Author(s)

Alba Martin Val, Adrià Vilariño Seijas, Arantxa Arias Martínez, Anna Terricabras Mas, Andrea Bocos Baela , Maite Bosch Peligero, Carles Quiñones Ribas

Why was it done?

In CCPs the efficacy and safety of many drugs are unknown or questionable, in fact, medication may be the cause for side effects. Deprescribing is aimed to reduce the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and improve patient outcomes. Pharmacist deprescribing interventions may contribute to reassess prescriptions and withdraw those with a negative risk/benefit balance.

What was done?

To analyze the pharmacist deprescribing interventions in complex chronic patients (CCPs) performed in hospital and primary care.

How was it done?

This prospective study was carried out in a tertiary hospital between February and March 2021. CCPs whom medication was reconciliated at hospital discharge were included and the pharmacist interventions (PIs) performed were analyzed. After hospital discharge, the acceptance of the PIs was verified and were notified to the primary care physician in case of not being accepted in hospital setting. Drugs involved in PIs were classified according to the therapeutic group established by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification and high-risk medication was quantified using the Institute for Safe Medication Practices classification for chronic patients. Deprescribing interventions were classified according to the Less-Chron criteria and other medication-related problems were also quantified.

What has been achieved?

Among the 55 patients included, 55% were female, the mean age was 83 years and the mean of medication per patient was 13. A total of 111 PIs were performed, 44% (n = 49) were deprescribing interventions and 56% (n = 63) other problems related to medication. Fifty-five per cent of patients presented 1 or more PIMs, and a mean of approximately 1 PIMs per patient was reported. The most frequent therapeutic groups involved in PIs were cardiovascular system (34.2%), nervous system (29.7%) and alimentary tract and metabolism medication (13.5%). High-risk medication represented 41% of all PIs. The most frequent deprescribing interventions were associated to blood pressure treatment (30.6%), benzodiazepines (24.4%) and statins (12%). The 65% of deprescribing interventions were accepted among hospital and primary care settings.

What next?

Deprescribing interventions supported by hospital pharmacists reduce potentially inappropriate medications, however, deprescribing practice is still limited in hospital and primary care.

Author(s)

Belén Serna Serrano, Victoria Lerma Gaude, Ana Valladolid Walsh, Cristina Del Pozo Carlavilla, Juan Manuel Collado Sanz, Héctor Alabort Ayllón, Eduardo Tébar Martínez, Andrea Drozdz Vergara

Why was it done?

In the pharmacist-patient clinical interview (CI), DP-I revision is frequent due to consumption increase of phytotherapy in recent years. The aim of the initiative was to study the degree of discrepancy (DD) based on the severity criteria (SC) found about the recommendations on the management of DP-I. Nowadays there are multiple databases with lack of unification. Patients diagnosed of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) are frequently interviewed by the pharmacist and they often take herbal medicines (HM).

What was done?

We unified the information collected from the commonly consulted databases of drug-plant interactions (DP-I) whose information could be scarce or contradictory, by creating a tool based on the most consulted plants in our clinical practice (CP).

How was it done?

To create our own DP-I tool, the sources consulted were:
– Our own plant database based on CP. A total of 56 plants.
– Six official databases of DP-I: (A)-Phytotherapy official monographs, (B)-MedInteract®, (C)-Micromedex®, (D)-UpToDate-Lexicomp® (E)-Medscape®.

In order to unify the DP-I information consulted and to be able to identify the DD (0 to 2), the SC for all databases were unified in 3 levels: if the database had 5 levels (1=1-2; 2=3-4; 3=5) or 4 levels (1=1-2; 2=3; 3=4). In first place we decided to test this tool with a small sample size of drugs (6 drugs commonly used for the treatment of MS) to check whether the discrepancy between the databases usually consulted was significant or not.

What has been achieved?

Finally, 6 DP-I were detected with Hypericum perforatum (HP) and Echinacea angustifolia (EA):

The DD seems to be similar between A-B databases and greater respect to the rest of them. Depending on the database consulted the pharmacist’s performance could change and consequently, pharmaceutical care may be affected. Since this tool was implemented in our CP, none of our MS patients have taken HP or EA, therefore, it has not been necessary to modify their treatment because of DP-I.

What next?

