Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review / Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes que reciben cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática

Objectives: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs)...(AU)

Objetivo: Los pacientes con enfermedades terminales son propensos a la polifarmacia innecesaria. Las herramientas de desprescripción pueden contribuir a minimizar los resultados negativos. Por lo tanto, los objetivos del estudio fueron identificar instrumentos validados para la desprescripción de medicamentos inapropiados en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos y evaluar el impacto en los resultados clínicos, humanísticos y económicos. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE y WEB OF SCIENCE (hasta mayo de 2021). Se realizó una búsqueda manual en las referencias de los artículos incluidos. La selección, elegibilidad, extracción y evaluación del riesgo de sesgo se llevaron a cabo por dos investigadores independientes. Se aceptó la inclusión de estudios observacionales y experimentales. Resultados: De los 5791 estudios recuperados, después de excluir duplicados (n = 1050), realizar la selección de títulos/resúmenes (n = 4741) y la lectura completa (n = 41), solo un estudio cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. En este estudio incluido, se realizó un ensayo controlado aleatorizado, que mostró un alto nivel de riesgo de sesgo en general. A los adultos de 75 años o más (n = 130) con esperanza de vida limitada y polifarmacia se les asignaron dos grupos [grupo de intervención (desprescripción) y grupo de control (atención habitual)]. Se realizó la desprescripción con la ayuda de la herramienta STOPPFrail. El número promedio de medicamentos inapropiados y los costos mensuales de los medicamentos fueron significativamente más bajos en el grupo de intervención. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en términos de presentaciones hospitalarias no programadas, caídas, fracturas, mortalidad y calidad de vida. Conclusiones: A pesar de la disponibilidad de varias herramientas para apoyar la deprescripción en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos...(AU)

Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes que reciben cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática / Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review

Objectives: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs)...(AU)

Objetivo: Los pacientes con enfermedades terminales son propensos a la polifarmacia innecesaria. Las herramientas de desprescripción pueden contribuir a minimizar los resultados negativos. Por lo tanto, los objetivos del estudio fueron identificar instrumentos validados para la desprescripción de medicamentos inapropiados en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos y evaluar el impacto en los resultados clínicos, humanísticos y económicos. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE y WEB OF SCIENCE (hasta mayo de 2021). Se realizó una búsqueda manual en las referencias de los artículos incluidos. La selección, elegibilidad, extracción y evaluación del riesgo de sesgo se llevaron a cabo por dos investigadores independientes. Se aceptó la inclusión de estudios observacionales y experimentales. Resultados: De los 5791 estudios recuperados, después de excluir duplicados (n = 1050), realizar la selección de títulos/resúmenes (n = 4741) y la lectura completa (n = 41), solo un estudio cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. En este estudio incluido, se realizó un ensayo controlado aleatorizado, que mostró un alto nivel de riesgo de sesgo en general. A los adultos de 75 años o más (n = 130) con esperanza de vida limitada y polifarmacia se les asignaron dos grupos [grupo de intervención (desprescripción) y grupo de control (atención habitual)]. Se realizó la desprescripción con la ayuda de la herramienta STOPPFrail. El número promedio de medicamentos inapropiados y los costos mensuales de los medicamentos fueron significativamente más bajos en el grupo de intervención. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en términos de presentaciones hospitalarias no programadas, caídas, fracturas, mortalidad y calidad de vida. Conclusiones: A pesar de la disponibilidad de varias herramientas para apoyar la deprescripción en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos...(AU)

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs palliative care: A systematic review. / [Artículo traducido] Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by two independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of the 5,791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1,050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4,741), and full reading (n = 41), only one study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to two groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only one of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Longitudinalidad en atención primaria y polifarmacia. Una revisión sistemática / Longitudinality in Primary Care and Polypharmacy. A Systematic Review

El objetivo de este trabajo es recopilar, evaluar e interpretar las evidencias disponibles sobre la relación existente entre el grado de longitudinalidad en atención primaria (AP) y la prevalencia de polifarmacia y sus problemas asociados. Siguiendo la declaración PRISMA realizamos una revisión sistemática de la literatura en las bases de datos PubMed y Scopus. El cribado por títulos y resúmenes, y la revisión de referencias realizados de forma independiente por 2 autores detectó 16 trabajos de potencial interés. Tras la revisión independiente de todos los originales, 4 fueron descartados por no satisfacer los criterios de inclusión. Los 12 trabajos seleccionados, 9 estudios de cohortes retrospectivos y 3 estudios transversales, estudiaban la relación de la longitudinalidad en AP, medida con diversos índices cuantitativos, con la prevalencia de polifarmacia y otros problemas terapéuticos asociados, como las prescripciones inadecuadas, las duplicidades o las interacciones medicamentosas. Todos mostraban una relación significativa, frecuentemente fuerte (RR>2 o<0,5), entre los indicadores de longitudinalidad y las diversas variables dependientes. Aunque nuestro conocimiento podría mejorar mediante estudios prospectivos que evaluaran directamente la longitudinalidad y su repercusión en los problemas por exceso de medicación, con las evidencias existentes, se puede afirmar que la protección y la promoción de la longitudinalidad en la AP es un elemento clave para el control de la polifarmacia y los problemas asociados (AU)

