Pdf

Author(s)

Saúl Herrera Carranza, Carlos Sanz Sánchez, Sira Sanz Márquez, José Francisco Valverde Cánovas, Leonor Moreno Núñez, Ana Vegas Serrano, Rafael Hervás Gómez, Oriol Martín Segarra, Juan Emilio Losa García, Montserrat Pérez Encinas

Why was it done?

Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy(SEFH) proposed 13 indicators(bibliography:Gutiérrez-Urbón JM, Gil-Navarro MV, Moreno-Ramos F, Núñez-Núñez M, Paño-Pardo JR, Periáñez-Párraga L. Indicators of the hospital use of antimicrobial agents based on consumption. Farm Hosp. 2019;43(3):94-100) which could help to improve the quality of antimicrobial use.
Indicators are related directly(dir): higher value-better practices; indirectly(ind):lower value-better practices; or heterogeneity: homogeneous percentages(%)-better practices.

What was done?

The creation of a tool for calculating new indicators of antimicrobial agents based on consumption using Defined Daily Dose per 100 hospital stays(DDD/100s).

How was it done?

We built an Excel tool to input required data in order to calculate the indicators with the formulas defined for their automated estimation:
-Overall antibacterial consumption(ind)
-Overall consumption of antifungals(ind)
-Consumption of carbapenemics(ind)
-Consumption of fluoroquinolones(ind)
-Ratio macrolides-p/fluoroquinolones-p(dir)
-Ratio metronidazole-p/piperacillin-tazobactam+carbapenemics(dir)
-Fosfomycin consumption(dir)
-Sequential therapy(dir)
-Ratio anti-SRSA/anti-MRSA agents(dir)
-Ratio amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid(dir)
-Ratio amoxicillin-clavulanic acid/piperacillin-tazobactam(dir)
-Diversification of anti-pseudomonas beta-lactam(heterogeneity): %anti-pseudomonal carbapenemics, %piperacillin-tazobactam and %anti-pseudomonal cephalosporins+aztreonam.
— Ratio fluconazole/equinocandins (dir)
DDD/100s for the years 2018-2022 were calculated in order to see the annual evolution. Required data: antibiotic (ATC Group: J01) and antifungal (ATC Group: J02) consumption by drug and route of administration (oral (o), parenteral (p) and others). Calculation of DDD/100s according to grammes consumed (obtained with Hospital Pharmacy software) and ATC/DDD-Index (World Health Organization). To visually analyse results, graphs were included.

What has been achieved?

We realised that our hospital improved by decreasing consumption of antibacterial, antifungal, carbapenemics and fluoroquinolones; and so, an early parenteral-oral switch.
However, the other ratio-based indicators are stable or worsening yearly: macrolides-p/fluoroquinolones-p, metronidazole-p/piperacillin-tazobactam+carbapenemics, fosfomycin consumption, anti-SRSA/anti-MRSA agents, amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid/piperacillin-tazobactam, fluconazole/equinocandins and diversification of anti-pseudomonas beta-lactam.

What next?

These indicators provide possible improvement actions to enhance the use of antimicrobial agents. Consumption of fosfomycin or amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid ratio should be cautiously analysed due to outpatient (or in emergencies) management of uncomplicated infections. As improvement actions in our hospital, increase the use of metronidazole-p in anaerobic infections or cloxacillin and cefazolin de-escalation can be promoted as soon as sensitivity is confirmed by antibiogram-test. Diversify antibiotic pressure on pseudomonas, trying to reduce piperacillin-tazobactam by prescribing ceftazidime or cefepime, and reserving aztreonam for beta-lactams allergics. Similarly, decrease piperacillin-tazobactam use by prescribing amoxicillin-clavulanic acid if anti-pseudomonal coverage is not necessary.

Pdf

Author(s)

Marta Anghilieri, Francesco Guidoni, Vito Ladisa

Why was it done?

The new DNA sequencing techniques, globally defined “Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)”, allow the parallel sequencing of many samples producing in short times a big amount of data. To enable comprehensive analysis of the data and develop new specific and clinically useful therapies, we have introduced the approach of evaluating the data by the MTB, which includes pharmacists as experts in drugs and their use.

What was done?

Hospital Pharmacists (HPs) are integrated into the Molecular Tumour Board (MTB), a multidisciplinary group, to select the most appropriated therapy for oncology patients, ensure and facilitate patient access, and demonstrate therapeutic appropriateness found by MTB analisys.

How was it done?

