Patient concerns regarding antidepressant drug–drug interactions: a retrospective analysis using data from a medicines call centre.

Introduction Antidepressant use has increased over the last two decades, with Australia and New Zealand among the highest antidepressant users in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Comorbidity and polypharmacy are common in antidepressant users, increasing the likelihood of interaction-related adverse drug events, which are frequently preventable. Aim We aimed to identify, profile, and analyse potential antidepressant drug-drug interactions in information-seeking antidepressant users. Methods We retrospectively analysed antidepressant-related drug-drug interaction enquiries from patients or carers who contacted a pharmacist-led Australian national medicines call centre over an 8-year period to determine patient characteristics, concomitant drugs involved, prevalence and type of antidepressant-related drug-drug interaction across life stages, and associated risks. Results Of 3899 antidepressant drug-drug interaction calls, the most frequent concomitant drugs were antipsychotics, opioids, benzodiazepines, and complementary medicines. Narrative analyses of 2011 calls identified 81.0% of patients with potential drug-drug interactions and 10.4% categorised with worrying symptoms. The most frequent drug-drug interaction risks were excessive sedation, increased anticholinergic effects, serotonin syndrome, and suicidal thoughts. Carers of children aged Discussion Antidepressant users often have information gaps and safety concerns regarding drug-drug interactions that motivate help-seeking behaviour. Symptoms and drug-drug interaction consequences may be underestimated in these patients. Primary care health professionals have a role in proactively addressing the risk of drug-drug interactions to support benefit-risk assessment and shared decision-making.

Anaemia in patients undergoing major bowel surgery - Prevalence and current practice: A public and private institution experience.

AIM: The study aimed to compare the frequency and alignment of preoperative anaemia screening and treatment with Australian guidelines in elective bowel surgery and determine the impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study, with an audit of 559 adult patients who underwent major elective bowel surgery in an Australian metropolitan hospital, January 2016-December 2018. Outcome measures included rate of anaemia, guideline compliance, hospital length of stay, and transfusion rate. RESULTS: Preoperative anaemia assessment occurred in 82.6% of patients. However, only 5.2% received recommended biochemical tests at least one week before surgery. Only 25.2% of anaemic patients received preoperative treatment; they experienced a longer hospital length of stay (9.93 days versus 7.88 days, p < 0.001) and an increased rate of transfusion (OR: 3.186, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The gaps between current preoperative anaemia screening, management and national guidelines may place patients at higher risk of poor surgical outcome.

Preoperative Anemia Screening and Treatment Practices in Patients Having Total Joint Replacement Surgery: A Retrospective, Observational Audit.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients with preoperative anemia are more likely to experience adverse outcomes. Patient blood management (PBM) guidelines recommend screening and treating patients for anemia preoperatively to enable optimisation before surgery. This study investigates compliance with PBM guidelines and reports the association between length of stay and transfusion risk in patients with preoperative anemia. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective, observational, chart audit that included all patients having primary, total hip and knee replacement surgery between July-December 2018 at a tertiary, metropolitan healthcare facility. RESULTS: Six hundred and seven patients patients were included, 96% (n = 583) patients had blood tests available (full blood count), and 8.1% (n = 49) had iron studies. Most patients 53% (n = 324) were screened between 2 and 6 days before surgery; 14.6% (n = 85) were anaemic preoperatively and only 5.9% (n = 5) of anaemic patients received treatment. Patients who had anemia preoperatively were more likely to receive a blood transfusion (odds ratio 8.65 [95% CI 3.98-18.76]) and stayed longer in hospital (median difference = 1, χ2 LR = 17.2, df=1, p<0.007). CONCLUSION: Tests ordered for patients having major surgery should include iron studies, renal function, CRP and full blood count to enable detection and classification of preoperative anemia. Timing of screening relative to surgery needs to be sufficient to allow patient optimisation to occur. Appropriate treatment should be provided to anaemic patients to prevent unnecessary blood transfusions and reduce the length of stay. A standardised preoperative anemia pathway may assist in improving practice.