The aim of this work was to collect, evaluate and interpret the available evidence on the relationship between continuity in primary care (i.e., longitudinality), and the prevalence of polypharmacy and its associated problems. Following the PRISMA reporting statement, we carried out a systematic review of the literature searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The screening of titles and summaries and the review of references carried out independently by two authors detected 16 works of potential interest, of which 4 were discarded after the independent review of all the originals because they did not meet inclusion criteria. The 12 papers selected studied the relationship between Longitudinality, measured with various quantitative indices, and the rate of polypharmacy or various associated problems, such as duplicate drugs, inadequate prescriptions or drug interactions. They all showed a significant relationship, often strong (RR>2 or<0.5), between longitudinality indicators and the various dependent variables. Although our knowledge could be improved by prospective studies that more directly evaluate longitudinality and its impact on problems due to excess medication, with the existing evidence, we can affirm that the protection and promotion of continuity in primary care can be a key element for the control of polypharmacy and associated problems (AU)

[Longitudinality in Primary Care and Polypharmacy. A Systematic Review]. / Longitudinalidad en atención primaria y polifarmacia. Una revisión sistemática.

The aim of this work was to collect, evaluate and interpret the available evidence on the relationship between continuity in primary care (i.e., longitudinality), and the prevalence of polypharmacy and its associated problems. Following the PRISMA reporting statement, we carried out a systematic review of the literature searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The screening of titles and summaries and the review of references carried out independently by two authors detected 16 works of potential interest, of which 4 were discarded after the independent review of all the originals because they did not meet inclusion criteria. The 12 papers selected studied the relationship between Longitudinality, measured with various quantitative indices, and the rate of polypharmacy or various associated problems, such as duplicate drugs, inadequate prescriptions or drug interactions. They all showed a significant relationship, often strong (RR>2 or<0.5), between longitudinality indicators and the various dependent variables. Although our knowledge could be improved by prospective studies that more directly evaluate longitudinality and its impact on problems due to excess medication, with the existing evidence, we can affirm that the protection and promotion of continuity in primary care can be a key element for the control of polypharmacy and associated problems.

[Translated article] Evaluation of the antibiotic prescription in a hospital emergency department: Pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: A study about the adherence of the antimicrobial prescriptions to the local guidelines of treatment of infections was conducted in a hospital emergency department to study the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of the patients who received these treatments. Conducting a feasibility study for supporting the design and execution of future studies, addressing specific aspects of the appropriateness of the antimicrobial prescription. METHOD: Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional pilot study, with retrospective data collection about the antimicrobial prescription in a hospital emergency department. Seven cross sections were made, corresponding to seven different days of the week, in seven consecutive weeks. INCLUSION CRITERIA: patient over 14 years of age, with at least one first dose of antimicrobial treatment prescribed on the day of recruitment. The main variable was the inappropriate antimicrobial prescription according to the local guidelines. Epidemiological and clinical parameters of the patients were collected as secondary variables. In order to determine inappropriate prescription a revision was carried out by two specialists in emergencies, two pharmacists and one specialist in infectious diseases, all unrelated to prescriptions. RESULTS: 168 patients with 192 prescriptions were evaluated. Seventy-six (39.6%) of the prescriptions were not conformed to the local treatment guidelines. Of these, 55% were with active antimicrobial coverage against the microorganism but not recommended, 23.5% with inactive drugs, 13.7% presented an inappropriate dose and 7.8% were unnecessary treatment. The strength of agreement in the evaluation of the adequacy of treatment between doctors and pharmacists was high (kappa = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: A high rate of inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions was obtained in a hospital emergency department according to local guidelines. The hospital pharmacist has an opportunity to improve the use of antimicrobials in this area.

Evaluation of the antibiotic prescription in a hospital emergency department: Pilot study. / Evaluación de la prescripción de antibióticos en un servicio de urgencias hospitalarias: estudio piloto.

OBJECTIVE: A study about the adherence of the antimicrobial prescriptions to the local guidelines of treatment of infections was conducted in a hospital emergency department to study the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of the patients who received these treatments. Conducting a feasibility study for supporting the design and execution of future studies, addressing specific aspects of the appropriateness of the antimicrobial prescription. METHOD: Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional pilot study, with retrospective data collection about the antimicrobial prescription in a hospital emergency department. Seven cross sections were made, corresponding to 7 different days of the week, in 7 consecutive weeks. INCLUSION CRITERIA: patient over 14 years of age, with at least one first dose of antimicrobial treatment prescribed on the day of recruitment. The main variable was the inappropriate antimicrobial prescription according to the local guidelines. Epidemiological and clinical parameters of the patients were collected as secondary variables. In order to determine inappropriate prescription a revision was carried out by 2 specialists in emergencies, 2 pharmacists and one specialist in infectious diseases, all unrelated to prescriptions. RESULTS: One hundred sixty eight patients with 192 prescriptions were evaluated. 76 (39.6%) of the prescriptions were not conformed to the local treatment guidelines. Of these, 55% were with active antimicrobial coverage against the microorganism but not recommended, 23.5% with inactive drugs, 13.7% presented an inappropriate dose and 7.8% were unnecessary treatment. The strength of agreement in the evaluation of the adequacy of treatment between doctors and pharmacists was high (kappa=0.71). CONCLUSIONS: A high rate of inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions was obtained in a hospital emergency department according to local guidelines. The hospital pharmacist has an opportunity to improve the use of antimicrobials in this area.

