Most antineoplastic drugs are highly toxic and have low therapeutic indexes, which can result in drug-related problems. In this context, pharmacist interventions may play an important role in the success of the treatment. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of pharmacist interventions on adult outpatients with cancer using antineoplastic drugs. A literature search was performed using PubMed, ISI Web of Science and LILACS databases from January 1990 to April 2016, using MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, cancer and outpatient care. Studies published in English, Portuguese or Spanish on the effects of pharmacist interventions in outcome measures in adult outpatients with cancer were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction with a consensus process. The articles were analysed according to previously established criteria, such as country, study design, setting, population, type of cancer, description of the intervention and control groups, outcomes, main conclusions and study limitations. A total of 874 records were identified, of which 11 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted mainly in the United States and included patients aged >50 years. Most studies had a before-after design. Pharmacist interventions primarily included educating and counselling patients on the management of adverse events. Rates of nausea and vomiting control, medication adherence and patient satisfaction were the most common outcome measures; a significant benefit in these parameters as a result of pharmacist interventions was noted in most studies. The findings from this systematic review indicate that pharmacist interventions can improve outcome measures in outpatients with cancer. However, the collective quality of the studies was poor and gaps identified indicate that further research is needed to provide more robust results.

To assess the effect of pharmacist interventions on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients and to examine factors that could explain the variation across studies. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and LILACS databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2015. The search strategy included the use of MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, type 2 diabetes, and randomized controlled trials. RCTs published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that evaluated the effect of pharmacist intervention on glycemic control in type 2 diabetic outpatients were included. Two independent authors executed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Mean differences in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were estimated using random-effect models, and heterogeneity was evaluated by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The literature search yielded 963 records of potential interest, of which 30 were included in the systematic review and 22 in the meta-analysis. Most of these RCTs were conducted in the United States in patients in outpatient clinics using face-to-face contact only. All RCTs performed patient education, and most executed the medication review. The appraised sample showed uncertain or high risk of bias in most of the items evaluated, resulting in low-quality studies. In comparison with usual care, pharmacist interventions were associated with significant reductions in HbA1c levels (-8.5% [95% CI: -1.06, -0.65]; P < 0.0001; I² = 67.3%). Subgroup analysis indicated differences of heterogeneity by country, baseline HbA1c levels, setting, intervention frequency, and random allocation. Age and HbA1c levels partly explained the variability across studies by meta-regression. Our findings confirmed that pharmacist interventions improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with usual care and suggest that younger patients or with higher baseline HbA1c levels may be the main beneficiaries of pharmacist care. CRD42014007457