PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

James P McCormack

Publications and source records attributed to James P McCormack.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Outcomes of bupropion therapy for smoking cessation during routine clinical use.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge pertaining to the effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments and patient characteristics that may affect success may enable smokers and clinicians to select individualized treatment for each patient and ultimately increase the success rate of smoking cessation in general. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of bupropion as a smoking cessation agent when used in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study with a one year follow-up period. Adult smokers presenting to community pharmacies in British Columbia, Canada, with an index prescription for bupropion for smoking cessation (N = 205) were eligible. The primary outcome was the biochemically validated 12 month point abstinence (PA) rate from smoking. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of adverse events, patterns of bupropion use in routine clinical practice, and possible predictors of bupropion effectiveness. RESULTS: The validated 12 month PA rate was 21.0%. Of subjects who reported taking at least one dose of bupropion, 70.4% (126/179) experienced at least one adverse event and 29.6% (53/179) reported stopping the drug due to adverse effects. Greater length of time on bupropion (OR 0.98) and a lower cigarette pack-year history (OR 1.05) were associated with an increase in the odds of smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects receiving bupropion in a real-life setting exhibited a similar abstinence rate at 12 months as has been observed in the active drug groups of placebo-controlled clinical trials. However, the patterns of use and discontinuation rate due to adverse events differed substantially from those observed in early efficacy studies.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs.

BACKGROUND: Patients routinely cite the media, after physicians and pharmacists, as a key source of information on new drugs, but there has been little research on the quality of drug information presented. We assessed newspaper descriptions of drug benefits and harms, the nature of the effects described and the presence or absence of other important information that can add context and balance to a report about a new drug. METHODS: We looked at newspaper coverage in the year 2000 of 5 prescription drugs launched in Canada between 1996 and 2001 that received a high degree of media attention: atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir and raloxifene. We searched 24 of Canada's largest daily newspapers for articles reporting at least one benefit or harm of any of these 5 drugs. We recorded the benefits and harms reported and analyzed how such information was presented; we also determined whether clinical or surrogate outcomes were mentioned; if and how drug effects were quantified; whether contraindications, other treatment options and costs were mentioned; and whether any information on affiliations of quoted interviewees and potential conflicts of interest was presented. RESULTS: Our search yielded 193 articles reporting at least one benefit or harm for 1 of the 5 drugs. All of the articles mentioned at least one benefit, but 68% (132/193) made no mention of possible side effects or harms. Only 24% (120/510) of mentions of drug benefits and harms presented quantitative information. In 26% (31/120) of cases in which drug benefits and harms were quantified, the magnitude was presented only in relative terms, which can be misleading. Overall, 62% (119/193) of the articles gave no quantification of the benefits or harms. Thirty-seven (19%) of the 193 articles reported only surrogate benefits. Other information needed for informed drug-related decisions was often lacking: only 7 (4%) of the articles mentioned contraindications, 61 (32%) mentioned drug costs, 89 (46%) mentioned drug alternatives, and 30 (16%) mentioned nondrug treatment options (such as exercise or diet). Sixty-two percent (120/193) of the articles quoted at least one interviewee. After exclusion of industry and government spokespeople, for only 3% (5/164) of interviewees was there any mention of potential financial conflicts of interest. Twenty-six percent (15/57) of the articles discussing a study included information on study funding. INTERPRETATION: Our results raise concerns about the completeness and quality of media reporting about new medications.

Acetamides↗
PubMed2003

Providing evidence-based information to patients in general practice and pharmacies: what is the acceptability, usefulness and impact on drug use?

BACKGROUND: A common and often integral method of delivering patient information is the use of patient guides. However, the acceptability, utility and impact of evidence-based therapeutic guides on physicians, pharmacists and patients have not been well evaluated. METHODS: This study was a prospective evaluation of 53 general practitioners' offices and 30 community pharmacies from three locations in Canada. Evidence-based guides were provided to 1176 patients who presented to either a general practitioner or a community pharmacist and were interested in receiving information about sore throat, heartburn, or osteoporosis (http://www.ti.ubc.ca/canadadrugguide). The acceptability, utility and impact of the guides were assessed via structured patient telephone interviews, structured health professional interviews, and patient chart audits. RESULTS: Eighty to 90% of patients reported that the guides were 'very easy' to understand. Fifty six per cent/47%/38% (sore throat/heartburn/osteoporosis) of patients rated the guides as 'very' or 'extremely' useful. Seventy-two per cent/67%/58% of respondents reported that the information helped them make decisions about their treatment. Ninety eight per cent of physicians and 92% of pharmacists reported that the guides helped their patients understand the issues involved in their treatment. None of the analyses showed any significant differences in prescribing of medications between the intervention and control groups. INTERPRETATIONS: Patients found these evidence-based guides to be useful, easy to understand, and that they helped them in their understanding of treatment options and the decision-making process. Physicians and pharmacists reported that the guides helped their patients understand the issues involved in their treatment. Further research is required to determine the degree to which providing evidence-based guides to patients can impact on prescribing and patient outcomes.

Adult↗