RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Survival analyses can provide valuable insights into effectiveness and safety as perceived by prescribers. Here, we aimed to evaluate adalimumab (ADA) survival and the interruption risk factors in a multicentre cohort of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Moreover, we performed a subanalysis considering the periods before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including 539 adult patients with HS who received ADA from 1 May 2015 to 31 December 2022. Overall drug survival was analysed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and compared between the subgroups via stratified log-rank test. Possible predictors for overall drug survival and reasons for discontinuation were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: Overall, 50.1% were females with a mean age of 43.5 ± 1 years and a mean BMI of 29.5 ± 6.7. At the start of ADA, 95.29% were biologic-naïve and 24.63% had undergone surgical treatment. During follow-up, 9.46% of patients required dose escalation, while 39.92% interrupted ADA. Concomitant therapy was used in 64.89% of cases. A subanalyses comparing pre- and post-pandemic periods revealed a tendency to initiate ADA treatment at a younger age, among patient with higher BMI and at a lower HS stage after COVID-19 pandemic. Interestingly, ADA demonstrated extended survival compared to previous studies, with a median overall drug survival of 56.2 months (95% CI 51.2 to 80.3). The primary causes for discontinuation were inefficacy (51.69%), followed by adverse effects (21.35%). Female sex, longer delay in HS diagnosis, higher baseline IHS4 score and concomitant spondyloarthritis were associated with poorer ADA survival or increased risk of discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: ADA demonstrated prolonged survival (median 56.2 months). While addition of antibiotics did not have a positive effect on survival rate, basal IHS4 proved useful in predicting ADA survival.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Respiratory diseases present a challenge for the healthcare system due to their prevalence and clinical impact. The aim of this study was to explore the current situation of hospital pharmacy in the field of respiratory diseases. METHOD: Observational, cross-sectional study, with a national scope, divided into 2 parts. In an initial phase, the activity and level of pharmaceutical care in respiratory diseases was evaluated through an online questionnaire using REDCap. The survey was addressed to department chiefs and consisted of 17 items, divided into 2 modules: general data and general activity. The second phase was open to hospital pharmacists, with the aim of exploring their opinion on care, training, and improvement needs. The number of items in this phase was 19, divided into 5 modules: general data, pharmaceutical care, competencies, training, and degree of satisfaction. RESULTS: In the first phase, 23 hospitals were included. Most of them (n=20) had a pharmacist in charge of respiratory diseases. However, a large proportion of them dedicated less than 40% of their working day to this activity. The pharmacist's activity occurred at the level of external patients (n=21), hospitalised patients (n=16), and secondarily in management (n=8). Integration is greater in pathologies such as asthma, IPF, pulmonary hypertension, and bronchiectasis. Participation in committees was present in 15 hospitals, with variability in pathologies and degree of involvement. In the second phase, 164 pharmacists participated, who considered pharmaceutical care in cystic fibrosis, asthma, and lung transplant as a priority. 51% considered integration to be adequate and 91% considered it necessary to implement prioritisation criteria. Professional competencies ranged from 6.5 to 6.9 out of 10 points. Only 45% of participants had received specific training in the last 4 years, indicating greater priority for asthma, pulmonary hypertension, and IPF. CONCLUSIONS: Most centers have pharmacists specialised in respiratory diseases. However, there is room for improvement in terms of subspecialisation, participation in multidisciplinary committees, implementation of prioritisation criteria, diversification in pathologies treated, as well as greater specific training in this area.
Assuntos
Farmacêuticos , Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar , Espanha , Humanos , Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar/organização & administração , Estudos Transversais , Doenças Respiratórias/tratamento farmacológico , Inquéritos e Questionários , Papel ProfissionalRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Respiratory diseases present a challenge for the healthcare system due to their prevalence and clinical impact. The aim of this study was to explore the current situation of hospital pharmacy in the field of respiratory diseases. METHOD: Observational, cross-sectional study, with a national scope, divided into 2 parts. In an initial phase, the activity and level of pharmaceutical care in respiratory diseases was evaluated through an online questionnaire using REDCap. The survey was addressed to department chiefs and consisted of 17 items, divided into 2 modules: general data and general activity. The second phase was open to hospital pharmacists, with the aim of exploring their opinion on care, training, and improvement needs. The number of items in this phase was 19, divided into 5 modules: general data, pharmaceutical care, competencies, training and degree of satisfaction. RESULTS: In the first phase, 23 hospitals were included. Most of them (n=20) had a pharmacist in charge of respiratory diseases. However, a large proportion of them dedicated less than 40% of their working day to this activity. The pharmacist's activity occurred at the level of external patients (n=20), hospitalized patients (n=16), and secondarily in management (n=8). Integration is greater in pathologies such as asthma, IPF, pulmonary hypertension, and bronchiectasis. Participation in committees was present in 15 hospitals, with variability in pathologies and degree of involvement. In the second phase, 164 pharmacists participated, who considered pharmaceutical care in cystic fibrosis, asthma and lung transplant as a priority. Fifty-one percent considered integration to be adequate and 91% considered it necessary to implement prioritization criteria. Professional competencies ranged from 6.5-6.9 out of 10 points. Only 45% of participants had received specific training in the last four years, indicating greater priority for asthma, pulmonary hypertension and IPF. CONCLUSIONS: Most centers have pharmacists specialized in respiratory diseases. However, there is room for improvement in terms of sub specialization, participation in multidisciplinary committees, implementation of prioritization criteria, diversification in pathologies treated, as well as greater specific training in this area.