Evaluación de la prescripción de antibióticos en un servicio de urgencias hospitalarias: estudio piloto / Evaluation of the antibiotic prescription in a hospital emergency department: Pilot study

Objetivo: describir la adecuación de las prescripciones de antimicrobianos a las guías de tratamiento locales de infecciones, en el área de urgencias hospitalarias, así como conocer las características clínicas y epidemiológicas de los pacientes que reciben dichos tratamientos. Llevar a cabo un estudio de viabilidad para el diseño y la ejecución de investigaciones que aborden aspectos específicos de la inadecuación de prescripción de antimicrobianos.Métodoestudio piloto observacional, descriptivo y transversal, con recogida de datos retrospectiva de prescripción de antimicrobianos en un servicio de urgencias hospitalario. Se realizaron 7 cortes transversales, correspondientes a los 7 días diferentes de la semana, en 7 semanas consecutivas. Criterios de inclusión: paciente mayor de 14 años de edad, con al menos una primera dosis de tratamiento antimicrobiano prescrita el día del estudio. La variable principal fue la prescripción de antimicrobianos inadecuada según las guías locales. Como variables secundarias se recogieron parámetros epidemiológicos y clínicos de los pacientes. La evaluación de la adecuación la realizaron 2 especialistas médicos de urgencias y 2 especialistas en farmacia hospitalaria, más un tercer evaluador, especialista en enfermedades infecciosas, todos ajenos a la prescripción.Resultadosse evaluaron 168 pacientes con 192 prescripciones. Setenta y seis (39,6%) de las prescripciones no se ajustaron a las guías de tratamiento locales, de estas el 55% fueron con cobertura antimicrobiana activa frente al microorganismo, pero no recomendada, el 23,5% con fármacos inactivos, el 13,7% presentaban una dosis inapropiada y el 7,8% eran tratamientos innecesarios. La fuerza de la concordancia en la evaluación de la adecuación del tratamiento entre médicos y farmacéuticos fue alta (kappa=0,71). (AU)

Objective: A study about the adherence of the antimicrobial prescriptions to the local guidelines of treatment of infections was conducted in a hospital emergency department to study the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of the patients who received these treatments. Conducting a feasibility study for supporting the design and execution of future studies, addressing specific aspects of the appropriateness of the antimicrobial prescription.MethodObservational, descriptive and cross-sectional pilot study, with retrospective data collection about the antimicrobial prescription in a hospital emergency department. Seven cross sections were made, corresponding to 7 different days of the week, in 7 consecutive weeks. Inclusion criteria: patient over 14 years of age, with at least one first dose of antimicrobial treatment prescribed on the day of recruitment. The main variable was the inappropriate antimicrobial prescription according to the local guidelines. Epidemiological and clinical parameters of the patients were collected as secondary variables. In order to determine inappropriate prescription a revision was carried out by 2 specialists in emergencies, 2 pharmacists and one specialist in infectious diseases, all unrelated to prescriptions.ResultsOne hundred sixty eight patients with 192 prescriptions were evaluated. 76 (39.6%) of the prescriptions were not conformed to the local treatment guidelines. Of these, 55% were with active antimicrobial coverage against the microorganism but not recommended, 23.5% with inactive drugs, 13.7% presented an inappropriate dose and 7.8% were unnecessary treatment. The strength of agreement in the evaluation of the adequacy of treatment between doctors and pharmacists was high (kappa=0.71). (AU)

[Off-label use of gabapentinoid drugs: is it necessary a deprescription strategy?] / Gabapentinoides en indicaciones no autorizadas en la ficha técnica: ¿es necesaria una estrategia de desprescripción?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gabapentin and pregabalin treatment adequacy to label indications, to analyze off-label use and to identify patients at high risk of respiratory depression. METHOD: An observational, retrospective study was performed. It included patients treated with pregabalin and gabapentin during 2020 in Navarre. RESULTS: A total of 9778 patients were treated with gabapentin or pregabalin during the first two months of 2020. In 56% of the cases, gabapentinoids were prescribed for off-label uses. Sixty percent of patients were taking at least one central nervous system (CNS) depressant drug concomitantly, 33% of them opioids, 20% of them combined opioids with CNS depressants and 4% of them at least one systemic antihistamine. In addition, 11% of the patients had a diagnosis of asthma or COPD. Prevalences remained constant along the year. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to implement a gabapentinoid deprescription strategy to improve its use and reduce safety problems.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review

Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Medicamentos potencialmente inapropiados para el adulto mayor en el servicio de medicina interna / Potentially inappropriate medications for older adults in the internal medicine service

