Impact of pharmaceutical care for asthma patients on health-related outcomes: An umbrella review.

Recent systematic reviews suggest that pharmacists' interventions in asthma patients have a positive impact on health-related outcomes. Nevertheless, the association is not well established, and the role of clinical pharmacists is poorly represented. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews is to identify published systematic reviews assessing the impact of pharmacists' interventions on health-related outcomes measured in asthma patients. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 2022. Systematic reviews of all study designs and settings were included. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Two investigators performed study selection, quality assessment and data collection independently. Nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was rated as high in one, low in two, and critically low in six. Reviews included 51 primary studies reporting mainly quality of life, asthma control, lung capacity, and therapeutic adherence. Only four studies were carried out in a hospital setting and only two reviews stated the inclusion of severe asthma patients. The quality of the systematic reviews was generally low, and this was the major limitation of this overview of systematic reviews. However, solid evidence supports that pharmaceutical care improves health-related outcomes in asthma patients.

Pharmaceutical care and asthma: Protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews. / [Artículo traducido] Atención farmacéutica y asma: protocolo de una revisión de revisiones sistemáticas.

INTRODUCTION: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that pharmacists' interventions in asthma patients have a positive impact on health-related outcomes. Nevertheless, the association is not well established and the role of clinical pharmacists is poorly represented, as well as severe asthma patients. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews is to identify published systematic reviews assessing the impact of pharmacists' interventions on health-related outcomes measured in asthma patients, as well as to describe key components of the interventions, the outcomes assessed and any associations between pharmacists' interventions and health-related outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to December 2022. Systematic reviews of all study designs, severity of asthma and level of care that measured health-related outcomes will be considered. Methodological quality will be assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Two independent investigators will perform the study selection, quality assessment and data collection, any discrepancy will be solved by a third investigator. Both narrative findings and meta-analysis of primary study data included in the systematic reviews will be synthesized. If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, the measures of association will be expressed as the risk ratio and difference in means. DISCUSSION: The first results on the establishment of a multidisciplinary network for the management of asthmatic patients have shown the benefits of integrating different levels of care in disease control and morbidity reduction. Further studies showed benefits in hospital admissions, patients' basal oral corticosteroid dose, exacerbations and quality of life of asthma patients. A systematic review is the most appropriate design in order to summarize the literature and identify the evidence of the benefits of interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in asthma patients, especially those with severe uncontrolled asthma, and encourage future studies to stablish the role of clinical pharmacists in asthma units. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Systematic review registration number: CRD42022372100.

Results of the Protocolization of a Telepharmacy Program: Patient Selection and Dispensation Interruption Criteria.

Objective: To analyze the impact of applying criteria for patient selection and interruption of dispensation in a telepharmacy program. Secondary objective: to conduct a socioeconomic analysis of requests for telepharmacy after applying the criteria. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted. We applied the criteria from September 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 and reviewed the impact of their application by comparing the prior period (October 14, 2020-August 31, 2021) with the period when the criteria were applied. We analyzed the evolution of applications over time, the number of users, the evolution over time of rejected applications, and the associated reasons. Finally, we studied how the average income and distance to hospital are related to the number of requests. This study was reviewed by the authors' institutional ethics committee and was considered exempted from further review. Results: We applied the criteria to 2,379 patients. Dispensations by telepharmacy increased progressively. We provided telepharmacy services to 41.7% of all outpatients and rejected 962 applications (65% after the criteria were applied). The main pre- and postcriteria reasons for rejecting applications were refusal without express reason and the patient having sufficient medication, respectively. All patients corrected the situation that caused rejection. Telepharmacy requests and distance to hospital were not related, although the number of requests and average income were related. Conclusions: We provided pharmaceutical care with this protocol and encouraged patients to correct the reasons for interrupted dispensations. The new criteria render telepharmacy available to all patients, regardless of where they live or their purchasing power. Lower-income individuals use telepharmacy more often.

Inotersen and severe thrombocytopenia: 2 case reports and review.

Hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis (hATTR) is an ultra-rare illness. Inotersen is a 2'-O-methoxyethyl (2'MOE)-modified antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) approved in 2018 as a polyneuropathy treatment for adults with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis stages 1 or 2. Inotersen can produce grade 4 thrombocytopenia as a severe adverse reaction that can lead to potentially fatal hemorrhage complications. We describe our experience in the management of severe thrombocytopenia with inotersen. The onset of the thrombocytopenia and the incidences described in the cases in our hospital are different from that described in the literature. Also, recovery of platelet levels was faster in our patient who was administered human immunoglobulin G, which suggests that there is an immunological component.

Implementation of a novel home delivery service during pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, measures have been put in place to adapt to patients' needs during home quarantine, such as "telehealthcare". With this service, hospital pharmacists develop a distinct role via the implementation of pharmacovigilance services and pharmaceutical care plans for patients with comorbidities, and for special populations as immunosuppressed patients.MethodsCross-sectional study involving hospital and community pharmacists actively practising during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients who could not come to the hospital pharmacy department were provided with a delivery service to the community pharmacy of their choice. RESULTS: A total of 1186 patients requested this service. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents were the most in-demand medication, followed by rheumatoid arthritis and antiretroviral drugs. 125 patients responded to the telephone survey, most of whom stated that they would use the delivery service again, and expressed their desire to continue doing so. DISCUSSION: Without a doubt, telepharmacy and medication delivery services have provided multiple benefits during home quarantine. The delivery service enabled us to provide drugs to patients in their immediate environment through a service that was free for both the patient and the hospital pharmacy service. However, at present, the available evidence of the impact of telepharmacy models is sparse. CONCLUSIONS: This medication delivery service has provided multiple benefits to patients during home quarantine. Although the users of this service seem to be satisfied with the current model, in the future, we should consider which patients would benefit most from this service and shape it to individual needs.

Effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in severe refractory eosinophilic asthma: results in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways with symptoms that vary over time and intensity, sometimes leading to disability or even death. Eosinophilic asthma accounts for 25% of cases of severe asthma. It is mediated by eosinophils regulated by interleukin-5 (IL-5), the target of mepolizumab, which has been recently licensed as an add-on treatment of severe refractory eosinophilic asthma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in clinical practice. METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective, and descriptive study covering a year was conducted in a province of Spain with more than 500,000 inhabitants. Every patient prescribed with mepolizumab since its introduction into the hospital was included in the study. Clinical parameters were collected from the pharmacists' counselling reports from electronic prescription software and electronic patient records. Effectiveness was assessed as a decrease in the exacerbation frequency and/or a reduction in the use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) compared to the previous year. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were studied, but only 23 could be evaluated by the cut-off date. A decrease in the exacerbation frequency was observed in 19 (82.6%) patients, 11 of them without any exacerbation during the treatment. A relative reduction of 87% in the exacerbation rate per year was obtained. A total of 15 patients were on regular OCS - 9 patients (60%) reduced their average dose, whilst 4 (26.7%) patients completely abandoned OCS. Safety was evaluated based on reported adverse effects. Adverse events were observed in 12 patients, the most common being headache, arthralgia, and dizziness/nausea. CONCLUSION: Mepolizumab has been shown to be effective based on the high decrease in the exacerbation frequency and reduced use of OCS. Reported adverse effects were mostly mild and appeared in half of the patients; some of the adverse events had not been previously described in pivotal trials.

