Developing a telepharmacy programme with home medication dispensing and informed delivery in a tertiary hospital: description of the model and analysis of the results.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the actions taken to implement a telepharmacy programme with home medication dispensing and informed delivery in an outpatient pharmaceutical care unit of a tertiary hospital, where approximately 5000 patients are treated per year. It also aimed to substantiate the applicability and benefits of the programme through analysing the findings and measuring patient satisfaction. METHODS: We identified the operational, logistical, technological and legal needs, as well as the need for training, information and coordination with the care team and patient associations. A standard operating procedure was developed which described the home dispensing model and the profile of patients eligible for telepharmacy. Care activity was evaluated, between the months of July 2020 and January 2021; and a survey was conducted to measure patient satisfaction based on the Enopex project, a cross-sectional observational study of patients who used telepharmacy services during the COVID-19 lockdown period in Spain. RESULTS: A total of 2536 medication deliveries were made over 144 working days, with a mean of 18 (standard deviation (SD): 6) deliveries per day, and a total of 2854 dispensings (1.1 drugs per delivery). In total, 197 different types of pharmaceutical formulations were delivered, corresponding to 123 active ingredients. The distance and time avoided during the study period totalled 1 05 624 km and 1 09 452 min (76 days), whereby the median distance and time saved per patient were 66 (interquartile range (IQR):122 km and 90 (IQR:90) minutes, which represents an approximate carbon footprint reduction of 25 kg of CO2 per patient and 16.5 tonnes in total. The satisfaction survey conducted, completed by 134 patients, revealed high satisfaction with the pharmacy service of 9.88 points out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (COVID-19) has provided the pharmacy service with an opportunity to develop and implement a telepharmacy programme that benefits patients, which has enabled better organisation of the unit and greater accessibility for patients attending in person. It is a replicable method that is applicable in other pharmacy services with similar characteristics and requirements.

Association between ustekinumab trough concentrations and biochemical outcomes in patients with Crohn's disease. A real life study.

INTRODUCTION: numerous studies have shown a positive correlation between serum biologic drug concentrations and favorable therapeutic outcomes during the induction and maintenance period in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). To our knowledge, only a few and contradictory studies have determined the association between ustekinumab (UST) trough concentrations and biological outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between ustekinumab trough concentrations and biological outcomes in a real-world setting. METHODS: a cross-sectional cohort study was performed. All adult patients with CD who received maintenance therapy (≥ 24 weeks) with ustekinumab were included in the study. Clinical response was determined using the Harvey-Bradshaw Index. Biochemical remission was defined as a fecal calprotectin level < 150 µg/g in feces and a biochemical response as > 50 % reduction of fecal calprotectin. RESULTS: a total of 58 CD patients were included in the study and the median UST trough concentration was 1.78 µg/ml (IQR: 2.56). Differences in ustekinumab trough concentrations were observed for clinical (2.25 µg/ml vs 0.65 µg/ml; p = 0.006) and biochemical remission (2.33 µg/ml vs 1.03 µg/ml; p = 0.047). According to ROC analysis, a cut-off of 1.4 µg/ml (AUC: 077) and 2.0 µg/ml (AUC: 0.65) were identified for predicting clinical and biochemical remission, respectively. Likewise, ustekinumab trough levels were also higher in "composite clinical/biochemical remission" (2.38 µg/ml vs 1.08 µg/ml; p = 0.042). The trough level that was best associated with composite clinical/biochemical remission was 2.2 µg/ml (AUC: 0.69). CONCLUSION: this real-life study shows the association between ustekinumab trough concentration and clinical and biochemical remission and we suggest an optimal cut-off point higher than 2.2 µg/ml. Further studies are needed to confirm the findings and to identify the optimal cut-off in different disease outcomes and disease phenotypes.

Usefulness of population pharmacokinetics to optimize the dosage regimen of infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease patients.