MTB members, including HPs, perform DNA sequencing on each patient using NGS to identify known/unknown alterations. These data are entered into a database available to all MTB members and are the basic tool for selecting potential target therapy. The MTB meets once a week to discuss and integrate the observed DNA alterations with the patient’s clinical history. In this way, the most appropriate target therapy for the patient can ultimately be selected. The HPs then provide the patient with access to medications.

What has been achieved?

In this study, 208 patients affected by Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer were evaluated. DNA sequencing of patients identify 117 altered genes. After an extensive literature search, 15 genes were highlighted as potential targets for available drugs. They marked 116 patients potentially tractable with target therapy, of which 47 patients were candidates to a target therapy already in clinical practice and 69 to a target therapy not in clinical practice. Comparing the two groups, among candidates for drugs in clinical practice, treatment was started in 65% and continued in 53%; among those treated with drugs not in clinical practice, treatment was started in 23% and continued in 69%.

What next?

The inclusion of HPs in MTB allows for more deliberate use and better selection of drugs. HPs provide valid support to select drugs and facilitate access to them: HPs individualise the applicable therapy for a larger number of patients through MTB, they analyse the therapeutic outcome (MTB-selected therapy has a bigger chance to last longer) and the cost impact on the NHS.

Pdf

Author(s)

ALBA MARIA MARTINEZ SOTO, MARIA ONTENIENTE CANDELA, CARLES INIESTA NAVALON, PATRICIA ORTIZ FERNANDEZ, PILAR FERNANDEZ-VILLACAÑAS FERNANDEZ, ANABEL HERREROS HERNANDEZ, GEMMA MARTINEZ SOTO, CARMEN CABALLERO REQUEJO, MAYTE GIL CANDEL, ELENA URBIETA SANZ

Why was it done?

– Guide the pharmacist in the development of an individualised follow-up strategy for patient evaluating the frequency with which appointments should be established in the consultation of Pharmaceutical Care.
– Use the information from the specific questionnaires to detect possible failures therapeutic.
– Use the results obtained in the PROs to direct the recommendations pharmacotherapeutic to perform, which will be assessed in a multidisciplinary committee of immune-mediated diseases.
– Promote higher quality pharmaceutical care.

What was done?

Implementation of a circuit to improve pharmaceutical care and follow-up pharmacotherapeutic, incorporating the stratification of
patients according to the “Model of Stratification and Pharmaceutical Care for Diseases Immune-mediated Inflammatory Diseases” (MAPEX) and the use of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs).

How was it done?

1. Selection of patients to include.
2. Design a database in Access for the collection of stratification data and PROs.
3. Selection of specific and generic PROs.
4. Stratification of active patients according to the MAPEX methodology at the beginning of the implantation and in patients who start during the follow-up period will be stratified at the baseline visit.
5. Establish a strategy for carrying out questionnaires (PROs) in consultation.

What has been achieved?

An Access database has been created that incorporates the blocks established by the MAPEX model with each of its variables broken down, allowing us to obtain the patient global score.
3 pathology-specific PROs have been selected (RAPID3 in rheumatoid arthritis, PSAID12 in Psoriatic Arthritis and BASDAI in Ankylosing Spondylitis) and a generic one, EuroQol-5D-5L.
The follow-up strategy based on the stratification was selected as the one proposed by the MAPEX model.
To carry out the PROs, those patients with arthropathies that are were under treatment with biological drugs.
It was decided to pass a specific PRO according to his pathology and the generic having a baseline intake, another at 16 weeks and another a year.

What next?

Design a study to measure the results in terms of quality of care obtained with this new circuit.

Pdf

Author(s)

Dorian Protzenko, Vincent Hoang, Guillaume Hache

Why was it done?

We unveiled during an audit that, in the past 2 years, 19% of our hospital DAOCs prescriptions were underdosed: due to the population profile (old, frail), the conventional bleeding risk scores were consistently high and, as such, not informative. To avoid a hypothetical bleeding risk, physicians were randomly underdosing patients beyond guidelines, without any evidence regarding the efficacy.

What was done?

Using machine learning, we unveiled that underdosing direct oral anticoagulants [DAOCs] to prevent bleeding risk in an old and frail population had no significant impact on drug-related hospitalization [DRH] nor death, and cannot be supported. To help targeting patients for whom extra care would be more beneficial rather than underdosed DAOCs, we built a predictive model of bleeding events and provided risk factors among our population.

How was it done?

We performed a retrospective study, based on data collected during the audit, of patients treated between October 2020 and April 2022 with Apixaban or Rivaroxaban for atrial fibrillation [AF]. Demographic and clinical criterias (i.e., GFR, polypathology, co-medications, prescribed DAOC, respecting dosage and scheduling) were collected. The occurrence of specific outcomes (i.e., bleeding and thrombosis that led to medical care and drug seizure, DRH and death) were retrieved from the patients’ medical records. Machine learning explorations were performed using RStudio®.

