Search

Purpose Sharing and developing digital educational resources and open educational resources has been proposed as a way to harmonize and improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education in European medical schools. Previous research, however, has shown that there are barriers to the adoption and implementation of open educational resources. The aim of this study was to determine perceived opportunities and barriers to the use and creation of open educational resources among European CPT teachers and possible solutions for these barriers. Methods CPT teachers of British and EU medical schools completed an online survey. Opportunities and challenges were identified by thematic analyses and subsequently discussed in an international consensus meeting. Results Data from 99 CPT teachers from 95 medical schools were analysed. Thirty teachers (30.3%) shared or collaboratively produced digital educational resources. All teachers foresaw opportunities in the more active use of open educational resources, including improving the quality of their teaching. The challenges reported were language barriers, local differences, lack of time, technological issues, difficulties with quality management, and copyright restrictions. Practical solutions for these challenges were discussed and include a peer review system, clear indexing, and use of copyright licenses that permit adaptation of resources. Conclusion Key challenges to making greater use of CPT open educational resources are a limited applicability of such resources due to language and local differences and quality concerns. These challenges may be resolved by relatively simple measures, such as allowing adaptation and translation of resources and a peer review system.

CONTRIBUTORS IN THE NETWORK OF TEACHERS IN PHARMACOTHERAPY (NOTIP) (ALPHABETIZED BY COUNTRY): Atanasova, Ivanka (Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, Sofia, Bulgaria); Ganeva, Maria (Trakia University, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria); Gatchev, Emil (Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria); Kostadinova, II (Medical University Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria); Mimica Matanovic, S (University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia); Vitezic, D (University of Rijeka Medical School, Rijeka, Croatia); Wozniak, Greta (University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus); Kmonickova, E (Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic); Urbanek, Karel (Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic); Damkier, P (University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark); Huupponen, RK (University of Turku, Turku, Finland); Auffret, Marine (Hospices civils de Lyon, Lyon, France); Bejan-Angoulvant, T (Université de Tours, Tours, France); Chouchana, Laurent (Hospital Cochin, Paris, France); Cracowski, Jean-Luc (University Grenoble Alpes, La Tronche, France); Drici, MD (University of Nice Côte d'Azur, Nice, France); Faillie, JL (CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France); Geniaux, Hélène (CHU de Limoges, Limoges, France); Molimard, M (Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France); Orlikowski, D (Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University, Versailles, France); Palin, Karine (University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France); Pers, Y-M (CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France); Picard, Nicolas (CHU de Limoges, Limoges, France); Simon, N (Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France); Toussirot, E (CHU de Besancon, Besancon, France); Boger, RH (University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany); Cascorbi, I (University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany); Mueller, SC (University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany); Regenthal, R (University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany); Schwab, M (Eberhard Karl University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany); Schwaninger, MS (University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany); Thuermann, PA (University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany); Wojnowski, L (University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany); Kouvelas, D (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece); Riba, P (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary); Kerins, David M (University College, Cork, Ireland); Williams, David J (Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland); Cosentino, M (University of Insubria, Varese, Italy); De Ponti, Fabrizio (University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy); Filippelli, Amelia (University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy); Leone, R (University of Verona, Verona, Italy); Locatelli, Vittorio (University of Milano - Bicocca, Monza, Italy); Jansone, Baiba (University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia); Gulbinovic, Romaldas (Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania); Mifsud, Janet (University of Malta, Msida, Malta); Braszko, Jan J (Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland); kocic, I (Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland); Breitenfeld, Luiza (Beira Interior University, Covilh~a, Portugal); Castelo-Branco, M (University of Beira Interior, Covilh~a, Portugal); Conea, Simona (“Vasile Goldis” Western University of Arad, Arad, Romania); Magyar, Ioan (University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania); Bevc, S (University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia); Krzan, Mojca (University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia); Bernal, ML (University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain); Capellà, D (University of Girona, Girona, Spain); Carcas, A (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, University of Maribor, Spain); De Abajo, FJ (University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain); Lopez-Rico, M (University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain); Lucena, MI (University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain); Pontes, C (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Spain); Sanz, EJ (Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Spain); Böttiger, Y (Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden); Le Grevès, Madeleine (Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden); de Waard-Siebinga, I (University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands); Janssen, Ben JA (Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands); Knol, Wilma (University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands); Pandit, Rahul (University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands); van Rosse, F (Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands); Dent, G (Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom); Ferro, Albert (King's College London, London, United Kingdom); Hitchings, AW (St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom); Kapil, V (Queen Mary University London, London, United Kingdom); Linton, KD (University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom); Loke, YK (University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom); Okorie, Michael (Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom); Plumb, Richard David (Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom); Pontefract, Sarah (University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom); Ranmuthu, S (Queen Mary University London, London, United Kingdom); Sampson, AP (University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom); Thanacoody, HKR (Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom); Whitfield, Jonathan P (University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom); Wilson, Kurt (University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom) Improvement and harmonization of European clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education is urgently required. Because digital educational resources can be easily shared, adapted to local situations and re‐used widely across a variety of educational systems, they may be ideally suited for this purpose Methods With a cross‐sectional survey among principal CPT teachers in 279 out of 304 European medical schools, an overview and classification of digital resources was compiled. Results Teachers from 95 (34%) medical schools in 26 of 28 EU countries responded, 66 (70%) of whom used digital educational resources in their CPT curriculum. A total of 89 of such resources were described in detail, including e‐learning (24%), simulators to teach pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics (10%), virtual patients (8%), and serious games (5%). Together, these resources covered 235 knowledge‐based learning objectives, 88 skills, and 13 attitudes. Only one third (27) of the resources were in‐part or totally free and only two were licensed open educational resources (free to use, distribute and adapt). A narrative overview of the largest, free and most novel resources is given. Conclusion Digital educational resources, ranging from e‐learning to virtual patients and games, are widely used for CPT education in EU medical schools. Learning objectives are based largely on knowledge rather than skills or attitudes. This may be improved by including more real‐life clinical case scenarios. Moreover, the majority of resources are neither free nor open. Therefore, with a view to harmonizing international CPT education, more needs to be learned about why CPT teachers are not currently sharing their educational materials.

