Best Possible Medication History Collection by Clinical Pharmacist in a Preoperative Setting: An Observational Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) collected by clinical pharmacists is crucial for effective medication review, but, in Italy, it is often left to the nursing staff. This study aims to compare the quality and accuracy of a clinical pharmacist-documented BPMH with the current standard practice of ward staff-collected BPMH in an Italian preoperative surgical setting. METHODS: A 20-week prospective observational non-profit study was conducted in a major university hospital. The study comprised three phases: a feasibility, an observational, and an interventional phase. During the feasibility phase, 10 items for obtaining a correct BPMH were identified. The control group consisted of retrospectively analyzed BPMHs collected by the ward staff during the observational phase, while interventions included BPMHs collected by the clinical pharmacist during the third phase. Omissions between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: 14 (2.0%) omissions were found in the intervention group, compared with 400 (57.4%) found in the controls (p < 0.05); data collection was more complete when collected by pharmacists compared to the current modality (98.0% of completed information for the intervention versus 42.6%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of a pharmacist significantly reduced the number of omissions in preoperative surgical-collected BPMHs. This intervention holds the potential to decrease the risk of medication errors associated with inaccurate or incomplete BPMHs prior to surgical hospitalization.

Changing patterns and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 severe pneumonia treated with remdesivir according to vaccination status: results from a real-world retrospective study.

Since the beginning of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many drugs have been purposed for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Remdesivir emerged as an encouraging antiviral drug for patients with documented severe COVID-19-related pneumonia. Although several studies about remdesivir effectiveness exist, no study investigated the effect of the combination of remdesivir with the vaccination status. The aim of this study was to assess whether the administration of remdesivir could show some differences in terms of clinical outcomes in patients vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 versus those who were not. The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were 30-days mortality, the need for ICU admission and for oxygen supplementation. This is a retrospective cohort study including all consecutive adult patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 at the Padua University Hospital (Italy), between September 1st, 2020, and January 31st, 2022, and who received a 5-days course of remdesivir. A total of 708 patients were included, 467 (66%) were male, and the median age was 67 (IQR: 56-79) years. To better estimate the outcomes of interest, a propensity score weighted approach was implemented for vaccination status. A total of 605/708 patients (85.4%) did not complete the vaccination schedule. In-hospital mortality rate was 5.1% (n = 36), with no statistically significant difference between the unvaccinated (n=29, 4.8%) and vaccinated (n=7, 6.8%; p=0.4) patients. After propensity score matching, mortality between the two groups remained similar. However, both the need for ICU and oxygen supplementation were significantly lower in the vaccinated group. Our finding suggests that a complete vaccination course could have an impact in reducing the need for transfer in ICU and for high-flow therapy in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir.

Factors influencing the acceptability of different devices for subcutaneous drug delivery: a cross-sectional observational study from the patient's point of view.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, an increasing number of patient-reported outcome assessment tools (PROs) have been developed specifically to ascertain patients' perceptions of different drug treatments. Among them, the injection process has been analysed, especially in patients chronically treated with chronic biological therapies. One of the main advantages of most current biological therapies is the possibility to self-administer medication at home through the use of a variety of devices, including prefilled syringes (PFS) and prefilled pens (PFP). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct qualitative research to assess the degree of preference between the different pharmaceutical forms PFS and PFP. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional observational study in patients on biological drug therapy through the compilation of a web-based questionnaire at the time of routine delivery of biological therapy. Questions regarding primary diagnosis, adherence to therapy, the preferred pharmaceutical form and the main reason for preference among five possibilities already reported in the scientific literature were included. RESULTS: During the study period, data were collected from 111 patients and 68 (58%) indicated PFP as their preference. From the analysis of reasons that led a patient to choose one device over another, PFSs are chosen mainly out of habit (n=13 (28.3%) PFS vs n=2 (3.1%) PFP) while PFPs are chosen to avoid needle vision (n=15 (23.1%) PFP vs n=1 (2.2%) PFS). Both differences were found to be statistically significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: As biological subcutaneous drugs are increasingly prescribed for a wide variety of long-term therapies, further research focused on identifying patient factors which may enhance adherence to treatment will become even more valuable.