Pdf

Author(s)

SILVIA CONDE, ÁNGEL MARCOS, JOSEP TORRENT, CLARA SALOM, LAURA CANADELL

Why was it done?

Prior to the start of the project, inpatient treatments were not validated. The objective of this pharmaceutical care project was to improve the pharmacotherapy of the patients admitted to the hospital in terms of efficacy and safety.

What was done?

We implemented a pharmaceutical care project in a 153-bed regional hospital.

How was it done?

The pharmaceutical care project was based on 2 main strategies. The first of them was the validation of the treatment prescribed to inpatients according to their clinical situation. We planned to validate inpatient’s treatment from Monday to Friday during working hours.
The second one was the incorporation of the clinical pharmacist to hospital’s antimicrobial stewardship program. We established 2 meetings per week with the antimicrobial stewardship group. Revisions were focused on prescriptions of broad-spectrum antibiotics for more than 48 hours, antibiotic treatments longer than 7 days and prescriptions of aminoglycosides, vancomycin, and linezolid, among others.

What has been achieved?

During the 6 first months (January-June 2021), a total of 222 pharmaceutical interventions were performed, being the most frequent:
– “Discontinue medication” (22.97%), mainly because of “Undue duration” (31.37%) and “Therapeutic duplication” (29.41%)
– “Modify dose” (31.62%)
– “Change medication” (17.12%), mainly due to “Adjustment to antibiogram” (26.32%), “Medication exchange” (18.42%) and “Inadequate medication for the clinical situation of the patient” (15.79%).
The pharmaceutical intervention acceptance rate was 81.10%.

Related to the antimicrobial stewardship program, a total of 171 revisions were performed, making any treatment advice in 51 of them (29.82%). The most frequent recommendation was to “Discontinue treatment because of undue duration” (25.49%), followed by “Adjustment to antibiogram” (15.69%), “De-escalate treatment” (11.76%) and “Increment of antibiotic dose” (11.76%). Acceptance rate was 94%.

What next?

The pharmaceutical care program allows both the early identification of possible medication errors and upgrades in inpatients’ treatment.

Author(s)

SILVIA BOULLOSA LALE, Fernando Bustelo Paz, Claudia Barca Diez, María Francisca Fernández Ribeiro, Lara González Freire, Susana Castro Luaces, Irea Celtia Proupín Cantelar, Carlos Crespo Diz

Why was it done?

The aim of this study is to evaluate the use, duration and safety of palbociclib treatment in real clinical practice in our healthcare area.

What was done?

Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer(MBC).

How was it done?

Retrospective observational study. All patients treated with palbociclib between June 2016-March 2021 were included.
Data collection was carried out using the electronic medical record and the pharmacotherapeutic management software application.
The variables collected were: gender, age, metastases, initial date, first/second line of treatment, concomitant treatment, delay of treatment, reason for dose reduction and for discontinuation of treatment.
Neutropenia was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)4.0.

What has been achieved?

Data from 47 patients was collected, 100% were women. Median age: 60(33-85) years. 100% of patients were diagnosed with MBC:51.1%(24) visceral metastases.
Palbociclib was administered in 36.2%(17) of patients concomitantly with an aromatase inhibitor as first line of hormonal treatment for metastatic disease. 63.8%(30) of patients had already received prior hormonal therapy.
A first dose reduction was required in 42,5%(20) of patients, followed by a second reduction to 75 mg in 37.5%(6) of them. These reductions were due to grade 4 neutropenia in 19.2%(5) of patients and recurrent grade 3 in 80.8% (21). All neutropenias resolved after the respective reductions.
Treatment was definitively discontinued in 76.6%(36) of patients: 77.8% (28) due to progression; 13.9% (5) due to neutropenia; 5.5% (2) due to neutropenia and anaemia; and in 2.8%(1) of the patients the previous line of treatment was restarted for non-compliance.
Median overall progression free survival (PFS) was 11.23 months(CI95%:5.76-30.66).
Median PFS in the first-line treatment group was 30.66 months (CI95%:8.33-34.20). In second line it was 9.1 months(CI95%: 5.76-20.83). No statistically significant differences were shown (p=0.2).

What next?

The profile of palbociclib use in our area is predominant in second line treatment for MBC. The PFS achieved did not show any significant differences between second or first line.
The observed treatment duration was longer in patients who discontinued the treatment due to progression versus toxicity.
It is a safe drug: neutropenia, the most frequent cause of treatment reduction/discontinuation, is in all cases transient.

Author(s)

Saskia Coenradie, Hans Groot, de, Amy Rieborn, Erna Groot, de, Martti Visbeek, Denise Abswoude, Christian Alderweireld, Annegien Kenter

Why was it done?

Allergies for drugs and especially allergies for antibiotics of the penicillin group are common questions in electronic patient data systems (EPDS) in hospitals. In many cases the verification of an allergy is seldom a thorough process and so many inappropriate penicillin allergies are recorded in EPDS. Literature reports that only 10% of recorded allegies are appropiate. This has a detrimental effect when infections occur and patients have to be treated with antibiotics. When a penicillin allergy is recorded in the EPDS a warning not to prescribe any antibiotic from the penicillin group is given. In most cases the physician has to choose another antibiotic that is normally not first choice. This can have worse patient outcomes. We conducted a feasibility study to investigate if a reported penicillin allergy in a patient’s record was appropriate or not using a standard allergy algorithm consisting of 10 questions with YES or NO as answers.

What was done?

A novel method is tested to decline the number of inappropriate alerts for penicillin allergy in our electronic patient data system

How was it done?

When the reported allergy in a patients record popped up in our EPDS, a pharmacy technician was asked to have a medication – and allergy verification conversation with the patient. Only patients that were admitted to the emergency ward or the acute admittance ward of our hospital were included to test this method on feasibility. The feasibility study started in March 2021 after permission from our board of directors and after a declaration of our medical ethics committee stated that no judgement of this committee was neccessary. We started on the emergency ward in March 2021. Because of slow inclusions we decided in september 2021 that another ward needed to be included in this feasibility study to achieve the number needed to prove this method feasible (80 patients). Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS statistics,(vs 25) and the primary outcome was the total number and percentage of inappropriate penicilline allergies.

What has been achieved?

Up till October 2021 29 patients were included in this feasibility study. Most of them had an inappropriate record of penicllin allergy after a pharmacy technician had a medication- and allergy-verfication conversation using the standard algorithm. We will continue with this feasibility study until 80 patients have been included and our statistical analysis can be done appropriately.

What next?

Continue with inclusions until the number needed to statistical analysis has been reached (80 patients). We will then perform our statistical analysis and hope to report back to you at the 27th EAHP congress in 2023 that this method is effective and reproducible. And most importantly, decreases the number of inappropriate penicillin allergy records in hospitals. We are confident that with this method we create a tool to decrease the number of inappropriate allergy records in our electronic prescription system in our hospital.

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.