PAUSATE Study: Prevalence and appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in Spanish hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and appropriateness of antimicrobial use in Spanish hospitals through a pharmacist-led systematic cross-sectional review. METHOD: A nationwide multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted on  10% of the patients admitted to the participating hospitals on one day in April  2021. Hospital participation was voluntary, and the population was randomly  selected. The study sample was made up of patients who, on the day of the  study, received at least one antimicrobial belonging to groups J01, J02, J04,  J05AB, J05AD or J05AH in the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification  System. The pharmacist in charge made a record and carried out an evaluation  of the appropriateness of antimicrobial use following a method  proposed and validated by the Pharmaceutical Care of Patients with Infectious  Diseases Working Group of the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy. The  evaluation method considered each of the items comprising antimicrobial  prescriptions. An algorithm was used to assess prescriptions as appropriate,  suboptimal, inappropriate and unevaluableResults: One-hundred three hospitals participated in the study and the treatment of 3,568 patients was reviewed. A total of 1,498 (42.0%) patients received antimicrobial therapy, 424 (28.3%) of them in  combination therapy. The most commonly prescribed antimicrobials were  moxicillin-clavulanic acid (7.2%), ceftriaxone (6.4%), piperacillin-tazobactam  (5.8%), and meropenem 4.0%. As regards appropriateness,  prescriptions were considered appropriate in 34% of cases, suboptimal in 45%,  inappropriate in 19% and unevaluable in 2%. The items that most  influenced the assessment of a prescription as suboptimal were completeness  f medical record entries, choice of agent, duration of treatment and monitoring of efficacy and safety. The item that most influences the  assessment of a prescription as inappropriate was the indication of  ntimicrobial agent. Conclusions: The method used provided information on the prevalence and  appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials, a preliminary step in the design  and implementation of actions aimed at measuring the impact of the use of  ntimicrobials within the antimicrobial stewardship programs.

OBJETIVO: Conocer la prevalencia y el grado de adecuación del uso de  antimicrobianos en los hospitales españoles mediante una revisión sistemática  transversal realizada por farmacéuticos.Método: Estudio multicéntrico, nacional, transversal sobre el 10% de los pacientes ingresados en los hospitales participantes un día del mes de abril  de 2021. La participación de los hospitales fue voluntaria y la selección de la  población aleatoria. De la población se disgregó la muestra de estudio,  constituida por los pacientes que recibían el día del corte al menos un  antimicrobiano perteneciente a los grupos J01, J02, J04, J05AB, J05AD y  J05AH del Sistema de Clasificación Anatómica, Terapéutica y Química. Sobre la  muestra de estudio, el farmacéutico realizó un registro y evaluación de la  adecuación del tratamiento antimicrobiano siguiendo una metódica propuesta y  validada por el Grupo de trabajo de Atención Farmacéutica al Paciente con  nfermedad Infecciosa de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria. La  metódica de evaluación consideró cada una de las dimensiones que conforman  la prescripción del antimicrobiano e incluyó un algoritmo para calificar la  prescripción global como adecuada, mejorable, inadecuada y no valorable. RESULTADOS: Participaron 103 hospitales y se revisó el tratamiento de 3.568  pacientes, de los que 1.498 (42,0%) recibieron terapia antimicrobiana, 424  (28,3%) en combinación. La prevalencia de los antimicrobianos más frecuentes  fue: amoxicilina-clavulánico 7,2%, ceftriaxona 6,4%, piperacilina- tazobactam 5,8% y meropenem 4,0%. Respecto a la adecuación del  tratamiento la prescripción, fue considerada adecuada en el 34% de los casos,  mejorable en el 45%, inadecuada en el 19% y no valorable en el 2%. Las  dimensiones que más influyeron en la calificación de la prescripción como  mejorable fueron el registro en la historia clínica, la elección del agente, la  duración del tratamiento y la monitorización de la eficacia y seguridad, y como  inadecuada la indicación de antimicrobiano. CONCLUSIONES: La metódica utilizada permite conocer la prevalencia y  adecuación del uso de antimicrobianos, paso previo para diseñar y emprender  acciones de mejora y medir el impacto de su implantación en el marco de los  programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos.