What has been achieved?

119 patients were included. We modeled using logistic regression the impact on selected outcomes of underdosing DAOCs. We found out that underdosed DAOCs were associated with a lower bleeding risk (OR=0.30, CI95%[0.07;0.95]), a higher thrombosis risk (OR=6.67, CI95%[1.23;50.0]), but without any impact on DRH nor death. Unsupervised algorithms unveiled that DAOC choice (Rivaroxaban: OR=2.80, CI95%[1.15;7.13]), sex (Male: OR=0.44, IC95%[0.16;1.12]) and using dosages from guidelines (OR=3.32, CI95% [1.05;14.80]) were predominant explanatory variables regarding bleeding risk. The choice of DAOC was the only covariate that impacted DRH (Rivaroxaban: OR=2.78, CI95%[1.22;6.56]). Finally, using a gradient-boosting algorithm, bleeding risk was predicted with a 0.73 roc-auc, superior to conventional models.

What next?

Therapeutic education of patients and caregivers, telephone follow-up or pharmaceutical consultations will be implanted for patients at high bleeding risk. An audit will be performed next year to measure underdosed prescriptions rate, and improve the model with new data.

Pdf

Author(s)

Laetitia ALRIC, Isabelle PLOCCO-DESMONTS, Anne-Laure DUBOIS, Sophie TOUQUET-ARNAUD, Kim NGUYEN, Blandine ARMAND, Isabelle HERMELIN, Audrey LEFRANCOIS

Why was it done?

Versatis is a lidocaine patch used in case of post-zona neuralgia. In June 2021, after a note of concern raised by the OMEDIT (Observatoires du MEdicament, des Dispositifs médicaux et de l’Innovation Thérapeutique) regarding its overuse by staff members of the CHRO (Centre Hospitalier Régional d’Orléans).

What was done?

We analysed the change in prescriptions and consumption since the implementation of a Good Practice Form (GPF) in September 2021, concerning Versatis created in collaboration with the CLUD (Comité de LUtte contre la Douleur).

How was it done?

Analysis of nominative dispensations between 09/21 and 02/22.
Consultation of shared electronic patient records.
Medical evaluation of prescriptions by rheumatology and pain-management physicians.
Methodological strategy validated by the physician in charge of professional practices evaluation.

What has been achieved?

Before the implementation, 3839 patches would have been consumed over a 6-month period versus 1541 after, marking a 59.9% decrease.
The population under scrutiny was made up of 106 patients (male-to-female ratio = 1,3; average age = 64 years). The average number of patches delivered per patients was of 15 (min=5; max=160), with 1,1 patches per localisation, for an average length of treatment of 14,4 days. 97 GPF were archived, representing 91,5% of use.
In-label prescriptions (post zona neuralgia with localised allodynia) concerned 14 (13,2%) patients.
Regarding pertinent off-label prescriptions (neuropathic pain with localised allodynia, with a maximum of 1 patch/zone/day): 36% of patients exhibited neuropathic pain, including 9% with allodynia, with 4% 1 patch/zone/day. 9,4% benefited from rheumatological or pain management consultations.
48% of prescriptions respected the 12/24h rest-time, and 79% the limit of 1 patch/zone/day off-label.
After medical expertise, 3 prescriptions were found to be unjustified – 2 due to lack of information and 1 concerning post-gout crisis pain.

What next?

Despite the patch’s small price, the implementation was of significant impact over the hospital’s consumption (and by extension, over the hospital prescribing dispensed in the community), due to its adoption by over 90% of medical prescribers. This, despite a majority of off-label prescriptions, which were rated as pertinent over 90% of the time. The GPF will have been optimised since this evaluation took place, notably with a more precise definition of allodynia.

Author(s)

Susana Redondo-Capafons, Laura Soriano, Irene López-Rico, Jorge Del Estal, Rocío Cebrián, Marcela Manriquez, Maria Reventós, Sandra Fernández-Molina, Mònica Gómez-Valent

Why was it done?

Before CTSS was performed, TSS were requested to Pharmacy Department for evaluation and decision. Because of complexity of these treatments, it was decided that it was necessary to evaluate them with other professionals to make a consensual decision.
In May 2019, CTSS was born. It is a multidisciplinary committee with 10 different health professionals: head of pharmacy, head of healthcare management, head of strategy and operations management, a clinical pharmacologist, five pharmacists and a secretary. Requesting doctors and heads of involved services are invited to explain TSS in the meeting.

