Líneas de mejora asistencial entre dermatólogos y farmacéuticos hospitalarios para el manejo y seguimiento de la dermatitis atópica: consenso Delphi / Improving the Management and Follow-up of Atopic Dermatitis: A Delphi Process Report of Consensus Between Hospital Dermatologists and Pharmacists

El control de la dermatitis atópica (DA), una de las dermatosis más frecuentes, es en muchas ocasiones un reto terapéutico. En el presente estudio se ha utilizado la metodología Delphi con el objetivo de poner en común las perspectivas del dermatólogo y del farmacéutico hospitalario ante el manejo de la DA y establecer una serie de recomendaciones de actuación adaptadas a las diferentes situaciones que plantea la enfermedad. El cuestionario Delphi ha sido definido por un comité científico y se ha dividido en 2bloques: 1) valoración de la respuesta al tratamiento del paciente con DA, y 2) cooperación entre Dermatología y Farmacia Hospitalaria (FH). Como resultado del estudio, se ha alcanzado un consenso total del 86%. Se concluye que el dermatólogo y el farmacéutico hospitalario deben tener una buena comunicación y trabajar coordinados para conseguir optimizar el manejo del paciente con DA y su respuesta al tratamiento (AU)

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 (AU)

[Translated article] Improving the Management and Follow-up of Atopic Dermatitis: A Delphi Process Report of Consensus Between Hospital Dermatologists and Pharmacists / Líneas de mejora asistencial entre dermatólogos y farmacéuticos hospitalarios para el manejo y seguimiento de la dermatitis atópica: consenso Delphi

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 (AU)

El control de la dermatitis atópica (DA), una de las dermatosis más frecuentes, es en muchas ocasiones un reto terapéutico. En el presente estudio se ha utilizado la metodología Delphi con el objetivo de poner en común las perspectivas del dermatólogo y del farmacéutico hospitalario ante el manejo de la DA y establecer una serie de recomendaciones de actuación adaptadas a las diferentes situaciones que plantea la enfermedad. El cuestionario Delphi ha sido definido por un comité científico y se ha dividido en 2bloques: 1) valoración de la respuesta al tratamiento del paciente con DA, y 2) cooperación entre Dermatología y Farmacia Hospitalaria (FH). Como resultado del estudio, se ha alcanzado un consenso total del 86%. Se concluye que el dermatólogo y el farmacéutico hospitalario deben tener una buena comunicación y trabajar coordinados para conseguir optimizar el manejo del paciente con DA y su respuesta al tratamiento (AU)

Improving the Management and Follow-up of Atopic Dermatitis: A Delphi Process Report of Consensus Between Hospital Dermatologists and Pharmacists. / Líneas de mejora asistencial entre dermatólogos y farmacéuticos hospitalarios para el manejo y seguimiento de la dermatitis atópica: consenso Delphi.

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.

Assessment of the importance of ostomy patients' understanding of dietary and lifestyle recommendations / Evaluación de la importancia de la comprensión de las recomendaciones dietéticas y de estilo de vida en los pacientes con ostomía

Objective: the objective of our study was to evaluate the level of understanding of ostomy patients regarding lifestyle, diet, and high output stoma (HOS) management recommendations provided by healthcare professionals. Method: a prospective study to follow up ostomy patients at nutritional consultations was designed. The follow-up process was performed 7-10 days after hospital discharge and again one month later. At the first visit, patients were instructed in the detection and management of HOS. At the second visit, the level of understanding of the training received was assessed using an evaluation questionnaire. A descriptive analysis of the answers to each of the questionnaire's items was performed. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate differences in the level of understanding recorded with the questionnaire. Results: a total of 35 patients were recruited; 71.4 % did not provide correct answers to all the questions. There were no significant differences in the correctness of the answers to the questionnaire according to education level. Conclusions: many patients do not adequately understand the information provided by healthcare professionals and this could have a negative impact on the incidence of clinical complications (AU)