Introducción: se consideran prescripciones inapropiadas de medicamentos cuando el riesgo supera el beneficio, o en las que hay un incremento en el potencial de interacciones farmacológicas. Para evitarlo en el adulto mayor se han desarrollado herramientas como los criterios Beers y los PRISCUS. Objetivo: identificar las prescripciones potencialmente inapropiadas en la población adulta mayor que consultó al servicio de medicina interna del Hospital Universitario Hernando Moncaleano Perdomo mediante los listados Beers y PRISCUS. Materiales y métodos: estudio observacional descriptivo de corte transversal en pacientes mayores de 65 años, se calculó el tamaño de la muestra en 357 pacientes. La información recolectada fue almacenada en el programa excel versión 2013 y analizada en EPI INFO versión 7.1.4. Resultados: la mediana de edad fue 75 años, el género masculino 52,66%, el promedio de medicamentos por paciente fue de 8,77 con una DE +/- 5. El diagnóstico más frecuente fue insuficiencia cardiaca con 29 casos (8,12 %). La prescripción inapropiada de medicamentos (PIM) según los criterios Beers, se observó en 4,9%, los más frecuentes fueron metoclopramida 20% y amiodarona 14%. La lista PRISCUS identificó 2.5% de prescripciones inapropiadas siendo prazosin (20%) el más relacionado. Conclusiones: los medicamentos encontrados según los criterios BEERS fueron metoclopramida, amiodarona, prazosina, betametildigoxina y con los PRISCUS, prazosina, haloperidol, betametildigoxina y difenhidramina.

Introduction: inappropriate drug prescribing is defined as the use of medicines whose risks outweigh their benefits, or when there is increased potential of drug-drug interactions. The Beers and PRISCUS criteria were developed as tools to prevent potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in the elderly. Objective: to identify PIM in the elderly population who attended the internal medicine service of Hospital Universitario Hernando Moncaleano Perdomo, by means of the Beers and PRISCUS criteria. Materials and methods: a descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study in patients over age 65. The sample size was calculated in 357 patients. Excel version 2013 was used for data storage. EPI INFO version 7.1.4 was used for data analysis. Results: mean age 75 years, males 52.66%, average number of drugs per patient 8.77 (SD +/- 5). Heart failure was the most common diagnosis (29 cases - 8.12 %). According to the Beers criteria, PIM was identified in 4.9% of patients; metoclopramide (20%) and amiodarone (14%) being the most prescribed. The PRISCUS list identified PIM in 2.5%; prazosin (20%) being the most prescribed. Conclusions: the drugs identified by the BEERS criteria were metoclopramide, amiodarone, prazosin, and beta-methyl digoxin. Prazosin, haloperidol, beta-methyl digoxin, and diphenhydramine were identified by the PRISCUS criteria.

Gabapentinoides en indicaciones no autorizadas en la ficha técnica: ¿es necesaria una estrategia de desprescripción? / Off-label use of gabapentinoid drugs: is it necessary a deprescription strategy?

Objetivo: Evaluar la adecuación de los tratamientos con gabapentina y pregabalina a las indicaciones autorizadas, analizar su uso en las no autorizadas e identificar los pacientes con más riesgo de sufrir depresión respiratoria. Método: Estudio observacional retrospectivo que incluyó a los pacientes en tratamiento con gabapentina o pregabalina en 2020 en Navarra. Resultados: Se incluyeron 9778 pacientes en tratamiento con gabapentina o pregabalina durante el primer bimestre de 2020. En el 56% de los casos se prescribieron para indicaciones no autorizadas. El 60% tomaba concomitantemente al menos un depresor del sistema nervioso central (SNC), el 33% algún opiáceo, el 20% opiáceos combinados con depresores del SNC y el 4% algún antihistamínico. El 11% tenía diagnóstico de asma o enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica. Estas prevalencias se mantuvieron constantes durante el resto del año. Conclusiones: Es necesario implementar una estrategia de desprescripción de gabapentinoides para adecuar su uso y disminuir los problemas de seguridad. (AU)

Objective: To evaluate gabapentin and pregabalin treatment adequacy to label indications, to analyze off-label use and to identify patients at high risk of respiratory depression. Method: An observational, retrospective study was performed. It included patients treated with pregabalin and gabapentin during 2020 in Navarre. Results: A total of 9778 patients were treated with gabapentin or pregabalin during the first two months of 2020. In 56% of the cases, gabapentinoids were prescribed for off-label uses. Sixty percent of patients were taking at least one central nervous system (CNS) depressant drug concomitantly, 33% of them opioids, 20% of them combined opioids with CNS depressants and 4% of them at least one systemic antihistamine. In addition, 11% of the patients had a diagnosis of asthma or COPD. Prevalences remained constant along the year. Conclusions: It is necessary to implement a gabapentinoid deprescription strategy to improve its use and reduce safety problems.

