RESUMEN
Managing atopic dermatitis, one of the most common dermatologic conditions, is often challenging. To establish consensus on recommendations for responding to various situations that arise when treating atopic dermatitis, a group of hospital pharmacists and dermatologists used the Delphi process. A scientific committee developed a Delphi survey with 2 blocks of questions to explore the group's views on 1) evaluating response to treatment in the patient with atopic dermatitis and 2) cooperation between the dermatology department and the hospital pharmacy service. The experts achieved an overall rate of consensus of 86% during the process. Conclusions were that dermatologists and hospital pharmacists must maintain good communication and coordinate their interventions to optimize the management of atopic dermatitis and patients' responses to treatment.
Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Atópica , Humanos , Consenso , Dermatitis Atópica/tratamiento farmacológico , Dermatólogos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Farmacéuticos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Availability of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments for severe asthma would be beneficial to patients and national healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditure after incorporating benralizumab into the standard treatment of refractory eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional multicentre study of consecutive patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma who received treatment with benralizumab during at least 12 months. Patient follow-up was performed in specialised severe asthma units. The main effectiveness parameters measured were: the avoidance of one asthma exacerbation, a 3-point increase in the asthma control test (ACT) score, and the difference in utility scores (health-related quality of life) between a 1-year baseline treatment and 1-year benralizumab treatment. The health economic evaluation included direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: After 1 year of treatment with benralizumab, patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma showed an improvement in all the effectiveness parameters analysed: improvement of asthma control and lung function, and decrease in the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (both as corticosteroid courses and maintenance therapy), and inhaled corticosteroid use. The total annual cost per patient for the baseline and benralizumab treatment periods were 11,544 and 14,043, respectively, reflecting an increase in costs due to the price of the biological agent but a decrease in costs for the remaining parameters. The ICER was 602 per avoided exacerbation and 983.86 for every 3-point increase in the ACT score. CONCLUSIONS: All the pharmacoeconomic parameters analysed show that treatment with benralizumab is a cost-effective option as an add-on therapy in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Costos de los Medicamentos , Antiasmáticos/economía , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Asma/economía , Asma/fisiopatología , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Estudios Transversales , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/fisiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Gravedad del Paciente , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the human interleukin-5 (IL-5) receptor (IL-5R), thereby preventing IL-5 from binding to its receptor and inhibiting differentiation and maturation of eosinophils in the bone marrow. Because of its recent marketing approval, sufficient real-life evidence is lacking to confirm the efficacy and safety data from clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for the treatment of severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in a real-world cohort of patients. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional multicentre study of consecutive patients with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma who received treatment with benralizumab during at least 6 months. Patient follow-up was performed in specialised severe asthma units. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients were enrolled and treated with benralizumab. Asthma control, as measured by the asthma control test (ACT), improved in all patients both at 3 months of treatment compared with baseline (13.9 ± 4 vs 20.1 ± 3.7, p < 0.001) and at 6 months of treatment compared with the results obtained at 3 months (20.1 ± 3.7 vs 21 ± 2.7, p = 0.037). Similarly, the number of emergency department visits decreased both at 3 months compared with baseline (1 [IR:0.7] vs 0 [IR:0.75], p < 0.001) and at 6 months compared with the results at 3 months (0 [IR:0.75] vs 0 [IR:0], p = 0.012). Reductions in the number of oral corticosteroid cycles, percentage of corticosteroid-dependent patients, and mean daily dose of oral or inhaled corticosteroid were also evidenced. Finally, mean lung function improvement was 291 mL (p < 0.001), and FEV1% improved both at 3 months compared with baseline (64.4 ± 9.3 vs 73.1 ± 9.1, p < 0.001) and at 6 months compared to 3 months (73.1 ± 9.1 vs 76.1 ± 12, p = 0.002). Side effects were mild and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the efficacy and safety of benralizumab in a real-life setting with improved asthma control and lung function, and a reduced oral and inhaled corticosteroid use as well as fewer emergency department visits. In addition to a rapid initial improvement, it appears that patients continue to improve during the first 6 months of treatment.
Asunto(s)
Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Eosinofilia/tratamiento farmacológico , Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Corticoesteroides/efectos adversos , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios Transversales , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Eosinófilos/efectos de los fármacos , Femenino , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , EspañaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to describe the process of creation and development of the quality certification standard for pharmaceutical care for outpatients of the Pharmacy services. METHOD: The methodology was carried out by a group of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and consisted of three phases: situation analysis, development of the standard and definition of the self-assessment tool and, finally, piloting in several hospitals, determining its feasibility, carrying out a new revision and readaptation. RESULTS: A standard was defined with 118 items distributed in ten areas. Of these, 19 were considered compulsory, 36 basic, 40 medium and 23 advanced. Three levels of certification were established, as well as the definition and percentages of compliance with the requirements. The certification process was divided into two stages, the one of previous preparation and the audit itself, where the initial certification would be covered, with four phases - first three led by the certification Company, and the last one by SEFH and the subsequent follow-up and re-certification audits. Two hospitals piloted the process carried out the piloting of the whole process, both obtaining a basic level after the adoption of measures and corrective actions, after which the final definition of the external evaluation of the standard and the name of the standard was agreed upon «Q-PEX¼, as well as, the registration of the intellectual property of said standard in July-2020. CONCLUSIONS: The standard for certification of the quality of pharmaceutical care for outpatients developed aims to help the continuous advancement of Hospital Pharmacy services.
Asunto(s)
Pacientes Ambulatorios , Servicio de Farmacia en Hospital , Certificación , Hospitales , HumanosRESUMEN
CLINICAL CASE: A case of exogenous Candida parapsilosis endophthalmitis was treated first with oral fluconazol and later with intravenous Anfotericin without success. A subsequent therapy using topical fluconazole and oral itraconazole appeared to be effective in controlled the infection. DISCUSSION: Current elective treatment for fungal endophthalmitis is Anfotericine B i.v. An alternative therapy are the azoles. In the reported case itraconazole was used, although its intraocular penetration and effectiveness have not yet been satisfactorily demonstrated. The clinical response in this case leads to the possibility that intraocular oral itraconazole penetration can be sufficient to control infection in cases where the causal fungi is sensitive.