Estudio PAUSATE: Prevalencia y adecuación del uso hospitalario de antimicrobianos en España / PAUSATE Study: Prevalence and appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in Spanish hospitals

Objetivo: Conocer la prevalencia y el grado de adecuación del usode antimicrobianos en los hospitales españoles mediante una revisiónsistemática transversal realizada por farmacéuticos.Método: Estudio multicéntrico, nacional, transversal sobre el 10% de lospacientes ingresados en los hospitales participantes un día del mes deabril de 2021. La participación de los hospitales fue voluntaria y la selección de la población aleatoria. De la población se disgregó la muestrade estudio, constituida por los pacientes que recibían el día del corte almenos un antimicrobiano perteneciente a los grupos J01, J02, J04, J05AB,J05AD y J05AH del Sistema de Clasificación Anatómica, Terapéutica yQuímica. Sobre la muestra de estudio, el farmacéutico realizó un registroy evaluación de la adecuación del tratamiento antimicrobiano siguiendouna metódica propuesta y validada por el Grupo de trabajo de AtenciónFarmacéutica al Paciente con Enfermedad Infecciosa de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria. La metódica de evaluación consideró cadauna de las dimensiones que conforman la prescripción del antimicrobiano eincluyó un algoritmo para calificar la prescripción global como adecuada,mejorable, inadecuada y no valorable. (AU)

Objective: To determine the prevalence and appropriateness of antimicrobial use in Spanish hospitals through a pharmacist-led systematiccross-sectional review.Method: A nationwide multicenter cross-sectional study was conductedon 10% of the patients admitted to the participating hospitals on one dayin April 2021. Hospital participation was voluntary, and the populationwas randomly selected. The study sample was made up of patients who,on the day of the study, received at least one antimicrobial belonging togroups J01, J02, J04, J05AB, J05AD or J05AH in the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System. The pharmacist in charge madea record and carried out an evaluation of the appropriateness of antimicrobial use following a method proposed and validated by the Pharmaceutical Care of Patients with Infectious Diseases Working Group of theSpanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy. The evaluation method consideredeach of the items comprising antimicrobial prescriptions. An algorithm wasused to assess prescriptions as appropriate, suboptimal, inappropriateand unevaluable. (AU)

Performance Assessment of Software to Detect and Assist Prescribers with Antimicrobial Drug Interactions: Are all of them Created Equal?

BACKGROUND: Detecting and managing antimicrobial drug interactions (ADIs) is one of the facets of prudent antimicrobial prescribing. Our aim is to compare the capability of several electronic drug-drug interaction (DDI) checkers to detect and report ADIs. METHODS: Six electronic DDI checking platforms were evaluated: Drugs.com®, Medscape®, Epocrates®, Medimecum®, iDoctus®, and Guía IF®. Lexicomp® Drug Interactions was selected as the gold standard. Ten ADIs addressing different mechanisms were evaluated with every electronic DDI checker. For each ADI, we assessed five dimensions and calculated an overall performance score (maximum possible score: 10 points). The explored dimensions were sensitivity (capability to detect ADI), clinical effect (type and severity), mechanism of interaction, recommended action(s), and documentation (quality of evidence and availability of references). RESULTS: The electronic DDI checkers did not detect a significant proportion of the ADI assessed. The overall performance score ranged between 4.4 (Medimecum) and 8.8 (Drugs.com). Drugs.com was the highest ranked platform in four out of five dimensions (sensitivity, effect, mechanism, and recommended action). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the performance of the available platforms in detecting and assessing ADI. Although some ADI checkers have proven to be very accurate, others missed almost half of the explored interactions.

Incorporación del farmacéutico de hospital al proyecto 'Compromiso por la calidad de las Sociedades Científicas en España' / Incorporation of the hospital pharmacist into the project 'Commitment to quality of the Spanish scientific societies'

No disponible

Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies in transitions of care in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are one of the main causes of morbidity amongst hospital inpatients. More than half of medication errors occur at 'interfaces of care', when patients are discharged or transferred to the care of another physician. Medication reconciliation is the process of reviewing patients' complete previous medication regimen, comparing it with current prescriptions, and analysing and resolving any discrepancies that the pharmacist does not believe to be intentional (unjustified discrepancies). OBJECTIVE: To quantify and analyse reconciliation unjustified discrepancies detected by a pharmacist in patients admitted to an internal medicine unit (IMU) over a 3-year period. SETTING AND METHOD: The hospital employs a pharmacist who acts as a link between the primary care services and the internal medicine specialist care unit. A retrospective descriptive study on the reconciliation discrepancies found was carried out. Medication reconciliation was performed upon admission in all patients transferred from the Accident and Emergency department (A&E) and admitted to the IMU, and also at the time of discharge. The interventions were categorised based on the consensus document on terminology and medication classification published by the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of patients with unjustified discrepancies, also known as reconciliation errors. RESULTS: 2,473 patients had their treatment reviewed at the time of admission and 1,150 at discharge. 866 reconciliation discrepancies were detected in 446 patients (1.94 per patient). 807 (93 %) were accepted by the prescribing physician and classified as reconciliation errors. 16.8 % of patients had at least one reconciliation error: 63.8 % of these errors were incomplete prescriptions, 16.6 % were medication omissions and 10.5 % were errors in dosage, administration method and/or frequency. CONCLUSION: The rate of medication errors found in this study is low compared with other similar studies. The most common error was "incomplete prescriptions", most of them generated by the Accident and Emergency department. A computerised clinical history would help to decrease the number of reconciliation errors. Pharmacist interventions focused on medication reconciliation are well accepted by physicians, improving the quality of clinical histories and decreasing the number of medication errors that occur across transitions in patient care.

