ArticleJAMA network open2026
Family Pharmacist System for Patients With Chronic Cardiovascular or Endocrine Disease.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Community pharmacy transformation under universal health coverage: Implementation barriers, cultural determinants, and cross-national lessons from Japan's ongoing transition - A narrative review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Japan's family pharmacist system (FPS) has helped to prevent therapeutic duplication and drug interactions and to improve leftover drug adjustments. However, its association with lower risk of death or hospitalization remains unclear. Objective: To examine the risk of death or hospitalization from any cause among older patients with chronic cardiovascular or endocrine disease among users of an FPS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used administrative claims data in the DeSC Health Insurance Database from April 2015 to March 2024, with a 2-year follow-up period. A prevalent new-user design was adopted to compare patients who initiated FPS use with those receiving standard pharmaceutical care. Patients 75 years of age or older with a history of visiting a pharmacy at least twice for treating hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, heart failure, angina, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, or other arrhythmias were included. Exposure: FPS use and nonuse. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was death or hospitalization from any cause, assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis, with each component analyzed individually as a secondary outcome. Cox proportional hazards regression with robust variance estimators was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and the 95% CIs. Results: FPS users and nonusers each included 22 557 patients (total 45 114; mean [SD] age, 82.8 [5.2] years; 32 254 [71.5%] female) after time-conditional propensity score matching. The risk of death or hospitalization from any cause did not differ significantly between groups (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.04]). For individual end points, the risk of death from any cause was slightly but significantly lower among users than nonusers (33.9 [95% CI, 32.0-35.9] vs 37.0 [95% CI, 35.0-39.1] deaths per 1000 person-years), with an HR of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99). However, no significant difference in risk was observed between FPS users and nonusers for hospitalization from any cause (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.98-1.05]). Conclusions and Relevance: This large-scale cohort study found that the use of an FPS was not associated with lower risk of death or hospitalization from any cause. However, the results generated a clinically important hypothesis that FPS use may be associated with slightly lower risk of death among older patients with chronic cardiovascular or endocrine disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.