This tool could speed up the pharmacological review of possible DP-I and improve decision-making for the care of MS patients. Our next step is to increase the sample of analysed drugs commonly used in other pathologies, such as antiretroviral drugs.

Author(s)

Fernando Fuertes

Why was it done?

Monitoring of patients on immunomodulators increases the workload of consultants in gastroenterology outpatient clinics. Pharmacist-led monitoring clinics reduces the number of patients who had to discontinue treatment due to myelosuppression, optimises dosage by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), and increases adherence to blood monitoring.

What was done?

A creation of a outpatient pharmacist-led Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) clinic to monitor and optimised immunomodulators and biologic therapy. The role of the specialist pharmacist has added value and clinical oversight to the care of IBD patients as treatment with biologic therapy has become more prevalent. In addition, the pharmacist routinely participate in IBD multidisciplinary team meetings to help with decision-making and treatment optimisation.

How was it done?

The Department of Gastroenterology at Barnsley Hospital, developed the twin roles of a Specialist Gastroenterology Pharmacist and an IBD Specialist Nurse/Non-medical endoscopist in 2012 to augment IBD care. Both roles require accreditation for independent prescribing. The pharmacist has responsibility for therapeutic drug monitoring, the prescription of biologic treatment following induction and immunosuppressants, participate at MDT, patient support and patient education. The nurse oversees the clinical and endoscopic surveillance of patients including the running of the IBD telephone helpline service

What has been achieved?

Robust clinical, biochemical and endoscopic surveillance is crucial for the delivery of effective treatments and quality of care in IBD. Telemedicine and virtual clinics have become part of our mainstream clinical practice to allow our IBD patients rapid access to healthcare services, pathway-driven treatment decision-making processes and endoscopy. IBD specialist Nurse and pharmacist clinics allow efficient management of the Gastroenterology workload and show extremely high levels of patient acceptability and satisfaction.

What next?

IBD is a life-long condition associated with considerable ongoing morbidity. Patient’s social and psychological wellbeing can be affected if the disease is poorly controlled. It is proven the specialist role of the pharmacist adds value to the gastroenterology teams and improves patient’s care. However, there is a need to standardise the specialist IBD pharmacist like in others specialities such as haemato-oncologist pharmacist or anticoagulation pharmacist. A Continuous Professional Development (CPD) course has been launched in partnership with the School of Pharmacy at the University of Bradford (United Kingdom) to initiate this goal. Further recognition and awareness of the role is required with our profession to achieve the goal and improve patients’ quality of care.

Pdf

Author(s)

Natalia Toledo Noda, Víctor Quesada Marqués, Héctor Alonso Ramos, Moisés Pérez León, María Victoria Morales León

Why was it done?

It has been observed that emergency physicians tend to prescribe higher doses of antibiotics even though a lower dose is enough for the most common pathologies. This implied a decrease in safety, a probable increase in bacterial resistance as well as an increase in cost.

What was done?

The dose of antibiotics that appeared by default in the pharmacological prescription program were adjusted with the aim of reducing overdose.

How was it done?

The most common pathologies in the emergency room were taken into account and the pharmacist, in agreement with the emergency physicians and following the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, programmed those doses by default in the order set. For example, 1g of ceftriaxone once a day instead of 2g is enough for urinary tract infections and community-acquired pneumonia and 1 or 2 doses of oral phosphomycin are enough to treat non-complicated urinary tract infection. Regarding weight-adjusted antibiotics (for example amikacin), it was proposed that the dose corresponding to 65kg should appear by default in the program, which is the average weight that our patients in the emergency room usually have. These measures were intended to make the prescription as safe as possible.

What has been achieved?

The measures adopted by the Pharmacy Service achieved a drastic reduction in the overdose of antibiotics. The potential for medication errors was decreased and, therefore, patient safety improved. Unnecessary calls to prescribers for clarifications and questions about orders were also avoided. In economic terms, it has been possible to save almost 40% of the cost of treatment per patient. However, the aim of this measure was never resourcing optimization since most antibiotics used in the emergency room do not have a high cost.

What next?

In addition to the treatment protocols according to pathologies that are usually predefined in order sets, these actions carried out (not just in antibiotics) can be useful in emergency departments and for medical professionals who are not as used to prescribing medication. The use of well-designed order sets requires vigilance and a team approach because if they are not carefully designed, reviewed, and maintained to reflect evidence-based care, they may contribute to errors.