Estudio comparativo de efectividad de los inhibidores del factor de necrosis tumoral alfa en la artritis reumatoide establecida / Tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonists in established rheumatoid arthritis: Effectiveness comparative study

Fundamento y objetivo: El conocimiento de las posibles diferencias de efectividad de los 3 inhibidores del factor de necrosis tumoral alfa (anti-TNF-α) en la artritis reumatoide (AR) tiene importantes implicaciones en la práctica clínica. El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la efectividad de los 3 anti-TNF-α en la AR y estudiar posibles diferencias de resultados entre ellos. Pacientes y método: Se incluyó a todos los pacientes con AR atendidos en consultas del Sector Sanitario II de Zaragoza entre mayo de 2000 y diciembre de 2006 que completaron un año de tratamiento con anti-TNF-α. Se analizaron diferentes parámetros demográficos y clínicos al inicio y al año de tratamiento, y se compararon entre los 3 grupos. Resultados: Un total de 119 pacientes completaron un año de tratamiento con los anti-TNF-α: 38 pacientes con infliximab, 44 pacientes con etanercept y 37 pacientes con adalimumab. Después de un año de tratamiento hubo un descenso medio (desviación estándar) del Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS 28) de 1,82 puntos (1,42) y de 0,3 puntos (0,58) del Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (p<0,05). Al comparar las variables clínicas de los 3 fármacos al año de tratamiento, el DAS 28 medio fue de 3,8 puntos en los 3 grupos. El valor medio del HAQ fue de 1,2 para los pacientes que estuvieron en tratamiento con infliximab y de 0,9 para los pacientes que estuvieron en tratamiento con etanercept y adalimumab. No se encontraron diferencias significativas en efectividad entre los 3 fármacos. Conclusiones: Los anti-TNF-α son fármacos efectivos para el tratamiento de la AR y se observa una efectividad similar para todos ellos (AU)

Background and objective: Knowing the differences in the effectiveness between three tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonists (anti-TNF alpha) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has important clinical implications. The aim of this study was to assess anti-TNF alpha effectiveness and to study possible differences in outcomes between them. Patients and method: We included all patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) attended in consulting room from Zaragoza Area II between May 2000 and December 2006 who completed a year with anti-TNF alpha treatment. Several demographic and clinical parameters at the beginning and after a year with three different agents were analysed and compared. Results: 119 patients completed a year with anti-TNF alpha, 28 with infliximab, 44 with etanercept and 37 with adalimumab. After a year with treatment, DAS 28 descended 1,82 (1,42) points and HAQ 0,3 (0,58) (p<0,05). Comparing the clinical parameters after a year DAS 28 was 3,8 in the three groups. HAQ was 1,2 for patients in treatment with infliximab and 0,9 for patients with etanercept and adalimumab. There were no significant differences in effectiveness between the 3 drugs. Conclusions: Anti-TNF alpha drugs are effective to treat RA and the effectiveness is similar in all them (AU)

[Tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonists in established rheumatoid arthritis: effectiveness comparative study]. / Estudio comparativo de efectividad de los inhibidores del factor de necrosis tumoral alfa en la artritis reumatoide establecida.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Knowing the differences in the effectiveness between three tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonists (anti-TNF alpha) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has important clinical implications. The aim of this study was to assess anti-TNF alpha effectiveness and to study possible differences in outcomes between them. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We included all patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) attended in consulting room from Zaragoza Area II between May 2000 and December 2006 who completed a year with anti-TNF alpha treatment. Several demographic and clinical parameters at the beginning and after a year with three different agents were analysed and compared. RESULTS: 119 patients completed a year with anti-TNF alpha, 28 with infliximab, 44 with etanercept and 37 with adalimumab. After a year with treatment, DAS 28 descended 1,82 (1,42) points and HAQ 0,3 (0,58) (p<0,05). Comparing the clinical parameters after a year DAS 28 was 3,8 in the three groups. HAQ was 1,2 for patients in treatment with infliximab and 0,9 for patients with etanercept and adalimumab. There were no significant differences in effectiveness between the 3 drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNF alpha drugs are effective to treat RA and the effectiveness is similar in all them.

Efectividad y seguridad del tratamiento con inhibidores del factor de necrosis tumoral alfa en pacientes con artritis reumatoide / Effectiveness and safety of the treatment with tumour necrosis factor á antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis patients

No disponible