Assessment of gastric-acid suppressants prescribing at an internal medicine service of a tertiary hospital in Latin America: A retrospective record review study

Gastric-acid suppressants are one of the most frequently used classes of drugs worldwide. Several studies about their overprescribing have been carried out in recent years. The aim of the study was to assess the appropriateness of these drugs at an internal medicine service of a tertiary hospital in Venezuela. A retrospective record review of patients admitted to the internal medicine service from January 2020 to February 2021 was performed. Data about indications for gastric-acid suppressants, the type used, and their continuation at discharge were collected. The prescribing was grouped into two categories, appropriate or inappropriate, according to current clinical guidelines. Of the 1203 patients who were newly prescribed gastric-acid suppressants in hospital during the study period, 993 (82.5%) had an inappropriate prescription. Prophylaxis of peptic ulcers in low-risk patients was the most frequent no evidence-based indication (20.24%). Seven hundred sixty-two patients were discharged on gastric-acid suppressants. Of these, 74.7% did not have an acceptable indication to continue this treatment on an outpatient basis. Many hospitalized patients in a Venezuelan academic tertiary healthcare center were given gastric acid suppressants not in accordance with the current clinical practice guidelines.

Los supresores del ácido gástrico son uno de los grupos farmacológicos más frecuentemente prescritos en todo el mundo. En los últimos años se han realizado varios estudios sobre su prescripción inadecuada. El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar la idoneidad de estos medicamentos en un servicio de medicina interna de un hospital de tercer nivel en Venezuela. Se realizó una revisión retrospectiva de historias medicas de pacientes ingresados en el servicio de medicina interna desde enero de 2020 hasta febrero de 2021. Se recogieron datos sobre indicaciones de supresores de ácido gástrico, tipo utilizado y su continuación al alta. La prescripción se agrupó en dos categorías, adecuada o inadecuada, según las guías clínicas vigentes. Entre los 1203 pacientes a los que se les prescribió recientemente supresores de ácido gástrico en el hospital durante el período de estudio, 993 (82,5%) tenían una prescripción inapropiada. La profilaxis de úlceras pépticas en pacientes de bajo riesgo fue la indicación no basada en evidencia más frecuente (20,24%). Setecientos sesenta y dos pacientes fueron dados de alta con supresores de ácido gástrico. De estos, el 74,7% no tenía una indicación apropiada para continuar este tratamiento de forma ambulatoria. Un alto número de pacientes hospitalizados en un centro asistencial de nivel terciario en Venezuela fueron prescritos con supresores de ácido gástrico que no se ajustaban a las guías de práctica clínica vigentes.

Detección de la prescripción inadecuada en personas mayores. Papel de la enfermera / Detection of inappropriate prescription in elderly patients. Role of the nurse

En las últimas décadas se han producido una serie de cambios a nivel sanitario y farmacológico que han aumentado la esperanza de vida de la sociedad, dando lugar a un notable incremento de personas mayores.El envejecimiento progresivo junto con las comorbilidades asociadas, se traduce en un perfil de paciente susceptible de sufrir polimedicación y, por consiguiente, fenómenos tales como prescripción inadecuada, reacciones adversas a medicamentos o interacciones farmacológicas. Esta situación genera la mayor parte de las admisiones hospitalarias en personas de más de 65 años, lo que conlleva un aumento del empleo de los recursos sanitarios y un incremento del gasto farmacéutico.Para poder optimizar las prescripciones en los pacientes mayores pluripatológicos, reduciendo la prescripción potencialmente inadecuada y las reacciones adversas a medicamentos, existen diversas herramientas a nivel mundial. Estas las podemos englobar en dos grandes grupos, por una parte, los métodos implícitos que se basan en juicios críticos y, por otro lado, los métodos explícitos en los cuales se emplean criterios definidos basados en datos científicos y creados por grupos de expertos a través de métodos de generación de consenso, generalmente método Delphi. Los criterios STOPP/START representan el método explícito más adecuado para la detección de prescripción potencialmente inadecuada en comparación con el resto de herramientas disponibles, aunque continúan las investigaciones con el objetivo de optimizarse. (AU)

In the last decades there have been a series of changes at the health and pharmacological level that have increased the life expectancy of society, leading to a notable increase in the number of seniors.Progressive aging with associated comorbidities, translates into a patient profile susceptible to polymedication and therefore, phenomena such as inappropriate prescription, adverse drug reactions or drug interactions. This situation generates the majority of hospital admissions in people over 65 years, which leads to an increase in the use of healthcare resources and an increase in pharmaceutical spending.In order to optimize prescriptions in multipathological senior patients, reducing potentially inappropriate prescription and adverse drug reactions, there are various tools worldwide. These can be grouped into two large groups, on the one hand, the implicit methods that are based on critical judgments, and on the other hand, the explicit methods in which defined criteria based on scientific data and created by groups of experts through consensus-building methods, usually the Delphi. The STOPP / START criteria represent the most appropriate explicit method for the detection of potentially inappropriate prescription compared to the rest of the available tools, although research continues with the aim of optimization. (AU)

Deprescripción en personas mayores: es el momento de pasar a la acción / Deprescription in old people: It's time to take action

