SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Impact of pharmacist-physician collaboration on patient outcomes in Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled trial in tertiary care.

Int J Clin Pharm · 2025-02-13

DOI: 10.1007/s11096-025-01883-6PMID: 39945968

Open accessresearch-article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that reducing drug-related problems (DRPs) may improve therapeutic outcomes in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).AimTo investigate the impact of pharmacist participation in Parkinson's disease clinic on the number of DRPs, clinical outcomes, and the quality of life of PD patients.MethodThis single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Clinic. Patients aged ≥ 18 years, diagnosed with idiopathic PD for at least 3 years, and receiving antiparkinsonian drugs were randomly assigned (1:1) to the pharmacist-physician (PP) or usual care (UC) groups. The primary outcome was changes in the number of DRPs from baseline to 24 weeks between groups. Secondary outcomes included the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) score, eight-item version of the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) score, and Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score at week 24.ResultsA total of 80 patients were randomised, with 40 in each group. The mean number of DRPs reduced in both groups; however, the reduction was greater in the PP group compared to the UC group (- 7.2 ± 3.6 vs. - 3.0 ± 1.8, p ConclusionOur findings demonstrated that pharmacist-physician collaboration service in the PD clinic positively impacted patient outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05410210 (date 13 May 2022).

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.