affect a person’s response to drugs—is growing in importance for clinical care. Many medications have evidence and drug labeling related to pharmacogenomics and patient care. New evidence supports the use of pharmacogenomics in clinical settings, and genetic testing may optimize medication selection and dosing. Despite these advantages, the integration of pharmacogenomics into clinical decisions remains variable and challenging in certain practice settings. To ensure consistent application across settings, sufficient education amongst current and future healthcare providers is necessary to further integrate pharmacogenomics into routine clinical practice. This review highlights current evidence supporting clinical application of medications with pharmacogenomic labeling. The secondary objective is to review current strategies for educating health professionals and student trainees. One national organization predicts that most regions in the United States will soon contain at least one healthcare system capable of applying pharmacogenomic information. Applying genotype-guided dosing to several FDA-approved medications may help produce beneficial changes in patient outcomes. Identifying best practices for educating health care professionals and trainees remains vitally important for continuing growth of pharmacogenomic services. As pharmacogenomics continues to expand into more areas of healthcare, current and future practitioners must pursue and maintain competence in pharmacogenomics to ensure better outcomes for patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is among the most commonly prevailing acute infections in children that may require hospitalization. Inconsistencies among suggested care and actual management practices are usually observed, which raises the need to assess local clinical practices. The current study was conducted to evaluate pediatricians’ compliance with the standard clinical practice guidelines and their antibiotic-prescribing behavior for the management of CAP in children. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire; which was provided to pediatricians by the researchers. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 25 Statistics; χ² tests (or Fisher-exact tests) with the p-value set at < 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. Results: The overall response rate was 59.2%. Male respondents were (n = 101; 42.6%), and the respondents (n = 163; 68.7%) were under 30 years of age. Amoxicillin (n = 122; 51.5%) was considered as the most commonly used first-line treatment for non-severe pneumonia, whereas a smaller proportion (n = 81; 34.2%) of respondents selected amoxicillin–clavulanate. Likewise, amoxicillin (n = 100; 42.2%) was the most popular choice for non-severe pneumonia in hospitalized children; however, if children had used antibiotics earlier to admission, respondents showed an inclination to prescribe a macrolide (n = 95; 40.0%) or second-generation cephalosporin (n = 90; 37.9%). More than 90% responded that children <6 months old with suspected bacterial CAP will probably receive better therapeutic care by hospitalization. Restricting exposure to the antibiotic as much as possible (n = 71; 29.9%), improving antibiotic prescribing (n = 59; 24.8%), and using the appropriate dose of antimicrobials (n = 29; 12.2%) were considered the major factors by the respondents to reduce antimicrobials resistance. Conclusions: The selection of antibiotics and diagnostic approach was as per the recommendations, but indication, duration of treatment, and hospitalization still can be further improved.

Background: There is a lack of research in the USA comparing patient satisfaction with pediatricians and other primary care physicians (PCPs). We examined and compared patient satisfaction toward their pediatricians and PCPs and characterized factors associated with higher patient satisfaction in these two groups. Methods: A random coefficient model with random slope and intercept was fit to the data, with patient satisfaction as a function of pediatrician/PCP, covariates, and physician random effects. Effect heterogeneity was assessed by allowing slope to vary as a function of covariates. Mediation analysis using the random coefficient model was conducted to calculate average total effect, average natural direct effect, and average indirect effect of pediatrician/PCP on satisfaction mediated by waiting/visit times. Results: Pediatricians had higher predicted satisfaction ratings than PCPs (total effect = 4.8, 95% CI 3.7–5.9), with population-averaged mean of 82.2 (0.54) vs 77.4 (0.13). The direct effect was 3.9 (2.8–5.0) and the indirect effect was 0.9 (0.9–0.9), suggesting that part but not all of the total effect can be explained by pediatricians having decreased waiting/visit times leading to increased satisfaction. Predictions by subgroup suggested that pediatricians had lower ratings than PCPs for first visit, but higher ratings for all other covariate strata considered. Having longer waiting times and decreased visit times coincided with closer mean ratings between pediatricians and PCPs, other significant effect modifiers included patient sex, provider sex, and region of practice. Conclusion: Pediatricians scored higher patient satisfaction ratings than the combined group of other PCPs. Pediatricians had shorter wait times to see their patients compared to PCPs. Shorter wait times and longer visit times were associated with higher patient satisfaction ratings.

J Res Pharm Pract, Official publication of -,Iran