Background: Senior individuals are particularly vulnerable to influenza. Research suggests that protection against the virus and its transmission in this high-risk group of the population can be achieved by active immunization against the pathogen. Aims: To explore and analyze the attitudes, knowledge and behavior of people over the age of 60 on influenza vaccination. Population and methods: This cross-sectional survey included people over the age of 60 who were eligible candidates for the influenza vaccine from 3 regions from Northern and 1 region from Southern Greece. A self-completed questionnaire based upon the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Motivation for Vaccination (MoVac-flu) and the Vaccination Advocacy Scale (MovAd) was administered to the participants. Demographic characteristics and information about health status were also obtained. Results: The final sample included 318 participants with mean age of 70.7 years. More than half of the participants (56.6%) had received a flu vaccine in 2018 while 50.8% received it annually in previous years. Behavioral (p < 0.001), normative (p < 0.001), and control beliefs (p < 0.001), promoted the uptake of the vaccine and the increased intention score (p < 0.001) was associated with increased probability of vaccination. Greater age (p = 0.001) and frequent visits to the doctors (p = 0.003) had a positive influence upon the uptake of the vaccine. Conclusions: Only a small proportion of those over the age of 60 had received the influenza vaccine. This finding is worrying, as it indicates the impact that a future outbreak of seasonal influenza could exert upon vulnerable groups. There is an urgent need for further, better and more evidence-based information from healthcare professionals to achieve greater vaccination coverage in the community. © 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

To investigate whether leptin acts directly on the anterior hypophysis by influencing gonadotropin secretion in vivo.Cycling female rats were catheterised for frequent blood sampling and were either fasted or allowed free access to food. Stereotactic lesion of the medial preoptic area (MPOA) of the hypothalamus was performed in order to eliminate gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) production. Leptin was administered at a dose of one mg/kg i.v. and blood samples were taken just before leptin administration and then after 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180 minutes. Plasma gonadotropin levels were determined. With completion of sampling, the brains were removed and the localisation of the lesions was verified histologically.Leptin at one mg/kg induced an increase in luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion in fasting rats, both in those with a lesion and those with intact medial preoptic area with a peak occurring 90 minutes after infusion. The augmenting effect was more prominent when the hypothalamus was intact. There was no effect in fed animals with or without lesion. Similarly, no effect was observed on follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels in any of the experimental groups.Leptin acts directly on the hypophysis enhancing LH but not FSH secretion. Nutritional state influences leptin's effect on the hypothalamus and the hypophysis.

Gabapentin (GP) and pregabalin (PB) are structurally related compounds and their predominant mechanism of action is the inhibition of calcium currents via high-voltage-activated channels containing the a2d-1 subunit. A2delta ligands are approved for the treatment of pain of diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia in adults and as adjunctive therapy of partial seizures in children. Recently, pregabalin has been approved for treatment of anxiety disorders in Europe. Besides their already approved indications both drugs are promising treatment options for a number of different serious and debilitating diseases, as fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain of spinal cord injury, hot flushes, and essential tremor. In the present review, the unique mechanism of action of the above drugs is critically analyzed and evidence for their future use is provided. Gabapentin and pregabalin can be treatment options for these disorders, however, a clear comparison between the two drugs can not be performed, since there is no direct comparison study. The most common side effects are dizziness and somnolence which are also the most frequent reasons for withdrawal. Recommendations for future studies should include assessment of ideal titration period for GP and PB to reduce incidence of somnolence and dizziness and increase tolerability, cost-effectiveness and dose-response analysis of PB and GP and direct comparison of the two drugs.