What was done?

Committee (C) of Treatments in Special Situations (TSS) (CTSS) have been established. Requests are received by a specific email for the committee and a standard template was performed to be completed by requesting doctor (patient clinical information and evidence supporting request) and by Pharmacy Service (regulatory status of the drug, pharmacology and cost of treatment).

How was it done?

Some limitations as lack of human resources with exclusive dedication for making reports and lack of training in evaluation of this kind of treatments are the most important obstacles. Currently, each member is self-taught and under excessive work- pressure.

What has been achieved?

From May 2019 to August 2021, 273 treatments in 59 meetings sessions (average 4.63 evaluations/meeting) were evaluated.
The 91,6% of treatments were approved. In 95,9% of requests, one drug was evaluated.
There were 18 services involved, being oncology and hematology the most active departments.
Evaluated TSS were classified in six categories: 66,7% of requests were drugs without approved indication, 19,8% drugs approved indication pending price by government, 2,5% approved indication but denied funding by government, 1,8% foreign medicines, 4% compassionate use and 5.2% others according to criteria of each autonomous communities in Spain.

What next?

CTSS allows make a consensual decision between different professionals and establishes a flow to manage TSS requests. This multidisciplinary scenario generates knowledge and evidence in the use of these kind drugs reducing uncertainty in TSS use in relation to its efficacy and safety and, in cases of high budgetary impact-drugs, to minimize inequities of access by standardizing decision-making. Applicable to all hospitals.

Author(s)

Margareth Kristiansen, Viola Melvik, Jahn Olav Svartsund, Randi Trondsen, Lise Nystad

Why was it done?

Patients admitted to the unit often have long-term illnesses, extensive medication histories and lengthy medication lists at admission. Psychopharmaceuticals are largely metabolized by enzymes that have polymorphism. We wanted to investigate the degree of pharmacogenetic variation in our patients and if genetic testing would have an impact on medication treatment.

What was done?

We have investigated the degree of genetic variation in our patients and to what extent the genetic profile impacted the choice of medication treatment.

How was it done?

We started out educating the staff at the ward. In 2018, 37 of a total 40 admitted patients were genetically tested at admission. The implication of the test result was discussed during the morning rounds for each patient ensuring implementation.
Results from each genetic test were continuously entered into a database including age, gender and medications at admission and discharge. Change of medication due to the genetic test result was recorded.
26 (70%) of patients had a genetic profile that could impact the choice of medication treatment. As a result, half of the patients had changes made to their medications. A total of 27 changes were made in these patients.

What has been achieved?

We have established that patients at the geriatric psychiatry unit in Nordland Hospital Trust have a pharmacogenetic profile that affects medication treatment options. Testing has an impact on the choice of pharmacotherapy to such an extent that all patients are now genetically tested at admission.

What next?

Pharmacogenetic testing has proven easy to implement and at the same time of substantial benefit for many patients. We also use our experiences to educate and inspire health care professionals in the community setting including GP’s so they can understand, reuse the test results and identify when a pharmacogenetic test would be a useful tool to determine the most adequate choice of pharmacotherapy.

Author(s)

Francesco Falbo, Oscar Martinazzoli, Agnese Bruni, Rosanna Lettieri, Simona Polito, Luisa Zampogna, Valentina Marini, Michela Mazzucchelli, Marcello Sottocorno

Why was it done?

The involvement of the pharmacist featured:
– Drug supply and storage
– Medical devices (MD) and personal protective equipment supply
– The creation of a catalog of required drugs
– Medication supply chain management and dispensing
– Management of medical gases
– Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of drug therapy.

What was done?

As the COVID-19 epidemic spread, temporary critical care hospitals have been opened in order to attend the incoming burden of infected patients. In April 2020, one of the largest ever temporary healthcare structure was created in only 10 days. The ark hospital was opened for nearly 10 months and hospital pharmacists supported the effort for the pharmacy management.

How was it done?

The development of a catalog of required drugs has been accomplished using the consumption analysis on drugs and MD in March 2020 of the permanent hospital Covid unit. Thus, we created a dynamic catalog – constantly updated – consisting of 530 drugs and 345 medical devices. The medical staff members of the temporary hospital filled a special form for extra-catalog material. Running a cost-effectiveness analysis, the pharmacist managed to evaluate the purchase, rather than recommend a valid alternative from the material on the catalog.
The pharmacy warehouse was planned by dividing the MDs categories. Likewise, the drugs were stored according to their pharmaceutical form and their alphabetical order.

What has been achieved?