El uso de fármacos conlleva innegables beneficios en las personas mayores, pero no está exento de efectos indeseables. La deprescripción es el proceso de revisión sistemática de la medicación con el objetivo de lograr la mejor relación riesgo-beneficio en base a la mejor evidencia disponible. Este proceso es especialmente importante en mayores polimedicados, sobretratados, frágiles, con enfermedades terminales y en el final de la vida.La deprescripción debe hacerse de forma escalonada, estableciendo un seguimiento estrecho por si aparecen problemas tras la retirada. En la toma de decisiones es muy importante contar con la opinión del paciente y de los cuidadores, valorando los objetivos del tratamiento según la situación clínica, funcional y social del enfermo.Existen múltiples herramientas para facilitar a los clínicos la tarea de seleccionar qué fármacos deprescribir (criterios Beers, STOPP-START…). Los grupos farmacológicos más susceptibles de intervención son: antihipertensivos, antidiabéticos, estatinas, benzodiacepinas, antidepresivos, anticolinérgicos, anticolinesterásicos y neurolépticos.(AU)

The use of drugs has undeniable benefits to the elderly, but it is not exempt from undesirable effects. Deprescription is the process of systematic medication review with the target of achieving the best risk-benefit ratio based on the best available evidence. This process is especially important for polymedicated elderly patients as well as those overtreated, frail, terminally ill and at the end of life.The deprescription must be done in stages, establishing a close follow-up in case problems appear after withdrawal. In the decision-making process, it is very important to consider the patient and caregivers opinion, assessing the objectives of the treatment according to the clinical, functional and social situation of the patient.There are multiple tools to make it easier for clinicians to select which drugs to deprescribe (Beers criteria, STOPP-START…). The most susceptible to intervention pharmacological groups are: antihypertensives, antidiabetics, statins, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticholinergics, anticholinesterase agents, and neuroleptics.(AU)

[Deprescription in old people: It's time to take action]. / Deprescripción en personas mayores: es el momento de pasar a la acción.

The use of drugs has undeniable benefits to the elderly, but it is not exempt from undesirable effects. Deprescription is the process of systematic medication review with the target of achieving the best risk-benefit ratio based on the best available evidence. This process is especially important for polymedicated elderly patients as well as those overtreated, frail, terminally ill and at the end of life. The deprescription must be done in stages, establishing a close follow-up in case problems appear after withdrawal. In the decision-making process, it is very important to consider the patient and caregivers opinion, assessing the objectives of the treatment according to the clinical, functional and social situation of the patient. There are multiple tools to make it easier for clinicians to select which drugs to deprescribe (Beers criteria, STOPP-START…). The most susceptible to intervention pharmacological groups are: antihypertensives, antidiabetics, statins, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticholinergics, anticholinesterase agents, and neuroleptics.

Indicación y prescripción de macrólidos en una población colombiana / Study of the indications for macrolide prescriptions in a Colombian population

Introducción. El uso inadecuado de antibióticos se asocia con aumento de la resistencia antimicrobiana, mayores costos de atención médica, más efectos adversos y peores resultados clínicos. Objetivo. Determinar los patrones de prescripción y las indicaciones aprobadas y no aprobadas para macrólidos en un grupo de pacientes en Colombia. Materiales y métodos. Se hizo un estudio de corte transversal sobre las indicaciones de uso de macrólidos en pacientes ambulatorios a partir de una base de datos de dispensación de medicamentos de 8,5 millones, aproximadamente, de personas afiliadas al sistema de salud de Colombia. Se consideraron variables sociodemográficas, farmacológicas y clínicas. Resultados. Se encontraron 9.344 pacientes que habían recibido prescripción de macrólidos; su mediana de edad era de 40,1 años (rango intercuartílico: 27,1-53,3 años) y el 58,3 % correspondía a mujeres. El macrólido más prescrito fue la azitromicina (38,8 %) y los usos más frecuentes fueron el tratamiento de la infección por Helicobacter pylori (15,9 %) y la neumonía (15,8 %). El 31,3 % de las prescripciones correspondía a indicaciones no aprobadas, destacándose el resfriado común (7,8 %), la Covid-19 (4,0 %) y la bronquitis aguda (3,5 %). La residencia en la región Caribe (OR=1,17; IC95% 1,05-1,31), las prescripciones odontológicas (OR=2,75; IC95% 1,91-3,96), las comorbilidades respiratorias crónicas (OR=1,30; IC95% 1,08-1,56), y la prescripción de eritromicina (OR=3,66; IC95% 3,24-4,14) o azitromicina (OR=2,15; IC95% 1,92 2,41), se asociaron con una mayor probabilidad de recibir macrólidos para indicaciones no aprobadas, en tanto que tener entre 18 y 64 años (OR=0,81; IC95% 0,71-0,93), 65 o más años (OR=0,77; IC95% 0,63-0,94) y residir en Bogotá-Cundinamarca (OR=0,74; IC95% 0,65 0,85) reducían dicho riesgo. Conclusiones. La mayoría de los pacientes recibieron macrólidos para infecciones del sistema respiratorio; la eritromicina y la azitromicina se prescribieron en indicaciones no aprobadas en menores de 18 años y en quienes presentaban enfermedades respiratorias crónicas.