Pdf

Author(s)

Ana Pelaez Bejarano, Maria de las Aguas Robustillo Cortes, Pilar Villar Santos, Olalla Montero Pérez, Ignacio Garcia Gimenez

Why was it done?

Rheumatologic disorders carry increased risk of infection compared with the general population, so facilitate access to hospital medications is of vital importance.

What was done?

On 14 March 2020, the Spanish government declared a state of alarm to deal with the spread of COVID-19. Medication dispensing protocols were immediately established to deliver drugs to patients who could not come in person to the hospital pharmacy department. These measures were designed to benefit citizens who, due to age or physical fragility, were more vulnerable to contagion. We had the collaboration of community pharmacies actively practicing during the COVID-19 pandemic and a logistics service, with no extra cost to the public healthcare system.

How was it done?

Between 30 March and 1 September 2020, a circuit was designed as follows: First, patient request the delivery service in the community pharmacy of their choice, which sending the request of each patient to college of pharmacists. Later, this institution sending of applications received from all pharmacies to hospital pharmacy. Here, the hospital pharmacist reviewed the patient’s electronic medical record, checking that the medication requested was appropriate, modifying it if deemed necessary (change of drug, dose, and so on). A pharmaceutical cooperative sending antirheumatic drugs to the community pharmacies. Finally, the community pharmacist who received the package checked the medication and, with the patient, reviewed and reinforced the information on the treatment.

What has been achieved?

587 patients were included: 211 rheumatoid arthritis, 173 psoriatic arthritis, 121 psoriasis and 82 ankylosing spondylitis. The delivery service enabled us to provide antirheumatic drugs to patients in their immediate environment through a service that was free for both the patient and the hospital pharmacy service. This contributes to guaranteeing the achievement of the pharmacotherapeutic objectives established for these patients.

What next?

Further action is needed to identify which groups of patients require more intensive pharmaceutical care and, therefore, who could benefit most from telepharmacy, and not only the delivery service.

Pdf

Author(s)

Simone Leoni, Sabrina Guglielmi, Vincenzo Nicola Menditto, Adriana Pompilio, Francesca Vagnoni

Why was it done?

During the pandemic, almost all hospital departments were converted in COVID-19 wards and clinicians of several specializations were asked to work in. In a situation characterized by a great number of patients, mainly old and with several comorbidities, health professionals had to employ quickly drugs never used before and supported by limited scientific evidences. In this context the percentage of possible DDI rises out of proportion exposing patients to potential devastating consequences.

What was done?

During COVID-19 emergency we develop a quick reference tool for clinicians involved in first line assistance to patients. A table summarizing drug-drug interactions (DDI) of the most used therapies was created to allow professionals making the best pharmacological decision.

How was it done?

After a literature review using Micromedex and TERAP (Mario Negri Institute), we have created two table summarizing DDI of lopinavir/ritonavir (LR) and hydroxychloroquine (HC). Those drugs have been grouped according to pharmacological group and clinical relevance. The tables were provided to Infectious Disease, Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Medicine departments.

What has been achieved?

The tables showed 359 DDI for LR (67% contraindicated/severe, 12% major and 21% moderate) and 176 for HC (96% contraindicated/severe, 1% major and 3% moderate). Almost all contraindicated/severe interactions of HC were the same of LR and regarded: protein kinase inhibitors, beta2 agonists, macrolides and fluoroquinolones antibiotics, some antidepressants, phenothiazines, protease inhibitors and antiarrhythmics. Other LR severe interaction were: factor Xa inhibitors, statins and benzodiazepine derivates. Both LR and HC present moderate interactions with acid pump inhibitors, while LP interacts with Ca and vitamin K antagonists and antiepileptics.
Interactions mentioned have a great impact, since they concern drugs commonly used and hypertension, diabetes, respiratory system disease, cardiovascular disease are the most frequent comorbidities linked to COVID-19. Tables provided had a positive impact in avoiding DDI. Pharmacist was consulted for drug dosing and frequency adjustments. The intervention was fully accepted and extended to the rest of COVID-19 wards.

What next?

The project represents a good example of multidisciplinary collaboration able to improve safety and efficacy in pharmacological treatments. The added value of the Pharmacist and the simplicity of the tool make it useful and easy to extend to other healthcare settings.