The materials requirements planning was achieved in 15 days, including medical supply ordering and the pharmacy warehouse organization. Pharmacists ensured the optimization of resources, the availability, safety and optimal use of medicines and MDs, as well as the monitoring of the adverse drug reactions (ADR). Hence, all patients received the appropriate pharmacotherapy. The pharmacist played a key role in the good functioning of the ark hospital in collaboration with all the medical team.

What next?

In conclusion, a new protocol and standard of care for managing health emergency will be the following and challenging step.

Author(s)

SILVIA CORNEJO-UIXEDA, M JOSE MARTINEZ-PASCUAL

Why was it done?

The anticholinergic burden is the cumulative effect of concomitantly taking multiple drugs with anticholinergic properties. It estimates the risk of suffering anticholinergic adverse effects. Anticholinergic scales are lists that rank the anticholinergic potential of drugs into categories.

What was done?

Our aim is to know the use of drugs with anticholinergic effect (ACD) in a regional hospital.

How was it done?

Observational study in patients older than 70 years admitted to a regional hospital from January to September 2021. We reviewed the medication of the patients looking for ACD. Then, we calculated anticholinergic burden with the “Drug Burden Index” available in: http://www.anticholinergicscales.es/calculate. The variables collected were: age, gender, number of drugs with anticholinergic effect, if ACD were prescribed before hospitalization, readmission, anticholinergic burden, risk of suffering anticholinergic effect and anticholinergic symptoms.

What has been achieved?

average 81 years (70-100), 102 (56% woman), 46 (25%) did not have any ACD. 58 patients had 1 ACD, 56 patients 2 ACD, 12 patients 3 ACD, 8 patients 4 ACD, 2 patients 5 ACD. Of patients with ACD, anticholinergic burden average was 0.98 in surgical patients (medium risk) and 1 in medical patients (elevated risk). 68 patients had medium risk and 68 patients elevated risk. We found constipation in 17 patients, somnolence in 6 patients, and disorientation in 2 patients. ACD used were the following (surgical vs. medical patients): Antidepressants: 3 vs.10, benzodiazepines: 28 vs. 33, opioids: 17 vs. 27, antiemetics: 13 3 vs. 38, Antipsychotics: 4 3 vs. 49, antihistamines: 2 vs. 2, antiepileptic: 0 vs 9, other: 0 vs. 3.
56 patients (31%) were prescribed the same ACD that they took before hospitalization. Only 17 patients were readmitted in hospital in less than a month.
We just made 2 interventions. We proposed to lower the dose in one case. In another, we proposed give metoclopramide just if necessary.

What next?

Most of hospitalized patients have ACD prescribed. Half of them had a high risk. However, just a few had anticholinergic reactions. This could be explained because we only had the information of electronic history and maybe some of them were not collected.

Author(s)

Irene Lizano, Ferran Montpart, Elisenda Pomares, Guillem Saborit-Canals, Míriam Fernández

Why was it done?

Treprostinil is a prostacyclin analogue indicated for the treatment of PAH. A recent retrospective study analyzed drug safety events observed in the clinical trials of oral and subcutaneous (SC) treprostinil. This analysis showed that higher treprostinil doses were associated with lower PAH-related hospitalization rates, compared to lower doses.

What was done?

To estimate annual pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH)-related hospitalization costs in patients treated with different treprostinil doses in nine European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom).

How was it done?

A cost estimation model was developed to calculate hospitalization costs in patients with PAH who were treated with treprostinil at different doses. Annual hospitalization rates were gathered from a retrospective analysis of an oral and SC treprostinil global safety database. Patients were categorized into three groups based on total daily dose: low, medium and high. Low dose was defined as <4.0 and <1.9 mg/day (9.0 and >7.6 mg/day (>30 ng/kg/min). PAH-related hospitalization costs were included and, when not available, heart failure-related costs were considered as it is the main cause of hospitalization in PAH patients. Mean annual hospitalization costs per dose were calculated using annual PAH-related hospitalization rates (0.9 for low dose, 0.4 for medium dose, and 0.3 for high dose) and unit costs per hospitalization in each country. All costs were obtained from national databases or published literature and were expressed in 2021 euros.

What has been achieved?

Mean annual PAH-related hospitalization costs ranged from €1,649 to €8,382 for low dose, from €733 to €3,726 for medium dose, and from €550 to €2,794 for high dose. Thus, hospitalization costs for high-dose patients were 3 times lower than for low-dose patients (mean difference €2,610) and 1.3 times lower than those for medium-dose patients (€435).

What next?

High doses of treprostinil result in lower hospitalization costs than low and medium doses in patients with PAH. Therefore, an appropriate drug titration might lead to potential cost savings in various European settings.