Introduction: The inappropriate use of antibiotics is associated with a greater risk for antimicrobial resistance, high health care costs, adverse events, and worse clinical outcomes. Objective: To determine the prescription patterns and approved and nonapproved indications for macrolides in a group of patients from Colombia. Materials and methods: This was a cross-sectional study on the indications for the use of macrolides in outpatients registered in a drug-dispensing database of approximately 8.5 million people affiliated with the Colombian health system. Sociodemographic, pharmacological, and clinical variables were considered. Results: A total of 9.344 patients had received a macrolide prescription; their median age was 40.1 years (interquartile range: 27.1-53.3 years) and 58.3% were women. The most commonly prescribed macrolide was azithromycin (38.8%) most frequently for Helicobacter pylori infection (15.9%) and pneumonia treatment (15.8%). A total of 31.3% of the prescriptions were used for unapproved indications: common cold (7.8%), COVID-19 (4.0%), and acute bronchitis (3.5%). Residence in the Caribbean region (OR=1.17; 95%CI 1.05-1.31), dental prescriptions (OR=2.75; 95%CI 1.91-3.96), presence of chronic respiratory comorbidities (OR=1.30; 95%CI 1.08-1.56), and prescription of erythromycin (OR=3.66; 95%CI 3.24-4.14) or azithromycin (OR=2.15; 95%CI 1,92-2.41) were associated with a higher probability of macrolide use for unapproved indications while being 18-64 years old (OR=0.81; 95%CI 0.71-0.93) or 65 years or older (OR=0.77; 95%CI 0.63-0.94) and residing in Bogotá-Cundinamarca (OR=0.74; 95%CI 0.65-0.85) were associated with reduced risk. Conclusions: Most patients received macrolides for respiratory tract infections; erythromycin and azithromycin were used for unapproved indications in people under 18 years of age and those with chronic respiratory diseases.

Use of linezolid in a high complexity hospital of Bogotá city

SUMMARY Introduction: Studying the prescription of last generation antibiotics helps to identify the causes and consequences of the inadequate use of antibiotics. These include the appearance of antibacterial resistance, a situation declared by the WHO as a global public health problem. Aim: To describe the prescription of linezolid in a high complexity hospital in Bogotá, Colombia, considering the follow-up of the recommendations for the use of the drug included in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and its indications. Methods: A descriptive observational study of longitudinal section was performed with retrospective collection of the information of all patients who were prescribed linezolid, at a minimum dose of 600 mg every 12 h during their hospitalization in the period from January 1st, 2017, to December 31st, 2018. The characteristics of linezolid prescription were described. Results: 133 prescriptions were reviewed. The most frequently diagnosed were sepsis of different origin (pulmonary abdominal, urinary) with 22.6 % (30/133), followed by skin and soft tissue infection 16.5 % (22/133), the pneumonia with 12.8 % (17/133) and urinary tract infections with 9.8 % (13/133). Two days treatment was the most frequent (range 1-30 days). In 33 % (44/133) of the patients, linezolid was used empirically (without using a previous antibiotic), while in 40.6 % (54/133) it was used as a second option (a previous antibiotic scheme). It was used as a third option in 20.3 % (27/133). Finally, in 6 % (8/133) of the patients, linezolid was prescribed after three previous antibiotics. It was necessary to use another antibiotic in near fifty percent of patients because linezolid did not work. Conclusions: The present study shows that there is little adherence to the institutional CPGs in relation to the treatment time, the microorganism identification, and the use as first option. The absence of a full-time infectious disease specialist, the high workload and the continuous rotation of prescribing staff may be the cause of these results. Some cases of inappropriate use may be related to the clinical condition of the patient which requires empirical treatments.

Introducción: el estudio de la prescripción de antibióticos de última generación ayuda a identificar las causas y consecuencias del uso inadecuado de antibióticos. Estas incluyen la aparición de resistencia a los antibacterianos, situación declarada por la OMS como un problema de salud pública mundial. Objetivos: describir la prescripción de linezolid en un hospital de alta complejidad de Bogotá, Colombia, teniendo en cuenta el seguimiento de las recomendaciones de uso del fármaco incluidas en las guías de práctica clínica (GPC) y sus indicaciones. Métodos: se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo de corte longitudinal con recolección retrospectiva de la información de todos los pacientes a los que se les prescribió linezolid, a una dosis mínima de 600 mg cada 12 h durante el período del 1 de enero de 2017 al 31 de diciembre de 2018. Se describieron las características de la prescripción de line-zolid. Resultados: se revisaron 133 prescripciones. Los diagnósticos más frecuentes fueron la sepsis de diferente origen (pulmonar abdominal, urinaria) con el 22,6 % (30/133), seguida de la infección de piel y tejidos blandos con el 16,5 % (22/133), la neumonía con el 12,8 % (17/133) y las infecciones del tracto urinario con un 9,8 % (13/133). El tratamiento de dos días fue el más frecuente (rango 1-30 días). En el 33 % (44/133) de los pacientes se utilizó linezolid de forma empírica (sin utilizar antibiótico previo), mientras que en el 40,6 % (54/133) se utilizó como segunda opción (esquema antibiótico previo). Se utilizó como tercera opción en el 20,3 % (27/133). Finalmente, en el 6 % (8/133) de los pacientes se prescribió linezolid después de tres antibióticos previos. Fue necesario utilizar otro antibiótico en cerca del cincuenta por ciento de los pacientes porque linezolid no funcionó. Conclusiones: existe poca adherencia a las GPC institucionales en lo relacionado con el tiempo de tratamiento, la identificación del microorganismo, y la utilización como primera opción. La falta de un infectólogo de tiempo completo, la alta carga laboral y la continua rotación de personal prescriptor pueden ser las causas de estos resultados. Algunos casos de uso no adecuado pueden estar relacionados con la condición clínica del paciente que obliga a realizar tratamientos empíricos.