Objetivo: el objetivo de nuestro estudio fue evaluar el nivel de comprensión de los pacientes ostomizados con respecto a las recomendaciones sobre estilo de vida, dieta y manejo de la ostomía de alto débito (OAD) proporcionadas por los profesionales de la salud. Método: se diseñó un estudio prospectivo para el seguimiento de pacientes ostomizados en consulta de nutrición. El seguimiento se realizó 7-10 días después del alta hospitalaria y a continuación un mes después. En la primera visita, se instruyó a los pacientes sobre la detección y el tratamiento de OAD. En la segunda visita se evaluó el nivel de comprensión de la formación recibida mediante un cuestionario de evaluación. Se registraron las respuestas dadas a cada uno de los ítems del cuestionario y se realizó un análisis descriptivo. Para evaluar las diferencias en el nivel de comprensión registrado con el cuestionario se utilizó la prueba exacta de Fisher. Resultados: se reclutaron 35 pacientes. El 71,4 % no respondieron correctamente a todas las preguntas. La exactitud de las respuestas al cuestionario no mostró diferencias significativas según el nivel educativo. Conclusiones: un gran número de pacientes no comprende adecuadamente la información que ofrecen los profesionales sanitarios y esto podría tener un impacto negativo en el desarrollo de complicaciones clínicas (AU)

[Development of the Q-PEX standard for quality certification of pharmaceutical care for outpatients of Pharmacy services]. / Desarrollo de la norma Q-PEX de certificación de calidad de la atención farmacéutica a pacientes externos de los servicios de Farmacia.

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.

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma.

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.

Real-life experience with benralizumab during 6 months.

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.

Respuesta parcial de etanercept en el tratamiento de la hidradenitis supurativa / No disponible

Objetivo Revisión del tratamiento de la hidradenitis pupurativa y papel de etanercept en términos de eficacia y seguridad. Métodos Estudio descriptivo transversal retrospectivo. Se incluyeron pacientes diagnosticados de hidradenitis supurativa tratados con etanercept (indicación fuera de ficha técnica) hasta junio de 2009. Las variables estudiadas fueron: edad, sexo, tratamientos anteriores y posteriores a etanercept, respuesta, efectos adversos, duración y motivo de suspensión. Resultados Como primera línea de tratamiento se emplearon antibióticos, anticonceptivos, corticoides, isotretinoína o sulfonas orales. Ante la falta de respuesta mantenida se solicitó el uso de etanercept. Fue bien tolerado, pero únicamente permitió obtener una mejoría inicial, por lo que fue suspendido. Las siguientes opciones que se emplearon incluyeron corticoides, antibióticos, isotretinoína, anticonceptivos, inmunosupresores y antiandrógenos. Los pacientes tratados con adalimumab e infliximab como alternativa presentaron reactivación de las lesiones. Como última opción se plantea el tratamiento quirúrgico. Actualmente, la mayoría de los pacientes están en terapia de mantenimiento con tratamientos orales. Conclusiones El tratamiento de la hidradenitis supurativa se basa en antibióticos, corticoides o anticonceptivos con los que se obtiene un control transitorio de la enfermedad. El etanercept es bien tolerado, pero su eficacia se limita a una mejoría inicial. Se han obtenido resultados similares con infliximab y adalimumab. La cirugía permite obtener un control en la zona intervenida. Por tanto, el papel de los anti-TNF en el tratamiento de la hidradenitis supurativa es controvertido (AU)

Objective To review the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa and the role of etanercept in terms of efficacy and safety. Methods Descriptive, cross-sectional and retrospective study. Patients diagnosed with hidradenitis suppurativa who were treated with etanercept (indication not on its Summary of Product Characteristics) until June 2009 were included in the study. The study variables were: age, sex, treatments before and after etanercept, response, adverse effects, duration and reason for stopping treatment. Results Antibiotics, contraceptives, corticosteroids, isotretinoin or oral sulfones were used as the first-line treatment. When patients no longer responded to these treatments, the use of etanercept was requested. It was well tolerated but it only led to an initial improvement. It was, therefore, suspended. The options employed included the following: corticosteroids, antibiotics, isotretinoin, contraceptives, immunosuppressive drugs and antiandrogens. Patients who were treated with adalimumab and infliximab as an alternative treatment found that their lesions flared up. Surgery was considered as a last option. At present, the majority of patients are undergoing maintenance therapy with oral treatments. Conclusions The treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa is based on antibiotics, corticosteroids or contraceptives. These are able to control the disease temporarily. Etanercept is well tolerated but it only results in an initial improvement. Similar results have been found with infliximab and adalimumab. The affected areas can be controlled with surgery. Therefore, the role of TNF inhibitors in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa is controversial (AU)

[Oral itraconazole for treatment of a candida parapsilosis endophthalmitis case]. / Itraconazol oral en el tratamiento de un caso de endoftalmitis por candida parapsilosis.

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.