Pdf

Author(s)

Lierni Goitia Barrenetxea, Natalia Toledo Noda, Moisés Pérez León, Victoria Morales León

Why was it done?

Lopinavir/ritonavir is a HIV-1 and HIV-2 proteases inhibitor indicated for HIV. It was used in patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test after being recommended by the Chinese health authorities. The hospital protocol guideline was: 400/100mg every 12 hours orally. It was presented in both tablets and oral solution, which was reserved for patients intubated in the ICU and those who were not able to take tablets.

What was done?

Optimizing the use of lopinavir/ritonavir solution during the state of sanitary emergency.

How was it done?

Descriptive study of resources optimization for lopinavir/ritonavir and actions carried out to ensure the availability of the antiviral in intubated SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Preparation and stability data were obtained from official sources (Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products) and from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy.

What has been achieved?

The Pharmacy Service designed a protocol to repackage lopinavir/ritonavir 80/20mg/mL solution in syringes containing the exact amount for a single dose (400/100mg in 5ml), for single use. The solution is formulated on an alcoholic basis and there is an interaction with the polyurethane nasogastric tube because the polyurethane absorbs alcohol causing the catheter to swell and deteriorate, which is why, other services were notified to use polyvinyl chloride catheters or silicone. Likewise, the syringes used to repackage the solution were exclusive for oral administration used in pediatrics, with the aim of reducing medication administration errors, since it is not possible to connect parenteral injection needles with them. These measures were intended to make the dispensing system as efficient as possible, as once the drug entered a unit with patients with a positive test, it was contaminated, therefore it could not be reused. Additionally, the fact that the hospital is located on an island made it even more difficult to acquire the medicine, given the supply problems nationwide, the great restriction of air and maritime traffic and loan limitations from other hospitals.

What next?

The measures adopted managed to ensure the availability of lopinavir/ritonavir solution in all admitted patients, optimizing the scarce availability of a solution medication whose presentation is formulated in multidose containers. By adding the use of syringes for exclusive oral use, administration errors were prevented.

Pdf

Author(s)

Giuliana Lo Cricchio, Margherita Galassi, Ernesto Ruffino, Claudia Tirone, Vito Ladisa

Why was it done?

In accordance with regional provisions and national guidelines, the initiative has had the dual objective of reducing hospital access, and potential infections, and ensuring therapeutic continuity for cancer patients.

What was done?

Some therapy protocols have been modified for the treatment of blood, gastrointestinal, lung, breast, head and neck tumors, in order to obtain equally effective patterns but with longer intervals between doses.

How was it done?

Patients have been stratified on the basis of the neoplasia location and biology, the general conditions and the treatments characteristics and they have been shifted to modified treatment regimes, even outside the indications temporarily authorized by regional decision: Nivolumab from 240 mg Q2W to 480 mg Q4W for Hodgkin lymphoma, non-small-cell lung-cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck; from weekly Paclitaxel to Docetaxel Q3W for breast cancer; Pembrolizumab from 200 mg Q3W to 400 mg Q6W for lung cancer and melanoma; remodulation of protocols including fluoropyridines and platinum coordination compounds for gastroenteric tumors.

What has been achieved?

The schedule modification allowed a reshaping of agendas to reduce the frequency of day-hospital access and the risk of infection with Sars-Cov-2 for patients, carers and health professionals, in addition to reducing the costs of outpatient services. Treatment interruption rate, with possible consequent progression of disease, as reported by early Chinese data in the literature, has been reduced.

What next?

The extraordinary health emergency changed the clinical practice and aroused interest especially in oncology, where the evaluation of the relationship between benefits and risks associated with therapies has required greater attention because they are life-saving therapies that cause immunosuppression in patients for which the adverse course of viral infection is more frequent than that of the non-neoplastic population.
The possibility of using the modified therapy schemes has been limited only to the emergency period and has not yet resulted in an extension of the indications. The achievement of the therapeutic objective, together with the feedback that the new dosages have not led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to normal clinical practice, encourage us to hope that the indications can be extended in Italy, as has already happened in Canada and USA for the Nivolumab.

Pdf

Author(s)

Pauline Barreau, Joséphine Courouble, Pierre Pilven, David Vandecapelle, Thibault Stala, Geoffrey Strobbe, Guillaume Marliot, Frédéric Feutry

Why was it done?