Introdução: o estudo da prescrição de antibióticos de última geração auxilia na identificação das causas e consequências do uso inadequado de antibióticos. Entre eles está o surgimento de resistência aos antibacterianos, situação declarada pela OMS como um problema de saúde pública global. Objetivos: descrever a prescrição de linezolida em hospital de alta complexidade de Bogotá, na Colômbia, levando em consideração o acompanhamento das recomendações de uso de medicamentos constantes das diretrizes de prática clínica (CPG) e suas indicações. Métodos: foi realizado um estudo observacional transversal e descritivo com coleta retrospectiva de informações de todos os pacientes que receberam prescrição de linezolida, na dose mínima de 600 mg a cada 12 h durante o período de 1 de janeiro de 2017 a 31 de dezembro de 2018. As características de prescrição da linezolida foram descritas. Resultados: 133 prescrições foram revisadas. Os diagnósticos mais frequentes foram sepse de diferentes origens (pulmonar, abdominal, urinária) com 22,6 % (30/133), seguida de infecção de pele e partes moles com 16,5 % (22/133), pneumonia com 12,8 % (17/133) e infecções do trato urinário com 9,8 % (13/133). O tratamento de dois dias foi o mais frequente (variação de 1-30 dias). Em 33 % (44/133) dos pacientes, a linezolida foi usada empiricamente (sem o uso de antibiótico prévio), enquanto em 40,6 % (54/133) foi usada como segunda opção (esquema antibiótico prévio). Foi utilizada como terceira opção em 20,3 % (27/133). Finalmente, em 6 % (8/133) dos pacientes, linezolida foi prescrito após três antibióticos anteriores. Outro antibiótico teve de ser usado em cerca de 50 por cento dos pacientes porque a linezolida não funcionou. Conclusões: há pouca adesão ao CPG institucional em relação ao tempo de tratamento, a identificação do microrganismo e a utilização como primeira opção. A falta de um infectologista em tempo integral, a alta carga de trabalho e a rotatividade contínua da equipe de prescrição podem ser as causas desses resultados. Alguns casos de uso inadequado podem estar relacionados ao quadro clínico do paciente que necessita de tratamentos empíricos.

Prescripción de antibióticos en niños hospitalizados. Cienfuegos 2020

RESUMEN Fundamento: los antimicrobianos forman parte de la familia de fármacos que más se prescriben en el mundo. Sus altos niveles de disponibilidad y consumo han conducido a un uso desproporcionado e inapropiado de estos fármacos. Objetivo: evaluar la prescripción de antimicrobianos en niños hospitalizados en cuatro servicios clínicos del Hospital Pediátrico Universitario Paquito González Cueto de Cienfuegos. Métodos: estudio descriptivo, correlacional, de corte transversal sobre la prescripción de antimicrobianos a pacientes en edad pediátrica. Se analizaron como variables: antimicrobiano indicado, dosis, subdosis, tiempo del tratamiento y diagnóstico al egreso. Resultados: se estudiaron 504 pacientes, a los que se les realizó 641 prescripciones, para una razón de 1,27 prescripciones por paciente. Se prescribió incorrectamente en el 32,3 % (n = 207) y no tenían indicación de tratamiento antimicrobiano 109 (17 %). El error más frecuente se produjo en el cálculo de la dosis a administrar y el tiempo de tratamiento en ambas categorías de estudio. El uso inadecuado de antimicrobiano fue mayor en las penicilinas (27 %), cefalosporinas (36 %) y las quinolonas (77 %). Mostraron mayor error de prescripción las enfermedades infecciosas 78 (32,6 %) y digestivas (62,5 %). Conclusiones: en los servicios clínicos estudiados se identificaron prácticas inadecuadas en la prescripción de antimicrobianos.

ABSTRACT Background: antimicrobials are part of the drugs family that are most prescribed in the world. Their high levels of availability and consumption have led to a disproportionate increase and inappropriate use of these drugs. Objective: to evaluate the prescription of antimicrobials in children hospitalized in four clinical services of the Paquito González Cueto Pediatric University Hospital in Cienfuegos. Methods: descriptive, correlational cross-sectional study on the prescription of antimicrobials to pediatric patients. The following variables were analyzed: indicated antimicrobial, dose, subdose, treatment time and diagnosis at discharge. Results: 504 patients were studied, who received 641 prescriptions, for a ratio of 1.27 prescriptions per patient. It was incorrectly prescribed in 32.3% (n = 207) and there was no indication for antimicrobial treatment in 109 (17%). The most frequent error occurred in the calculation of the dose to be administered and the treatment time in both study categories. Inappropriate antimicrobial use was higher for penicillins (27%), cephalosporins (36%), and quinolones (77%). Infectious diseases 78 (32.6%) and digestive diseases (62.5%) showed a greater prescription error Conclusions: inadequate practices in the prescription of antimicrobials were identified in the clinical services studied.