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.

Analysis of the medication reconciliation process conducted at hospital admission / Análisis de la actividad de conciliación de la medicación establecida al ingreso hospitalario

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 (AU)

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 (AU)