Pharmacy

Substance use disorder (SUD) is a chronic and clinically complex condition, frequently complicated by significant organic and psychiatric comorbidities. Most patients are polymedicated and require opioid substitution programs (OSPs). This complexity is further exacerbated by drug–drug interactions, therapeutic duplication, and fragmentation of the healthcare system. This retrospective observational study analyses the prevalence of polypharmacy and associated pharmacotherapeutic risks in a cohort of 1050 patients with SUD treated at Drug Care Units (DCUs) in Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). Prescriptions were dominated by methadone (62%), antidepressants, and antipsychotics, often in combination with benzodiazepines. Significant polypharmacy (>10 active prescriptions) was observed in 2.3% of patients, while 8.1% received 6–10 medications and 37.2% were using 2–5 medications. Women showed a higher pharmacological burden, with 3.5% experiencing significant polypharmacy (>10 different prescriptions) compared with 1.1% of men. Overall, 31% of patients received antidepressants, 31% were treated with antipsychotics—frequently with concurrent use of multiple agents—and 6.4% received opioids outside the OSP. Therapeutic duplication was observed in 15.6% of patients for psycholeptics, 14.2% for psychoanaleptics, and 3.2% for antiepileptics. Additionally, 25.2% of patients reported self-medication, predominantly with benzodiazepines. These findings underscore the need for integrated pharmaceutical care programs incorporating individualized therapeutic review and deprescribing strategies to enhance the safety and efficacy of SUD treatment.

Background: Pediatric patients often receive medicines manipulated from adult formulations due to a lack of age-appropriate products. While such practices are clinically routine, they may reflect deeper systemic deficiencies in pediatric pharmacotherapy. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the prevalence, definitions, and types of pediatric drug manipulation and to conceptualize manipulation as an indicator of structural gaps in formulation science, regulation, and access. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed (January 2014–July 2024) included 10 studies reporting the frequency of drug manipulation in children aged ≤18 years. Eligible studies were synthesized narratively according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: Ten studies from nine countries were included, reporting manipulation frequencies ranging from 6.4% to 62% of all drug administrations and up to 60% at the patient level. Manipulated formulations most commonly included oral solid doses, altered through dispersing, splitting, or crushing. Definitions and methodologies varied considerably. The findings revealed five recurring structural gaps: limited pediatric formulations, inconsistent regulatory implementation, lack of standardized definitions and guidance, insufficient evidence on manipulation safety, and inequitable access across regions. Conclusion: Manipulation of finished dosage forms for use in children is a widespread, measurable phenomenon reflecting systemic inadequacies in formulation development, regulation, and access. Recognizing manipulation as a structural indicator may guide policy, innovation, and equitable pediatric pharmacotherapy worldwide.

This study evaluated the accuracy and educational potential of three generative AI models, ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4o, and Gemini 2.5, by addressing pharmacy-related content across three key areas: biostatistics, pharmaceutical calculations, and therapeutics. A total of 120 exam-style questions, categorized by Bloom’s Taxonomy levels (Remember, Understand, Apply, and Analyze), were administered to each model. Overall, the AI models achieved a combined accuracy rate of 77.5%, with ChatGPT 4o consistently outperforming ChatGPT 3.5 and Gemini 2.5. The highest accuracy was observed in therapeutics (83.3%), followed by biostatistics (81.7%) and calculations (67.5%). Performance was strongest at lower Bloom levels, reflecting proficiency in recall and conceptual understanding, but declined at higher levels requiring analytical reasoning. These findings suggest that generative AI tools can serve as effective supplementary aids for pharmacy education, particularly for conceptual learning and review. However, their limitations in quantitative and higher-order reasoning highlight the need for guided use and faculty oversight. Future research should expand to additional subject areas and assess longitudinal learning outcomes to better understand AI’s role in improving critical thinking and professional competence among pharmacy students.