Two prescription assistance software are using in the hospital: DXCare®, for global drug management, and Chimio®, specific to the prescription and preparation of injectable chemotherapies. Clinical pharmacists (DXCare®) and pharmacists in charge of preparation (Chimio®) carry out the pharmaceutical analysis independently and they may not detect potential pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics drugs interactions or pathophysiological contraindications, slowing down the pharmaceutical analysis. Pharmaclass® can improve that by crossing all data flows between DXCare® and Chimio® and alerting the pharmacist. The objective were to select and code priority alerts and evaluate the detectability of drugs interactions and pathophysiological contraindications by the software Pharmaclass®.

What was done?

Pharmaclass® is a software based on rules created by the pharmacist, from pharmaceutical algorithms. This rules engine crosses in real time all data flows of several software and sends alerts that must be analyzed by a pharmacist. It was applied in oncology for injectable chemotherapies.

How was it done?

An interface was set up between DXCare®/Chimio® and Pharmaclass® to allow the creation of requests. An analysis of drug consumptions and drugs at risk of interactions helped to select seven molecules (Methotrexate, Bevacizumab, Fluorouracil, Ifosfamide, Irinotecan, Cisplatin, Pemetrexed). A study of the summaries of the product characteristics and the drug interaction thesaurus and a bibliography was conducted and the rules were coded. These were checked by creating test patients with false prescriptions.

What has been achieved?

Eleven rules were created and, after some tests and coding readjustments, all was detected. Nine rules are about drugs interactions: three contraindications (Methotrexate/Trimethoprim, Methotrexate/Acetylsalicylic acid, Bevacizumab/Naloxegol), three associations not recommended (Methotrexate/Amoxicillin, Methotrexate/Ciprofloxacin, Fluorouracil/Antivitamin K), one precaution of use (Ifosfamide/Aprepitant) and two other rules concern enzymatic induction and inhibition of the metabolism of Irinotecan. The last two rules link the glomerular filtration rate with Cisplatin and Pemetrexed.

What next?

Following these creations, Pharmaclass® has allowed to detect drug interactions and pathophysiological contraindications that were not previously detectable. Thereafter, objective will be to establish an organization for the management of alerts and evaluate the number and the relevance of these alerts. New rules will be created for all injectable chemotherapies used in the hospital. Other center of Unicancer will be able to use these rules.

Pdf

Author(s)

Xando Díaz-Villamarín, Ana Pozo-Agundo, Paloma García-Navas, Celia Castaño-Amores, Alba Antunez-Rodriguez, Cristina Lucía Dávila-Fajardo

Why was it done?

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) has the potential to predict patient´s drug response. Many genetic polymorphisms have been associated with variable drug response. This has been demonstrated with the highest level of evidence in fact many of them have been included in clinical dosing guidelines such as those from the Dutch Pharmacogenomics Working Group (DPWG) and Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). Actually, many drug labels include the recommendation about genotyping specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) prior to drug prescription.

What was done?

We have implemented pharmacogenetic tests in our hospital for a total of nine drugs.

How was it done?

Our hospital provides a PGx test service according to the following workflow. Physicians order the PGx test to the Pharmacy Unit, we take a saliva sample with sterile-cotton tipped swabs and send them to the Genomic Unit at Genyo. There, we extract the DNA and genotype the variants of interest. Genetic results are reported back to the Pharmacy Unit within 48-72 hours. After genotype-phenotype-recommendation translation according to the CPIC and DPWG dosing guidelines, we upload the dosing recommendation as a PGx report to the electronic patient´s medical history.

What has been achieved?

Since 2012, 2414 patients have benefited from our PGx test service for at least one drug-gene interaction. These tests have been requested by seven hospital departments with regard to a total of nine different drugs. We have reported 932 PGx dosing recommendations: Clopidogrel with 2013 genotyped patients and 845 dosing recommendations; Azathioprine with 208 and 21; Capecitabine: 48 and 1; 5-FU: 5 patients without recommendations; Tamoxifen: 117 and 48; Trastuzumab: 34 and 15; Irinotecan: 4 and 2; Simvastatin/Atorvastatin: 2 genotyped patients and no recommendations.

What next?

Since the first PGx test in 2012, we have been able to implement PGx tests in daily clinical routine in our hospital affecting 9 drugs. 2414 patients have benefited from this service and we are working on the implementation of new polymorphisms affecting drug response to expand our services.