Analysis of the medication reconciliation process conducted at hospital admission.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes of a medication reconciliation process at admission in the hospital setting. To assess the role of the Pharmacist in detecting reconciliation errors and preventing any adverse events entailed. METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the medication reconciliation activity during the previous six months. The study included those patients for whom an apparently not justified discrepancy was detected at admission, after comparing the hospital medication prescribed with the home treatment stated in their clinical hospital records. Those patients for whom the physician ordered the introduction of home medication without any specification were also considered. In order to conduct the reconciliation process, the Pharmacist prepared the best pharmacotherapeutical history possible, reviewing all available information about the medication the patient could be taking before admission, and completing the process with a clinical interview. The discrepancies requiring clarification were reported to the physician. It was considered that the reconciliation proposal had been accepted if the relevant modification was made in the next visit of the physician, or within 24-48 hours maximum; this case was then labeled as a reconciliation error. For the descriptive analysis, the Statistics® SPSS program, version 17.0, was used. OUTCOMES: 494 medications were reconciled in 220 patients, with a mean of 2.25 medications per patient. More than half of patients (59.5%) had some discrepancy that required clarification; the most frequent was the omission of a medication that the patient was taking before admission (86.2%), followed by an unjustified modification in dosing or way of administration (5.9%). In total, 312 discrepancies required clarification; out of these, 93 (29.8%) were accepted and considered as reconciliation errors, 126 (40%) were not accepted, and in 93 cases (29,8%) acceptance was not relevant due to a change in the situation of the patient. The highest opportunities for improvement were identified in the Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine and Surgery Units, and in the following therapeutic groups: blood and hematopoietic organs, cardiovascular system, and nervous system. CONCLUSIONS: In our hospital, only a third of interventions were accepted and acknowledged as reconciliation errors. However, the medication reconciliation process conducted at admission by a Pharmacist has proven to be useful in order to identify and prevent medication errors. A better understanding of the cases in which interventions were not accepted could lead to an improvement in outcomes in the future.

Objetivo: Analizar el resultado de un proceso de conciliación de la medicación al ingreso en el ámbito hospitalario. Valorar la intervención del farmacéutico en la detección de errores de conciliación y en la prevención de acontecimientos adversos que pueden derivarse de ellos. Método: Estudio retrospectivo en el que se analizó la actividad de conciliación en los seis meses previos. Se incluyeron los pacientes en los que se detectaron discrepancias al ingreso, en apariencia no justificadas, tras comparar la medicación hospitalaria prescrita con el tratamiento domiciliario que constaba en su historia digital. Se consideraron también los pacientes en los que el médico ordenaba introducir la medicación domiciliaria sin especificar de cuál se trataba. Para llevar a cabo la conciliación el farmacéutico elaboró la mejor historia farmacoterapéutica posible revisando la información disponible sobre la medicación que podía estar recibiendo el paciente de forma previa al ingreso y completando el proceso mediante una entrevista clínica. Las discrepancias que requerían aclaración fueron comunicadas al médico. La propuesta de conciliación se consideró aceptada si en la siguiente visita médica o en un plazo no superior a 24-48 horas se realizaba la modificación pertinente, en cuyo caso se denominó error de conciliación. Para el análisis descriptivo se empleó el programa SPSS Statistics ® versión 17.0. Resultados: Se conciliaron 494 medicamentos en 220 pacientes, con una media de 2,25 fármacos. Más de la mitad de los pacientes (59,5%) presentó alguna discrepancia que requería aclaración, siendo la más frecuente la omisión de un medicamento que recibía previamente al ingreso (86,2%), seguida de la modificación de la posología o vía de administración sin justificar (5,9%). En total 312 discrepancias requirieron aclaración, de las cuales 93 (29,8%) fueron aceptadas y se consideraron errores de conciliación, 126 casos (40%) no lo fueron y en 93 (29,8%) la aceptación no procedía por un cambio en la situación del paciente. Las mayores oportunidades de mejora se identificaron en los servicios de Digestivo, Medicina Interna y Cirugía General y en los grupos terapéuticos: sangre y órganos hematopoyéticos, sistema cardiovascular y sistema nervioso. Conclusiones: En nuestro hospital solo una tercera parte de las intervenciones fueron aceptadas y reconocidas como errores de conciliación. No obstante, la conciliación de la medicación al ingreso realizada por un farmacéutico mostró ser útil en la identificación y prevención de errores de medicación. Un mejor entendimiento de los casos en los que las intervenciones no fueron aceptadas podría mejorar el resultado en el futuro.