INTRODUCTION: infliximab is used in inflammatory bowel disease, which has a great inter-individual pharmacokinetic variability. Thus, it is necessary to individualize the therapy in many cases. The main objective of our study was to compare two methods of a dose adjustment strategy using therapeutic drug monitoring: a) based on an algorithm and b) based on Bayesian prediction, to achieve an optimal infliximab trough level in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. The secondary objective was to evaluate the predictive performance of a population pharmacokinetic model of infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases and therefore, its clinical utility. Furthermore, the factors associated with a suboptimal adjustment of the model were analyzed. METHODS: a retrospective observational cohort analysis was performed of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and available serum levels of infliximab. The relationship between trough concentration and dosing strategy was compared in both groups. The external validation of a previously published population pharmacokinetic model was performed using the NONMEM software. The mean prediction error and mean absolute prediction error were calculated to evaluate the predictive performance of the model. RESULTS: a total of 94 infliximab serum samples were obtained from 47 patients. After the adjustment, a total of 30 patients (63.8 %) achieved optimal infliximab trough levels. A dosing strategy based on Bayesian was associated with optimal infliximab trough levels that were higher than the strategy based on an algorithm (OR: 8.94 [95 % CI: 2.24 - 35.6], p = 0.001). For the individual predictions, the mean prediction error was 0.118 µg/ml (95 % CI: -0.149-0.384) and the mean absolute prediction error was 0.935 µg/ml (95 % CI: 0.569-1.075). CONCLUSIONS: the application of a population pharmacokinetic model based on Bayesian prediction is an important advance in the optimization of infliximab dosage in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during the induction period in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION: previous studies have shown that higher infliximab trough levels are associated with favorable shortterm and long-term therapeutic outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease. There is a need to determine which patients could benefit from proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in the induction phase. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic variability of infliximab, determine the factors associated with achieving target infliximab trough levels in the induction phase and analyze the clinical and biochemical response at week 26 of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a retrospective observational study was performed of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and data available on serum levels of infliximab during the induction period. The percentage of patients that achieved target infliximab trough levels at week 6 was determined. Clinical remission and response and biochemical remission were evaluated at week 26. RESULTS: thirty patients were included and only 13 (43.3 %) had infliximab trough levels > 15 μg/mL at week 6. A clinical response was observed during the maintenance period in 71.4 % of patients, their infliximab levels were significantly higher than in non-responders (6.3 μg/mL [IQR: 6.7] vs 1.0 μg/mL [IQR: 5.0], respectively; p = 0.016). Likewise, 53.6 % of patients achieved biochemical remission (responders 6.2 μg/mL [IQR: 5.2] vs non-responders 3.2 μg/mL [IQR: 5.0]; p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: less than half of patients had target infliximab levels during the induction period. Therapeutic drug monitoring during this period is related to the achievement of therapeutic levels of infliximab and may lead to a better clinical response in these patients

No disponible

Usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during the induction period in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION: previous studies have shown that higher infliximab trough levels are associated with favorable short-term and long-term therapeutic outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease. There is a need to determine which patients could benefit from proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in the induction phase. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic variability of infliximab, determine the factors associated with achieving target infliximab trough levels in the induction phase and analyze the clinical and biochemical response at week 26 of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a retrospective observational study was performed of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and data available on serum levels of infliximab during the induction period. The percentage of patients that achieved target infliximab trough levels at week 6 was determined. Clinical remission and response and biochemical remission were evaluated at week 26. RESULTS: thirty patients were included and only 13 (43.3 %) had infliximab trough levels > 15 µg/mL at week 6. A clinical response was observed during the maintenance period in 71.4 % of patients, their infliximab levels were significantly higher than in non-responders (6.3 µg/mL [IQR: 6.7] vs 1.0 µg/mL [IQR: 5.0], respectively; p = 0.016). Likewise, 53.6 % of patients achieved biochemical remission (responders 6.2 µg/mL [IQR: 5.2] vs non-responders 3.2 µg/mL [IQR: 5.0]; p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: less than half of patients had target infliximab levels during the induction period. Therapeutic drug monitoring during this period is related to the achievement of therapeutic levels of infliximab and may lead to a better clinical response in these patients.

Comparison of drug survival between infliximab and adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease.

Background Conventional therapy of inflammatory bowel disease with traditional immunosuppressant medication is increasingly being replaced by biological agents. However, the response to these biological agents may be lost over time, with discontinuation being a marker of loss of effectiveness. There are few published reports on the treatment drug survival of infliximab and adalimumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Objective This study compared the drug survival of infliximab versus adalimumab as first- and second-line treatments, identified factors associated with drug survival, and described reasons for treatment withdrawal. Setting A pharmacy department of a university hospital in Spain. Method A retrospective single-centre cohort study of all patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with biological agents between 2008 and 2017 at a regional referral hospital. The primary outcome was drug survival and associated factors during a follow-up of 52 months. Main outcome measure Drug survival of infliximab versus adalimumab. Results One hundred thirty-four patients with inflammatory bowel disease (73.9% Crohn's disease and 26.1% ulcerative colitis) were treated with biological therapy. The overall mean drug survival of first-line treatment with an anti-tumour necrosis factor agent was 18.6 months (SD 14.9), with mean values of 20.2 months (SD 16.6) for adalimumab and 17.1 months (SD 13.1) for infliximab. As a second-line treatment, the drug survival of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents was 17.9 months (SD 15.6), with mean values of 22.9 months (SD 17.1) for adalimumab and 12.5 months (SD 11.7) for infliximab. The difference in time to discontinuation at 52 months of follow-up between the infliximab and adalimumab subgroups, as either first- or second-line treatment, was not statistically significant (p = 0.547 and p = 0.676, respectively). Therapeutic drug monitoring was the only factor associated with greater drug survival in first-line treatment (HR 0.27; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.15-0.50) and second-line treatment (HR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.65). Secondary failure to treatment was the most frequent reason for withdrawal. Conclusion Infliximab and adalimumab showed similar drug survival as first- and second-line anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments. Therapeutic drug monitoring was associated with higher drug survival for both first- and second-line anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments.