Look-alike medications in the perioperative setting: scoping review of medication incidents and risk reduction interventions.

BACKGROUND: Look-alike medications, where ampoules or vials of intravenous medications look similar, may increase the risk of medication errors in the perioperative setting. AIM: This scoping review aimed to identify and explore the issues related to look-alike medication incidents in the perioperative setting and the reported risk reduction interventions. METHOD: Eight databases were searched including: CINAHL Complete, Embase, OVID Emcare, Pubmed, Scopus, Informit, Cochrane and Prospero and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Key search terms included anaesthesia, adverse drug event, drug error or medication error, look alike sound alike, operating theatres and pharmacy. Title and abstracts were screened independently and findings were extracted using validated tools in collaboration and consensus with co-authors. RESULTS: A total of 2567 records were identified to 4th July 2022; however only 18 publications met the inclusion criteria. Publication types consisted of case reports, letters to the editor, multimodal quality improvement activities or survey/audits, a controlled simulation study and one randomised clinical trial. Risk reduction intervention themes identified included regulation, procurement, standardisation of storage, labelling, environmental factors, teamwork factors and the safe administration. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted challenges with look-alike medications in the perioperative setting and identified interventions for risk reduction. Key interventions did not involve technology-based solutions and further research is required to assess their effectiveness in preventing patient harm.

Effects of vildagliptin on wound healing and markers of inflammation in patients with type 2 diabetic foot ulcer: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center study.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are one of the leading long-term complications experienced by patients with diabetes. Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4is) are a class of antihyperglycemic medications prescribed to patients with diabetes to manage glycaemic control. DPP4is may also have a beneficial effect on DFU healing. This study aimed to determine vildagliptin's effect on inflammatory markers and wound healing. TRIAL DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center study. METHODS: Equal number of participants were randomized into the treatment and placebo groups. The treatment was for 12 weeks, during which the participants had regular visits to the podiatrist, who monitored their DFU sizes using 3D camera, and blood samples were taken at baseline, six weeks, and 12 weeks during the study for measurement of inflammatory markers. In addition, demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, DFU risk factors, and DFU wound parameters were recorded. RESULTS: 50 participants were recruited for the study, with 25 assigned to placebo and 25 to treatment group. Vildagliptin treatment resulted in a statistically significant reduction of HBA1c (p < 0.02) and hematocrit (p < 0.04), total cholesterol (p < 0.02), LDL cholesterol (p < 0.04), and total/HDL cholesterol ratio (P < 0.03) compared to the placebo group. Also, vildagliptin had a protective effect on DFU wound healing, evidenced by the odds ratio (OR) favoring the intervention of 11.2 (95% CI 1.1-113.5; p < 0.04) and the average treatment effect on the treated (ATET) for vildagliptin treatment group showed increased healing by 35% (95%CI; 10-60, p = 0.01) compared to placebo with the model adjusted for microvascular complications, smoking, amputation, dyslipidemia, peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and duration of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin treatment was effective in healing DFU in addition to controlling the diabetes. Our findings support the use of DPP4is as a preferred option for treating ulcers in patients with diabetes. Further studies on a larger population are warranted to confirm our findings and understand how DPP4is could affect inflammation and DFU healing.

Influence of Ethnicity on Outcomes of Diabetes Inpatient Hypoglycemia: an Australian Perspective.

AIMS: To evaluate outcomes of diabetic inpatient hypoglycemia among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) compared with Australian Caucasian patients. METHODS: A retrospective audit of diabetic patients aged > 18 years admitted at a regional hospital general ward between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, was analyzed. The database contains clinical information at the time of admission and initial discharge and readmission within 4 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: A total of 1618 (of 6027) patients were admitted with diabetes representing 23.7% of the total ward admissions, of which 484 (29.9%) had inpatient hypoglycemia. Of the 91 patients with available data analyzed, ATSI origin with inpatient hypoglycemia was associated with longer length of stay (LOS) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.5), whereas severe hypoglycemia (≤ 2.2 mmol/L) in both ATSI and non-ATSI was significantly associated with longer LOS (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2). No significant differences in LOS were found for gender, age, and Carlson comorbidity index (CCI). The adjusted model for likelihood of readmission, gender, indigenous status, and CCI were not significant risk factors for readmission to the hospital. Readmitted patients were older (50-59 years vs < 50 years, P = 0.001; 60-69 years vs < 50 years, P = 0.032; 70+ years vs < 50 years, P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: We reported high rate of inpatient hypoglycemia in our study population. Indigenous Australian diabetic patients with inpatient hypoglycemia had significantly longer LOS compared with non-Indigenous Caucasian counterparts. Further prospective studies on a larger population are needed to confirm our findings.

Effect of Gabapentin vs Pregabalin on Pain Intensity in Adults With Chronic Sciatica: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Optimal pharmacologic treatment for chronic sciatica (CS) is currently unclear. While gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both used to treat CS, equipoise exists. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical regulation authorities typically subsidize one drug over the other. This hinders interchange wherever the favored drug is either ineffective or ill-tolerated. Objective: To assess GBP vs PGB head to head for the treatment of CS. Design, Setting, and Participants: A preplanned interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial of PGB vs GBP for management of CS at half the estimated final sample size was performed in a single-center, tertiary referral public hospital. A total of 20 patients underwent randomization from March 2016 to March 2018, and 2 were excluded with 1 lost to follow-up and the other requiring urgent surgery unrelated to the study. Patients attending a specialist neurosurgery clinic with unilateral CS were considered for trial recruitment. Chronic sciatica was defined as pain lasting for at least 3 months radiating into 1 leg only to, at, or below the knee level. Imaging (magnetic resonance imaging with or without computed tomography) corroborating a root-level lesion concordant with symptoms and/or signs was determined by the trial clinician. Inclusion criteria included patients who had not used GBP and PGB and were 18 years or older. Analyses were intention to treat and began February 2018. Interventions: Randomly assigned participants received GBP (400 mg to 800 mg 3 times a day) then PGB (150 mg to 300 mg twice daily) or vice versa, each taken for 8 weeks. Crossover followed a 1-week washout. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (10-point visual analog scale) at baseline and 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability (using the Oswestry Disability Index) and severity/frequency of adverse events. Results: The total trial population (N = 18) consisted mostly of men (11 [61%]) with a mean (SD) age of 57 (16.5) years. A third of the cohort were smokers (5 [28%]), and more than half consumed alcohol (12 [67%]). Gabapentin was superior to PGB, with fewer and less severe adverse events. Both GBP (mean [SD], 7.54 [1.39] to 5.82 [1.72]; P < .001) and PGB (mean [SD], 7.33 [1.30] to 6.38 [1.88]; P = .002) displayed significant visual analog pain intensity scale reduction and Oswestry Disability Index reduction (mean [SD], 59.22 [16.88] to 48.54 [15.52]; P < .001 for both). Head to head, GBP showed superior visual analog pain intensity scale reduction (mean [SD], GBP: 1.72 [1.17] vs PGB: 0.94 [1.09]; P = .035) irrespective of sequence order; however, Oswestry Disability Index reduction was unchanged. Adverse events for PGB were more frequent (PGB, 31 [81%] vs GBP, 7 [19%]; P = .002) especially when PGB was taken first. Conclusions and Relevance: Pregabalin and GBP were both significantly efficacious. However, GBP was superior with fewer and less severe adverse events. Gabapentin should be commenced before PGB to permit optimal crossover of medicines. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12613000559718.

A systematic review of clinical pharmacist interventions in paediatric hospital patients.

Clinical pharmacists provide beneficial services to adult patients, though their benefits for paediatric hospital patients are less defined. Five databases were searched using the MeSH terms 'clinical pharmacist', 'paediatric/paediatric', 'hospital', and 'intervention' for studies with paediatric patients conducted in hospital settings, and described pharmacist-initiated interventions, published between January 2000 and October 2017. The search strategy after full-text review identified 12 articles matching the eligibility criteria. Quality appraisal checklists from the Joanna Briggs Institute were used to appraise the eligible articles. Clinical pharmacist services had a positive impact on paediatric patient care. Medication errors intercepted by pharmacists included over- and under-dosing, missed doses, medication history gaps, allergies, and near-misses. Interventions to address these errors were positively received, and implemented by physicians, with an average acceptance rate of over 95%. Clinical pharmacist-initiated education resulted in improved medication understanding and adherence, improved patient satisfaction, and control of chronic medical conditions.Conclusion: This review found that clinical pharmacists in paediatric wards may reduce drug-related problems and improve patient outcomes. The benefits of pharmacist involvement appear greatest when directly involved in ward rounds, due to being able to more rapidly identify medication errors during the prescribing phase, and provide real-time advice and recommendations to prescribers. What is Known: • Complex paediatric conditions can require multiple pharmaceutical treatments, utilised in a safe manner to ensure good patient outcomes • The benefits of pharmacist interventions when using these treatments are well-documented in adult patients, though less so in paediatric patients What is New: • Pharmacists are adept at identifying and managing medication errors for paediatric patients, including incorrect doses, missed doses, and gaps in medication history • Interventions recommended by pharmacists are generally well-accepted by prescribing physicians, especially when recommendations can be made during the prescribing phase of treatment.

Pregabalin versus gabapentin in the treatment of sciatica: study protocol for a randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial (PAGPROS).

BACKGROUND: There is currently an absence of high-grade evidence regarding the treatment of chronic sciatica (CS). Whilst gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both currently used to treat CS, equipoise exists regarding their individual use. In particular, no head-to-head study of GBP and PGB in CS exists. Despite equipoise, most countries' formulary regulatory authorities typically favour one drug for subsidy over the other. This hinders interchange wherever the favoured drug is either ineffective or not tolerated. The primary aim of this study is to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the efficacy of PGB versus GBP for CS based on outcomes on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a prospective, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy cross-over study. Included patients will be over 18 years old and have unilateral CS with radiological confirmation of corresponding neural compression/irritation. Pregnant women, those with major organ disease, or those with creatinine clearance < 60 ml/minute will be excluded. Patients will continue their current pain medication at study onset, conditional upon dosage consistency during the prior 30 days. Each drug will be titrated up to a target dose (GBP 400-800 mg three times daily, PGB 150-300 mg twice daily) and taken for 8 weeks. The first drug will then be ceased; however, cross-over will be deferred pending a 1-week washout period. Drug efficacy will be assessed using the VAS and ODI. Results of the Health Locus of Control Scale and side effect frequency/severity will be used to determine psychological functioning. Assuming the hypothesis that PGB will display a superior effect, the sample size required is n = 38 with 80% power and a 5% type I error rate. Results will be analysed via intention-to-treat methodology. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the efficacy of PGB compared with GBP in reducing pain in people with sciatica and lead to greater understanding of the treatment options available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 12613000559718 . Registered on 17 May 2013.

Gabapentin Superadded to a Pre-Existent Regime Containing Amytriptyline for Chronic Sciatica.

SETTING: There is currently a gross lack of evidence base guiding the medical management of chronic sciatica (CS). Only scant previous studies have assessed gabapentin (GBP) in CS. Extrapolating NICE-UK guidelines, prescribing authorities often insist on trialling anti-depressants (e.g., amytriptyline, AMP) as a first line for neuropathic pain states such as CS. When super-adding second-line agents, such as GBP, NICE-UK encourages overlap with first-line agents to avoid decreased pain-control. No study has reflected this practice. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate efficacy and side effects (SE) of GBP superadded to a pre-existent regime containing AMP for CS. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of patients with unilateral CS attending a specialist spine clinic. Eligible patients had experienced partial benefit to a pre-existent regime containing AMP: none had significant SE. No drugs other than GBP were added or discontinued (the latter was considered inequitable) for 3 months. Visual analog pain score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and SE were recorded. RESULTS: Efficacy: in 56% (43/77) there were reductions in VAS (5.3 ± 3.6→2.8 ± 2.7, P < 0.0001) and ODI (42.8 ± 31.1→30.7 ± 25.2, P = 0.008). SE: Eighty-two SE (23 types) were reported in 53% (41/77). Efficacy was less in those with SE: a trend existed for a lesser reduction in VAS (2.0 ± 2.4 v 3.0 ± 2.7, P = 0.08), which proved significant for ODI (8.1 ± 11.4 v 16.7 ± 18.2, P = 0.01). Thirty-four percent (26/77) discontinued GBP all within 1 week (i.e., during titration). CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective cohort study of GBP super-added to a pre-existent regime containing AMP for CS, as per routine clinical practice and NICE-UK principles. Super-added GBP demonstrated further efficacy over the previous regime in 56%; however, SE were frequent (53%) and diverse (23 types), and 34% abruptly discarded GBP. Although SE were associated with decreased efficacy, 37% nevertheless tolerated GBP despite SE.

Pregabalin and gabapentin for the treatment of sciatica.

Whilst pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) are both used to treat neuropathic pain, their relative role in sciatica is unclear. Our aim was to extensively review the roles of PGB and GBP in treating sciatica. The efficacy, side effects (SE) profile and cost of PGB and GBP in neuropathic pain states were reviewed with special reference to sciatica. Eleven articles matched the criteria: seven systematic reviews, one retrospective cross-sectional study, one placebo-controlled-crossover study, one randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study and one case report. GBP and PGB appeared to demonstrate comparable efficacy and SE. However, the amount and quality of evidence was low, and only indirect comparisons were available. Importantly, no direct "head-to-head" study existed. Globally, costs varied widely (by up to 31 times) and unpredictably (PGB cheaper than GBP, or vice versa). Formulary regulator rulings were globally disparate; however, many exclusively favoured the more expensive drug (whether GBP or PGB). No studies assessed PGB-GBP interchange. Weak evidence suggests that efficacy and SE with GBP and PGB are probably similar; however, firm conclusions are precluded. Despite weak data, and having cited minor titration, but definite cost, advantages, UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence favoured PGB over GBP. Given that no evidence supports unhindered PGB-GBP interchange, neither drug should probably be favoured. Prospective "head-to-head" studies are urgently required to provide robust evidence-based knowledge for choice of GBP or PGB in sciatica.