1. INTRODUCCIÓN
1.3 Conceptos generales de la Apnea del Sueño
1. Describe the evolution of the USP and the NF since its inception up to the current date. 2. After reviewing the Competency Statements
for Pharmacy Practice, evaluate how well the college/school of pharmacy you attend will prepare you to practice the profession of pharmacy.
reports/publications and avoid the manipulation of the release of such information for illegal fi nancial gain. Report results accurately, stating explicitly any known or suspected bias, opposing efforts to improperly modify data or conclusions and offering professional advice only on those subjects concerning which they regard them- selves competent through scientifi c education, training or experience.
Respect the known ownership rights of others in scien- tifi c research and seek prior authorization from the owner before disclosure or use of such information including the contents of manuscripts submitted for prepublication review.
Support in their research and among their employers the participation and employment of all qualifi ed persons regardless of race, gender, creed or national origin.
7. The United States Pharmacopeia, 23rd Rev. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., 1995:liv.
8. Hassler J, Yankowsky A. An overview of ISO 9001 certifi cation. BioPharm 1995;19:48–50.
9. FDA. The thalidomide tragedy—25 years ago. FDA Consum 1987;21:14–17.
10. Stirling D, Sherman M, Strauss S. Safety issues raised as thalidomide is considered for approval. Pharm Today 1997;3:1.
11. FDA Talk Paper. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 1997;T97–T43:1–4.
12. Levien T, Baker DE, Ballasiotes AA. Reviews of dexrazoxane and thalidomide. Hosp Pharm 1996;31:487–510.
13. Bonnell L. Packaging nutritional supplements. Pharm Med Packag News 1997;5:42–50.
14. Wechsler J. Congress modernizes FDA. Pharm Tech 1997;21:16–26.
Chap01.indd 25
patient counseling, disease management, and pharma- ceutical care. J Am Pharm Assoc 2007;47(5):620–625. 32. Nkansah NT, Brewer JM, Connores R, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus receiving medication mangement by pharmacists in an urban private physician practice. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65(2):145–149.
33. American Pharmacists Association. APhA Guide to Drug Treatment Protocols. Washington, DC: American Pharmacists Association, 1997.
34. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP Guidelines on Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring and Reporting. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 1995.
35. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP Statement on the Pharmacist’s Role in Clinical Pharmacokinetic Services. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 1998.
36. Berdine HJ, O’Neil CK. Development and implementa- tion of a pharmacist-managed university-based wellness center. J Am Pharm Assoc 2007;47(3):390–397. 37. American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
Approaching the Millennium: The Report of the AACP Janus Commission. Alexandria, VA: American Associa- tion of Colleges of Pharmacy, 1997.
38. Pancorbo SA, Campagna KD, Davenport JK, et al. Task force report of competency statements for pharmacy practice. Am J Pharm Educ 1987;51:196–206. 39. Pharmacy Practice Classifi cation. J Am Pharm Assoc
1998;38:139–148.
40. Health Care Financing Administration. Medicaid program: Drug use review program and electronic claims management system for outpatient drug claims. Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administra- tion, Department of Health and Human Services, 1992; Federal Register 57:49397–49412.
41. Brushwood DB, Catizone CA, Coster JM. OBRA 90: What it means to your practice. US Pharm 1992;17:64–73.
42. http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.
cfm?Section=Search1&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay. cfm&ContentID=2903 (accessed February 16, 2008). Adopted by the membership of the American Pharma- cists Association October 27, 1994.
43. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, Alexandria, VA. October 20, 2008. http://www.aapsphar- maceutica.com/inside/refguide/CodeofEthics.pdf 15. Wynn P. New directions in pharmacy careers. Managed
Care Pharm Prac 1996;3:14–19.
16. Vogenberg FR. Managed health care: A review. Hosp Pharm 1997;32:975–982.
17. The Mission of Pharmacy. Washington, DC: American Pharmacists Association. http://www.pharmacist.com/ AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_APha2&Template=/ CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14177 (accessed February 16, 2008).
18. Mikeal RL, Brown TP, Lazarus HL, et al. Quality of pharmaceutical care in hospitals. Am J Hosp Pharm 1975;32:567–574.
19. Strand LM, Cipolle RJ, Morley PC. Pharmaceutical care: An introduction. Current Concepts. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn, 1992.
20. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP guidelines on a standardized method of pharmaceutical care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996;53:1713–1716. 21. Principles of Practice for Pharmaceutical Care.
Washington, DC: American Pharmacists Association. http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/prinprac.html (accessed September 8, 2003).
22. Barnette DJ, Murphy CM, Carter BL. Clinical skill development for community pharmacists. J Am Pharm Assoc 1996;NS36:573–579.
23. Rodriquez de Bittner M, Michocki R. Pharmaceutical care databases. J Am Pharm Assoc 1997;NS37:595–596. 24. West DS, Szeinbach S. Information technology and
pharmaceutical care. J Am Pharm Assoc 1997;NS37: 497–501.
25. Grant KL, Herrier RN, Armstrong EP. Teaching a systematic search strategy improves literature retrieval skills of pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ 1996; 60:281–286.
26. Madan PL. Therapeutic drug monitoring. US Pharm 1996;21:92–105.
27. McDonough RP. Interventions to improve patient pharmaceutical care outcomes. J Am Pharm Assoc 1996;NS36:453–459.
28. Fera T, Bluml BM, Ellis WM, et al. J Am Pharm Assoc 2008;48(32):181–190.
29. Isetts BJ, Schondelmeyer SW, Artz MB, et al. J Am Pharm Assoc 2008;48(2):203–211.
30. Kubacka RT. A primer on drug utilization review. J Am Pharm Assoc 1996;NS36:257–261.
31. McGivney MS, Meyer SM, Duncan-Hewitt W, et al. Medication therapy management: Its relationship to
Chap01.indd 26
27
After reading this chapter, the student will be able to:
1.
Compare and contrast an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application froma New Drug Application (NDA)