Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy ; 29(SUPPL 1):A145-A146, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1916417

ABSTRACT

Background and importance Isavuconazole is a new antifungal triazole authorised for invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis. It is a therapeutic alternative to voriconazole and liposomal amphotericin B for invasive aspergillosis, and to liposomal amphotericin B in mucormycosis. Aim and objectives To analyse prescription characteristics of isavuconazole in patients with COVID-19 in an intensive care unit (ICU) as well as its effectiveness and safety. Material and methods A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted (June 2020-April 2021). Patients with COVID-19 in an ICU on treatment with isavuconazole were included. Electronic prescription program and clinical history were used to collect the following data: sex, age, comorbidities, coinfection with other pathogens in addition to SARS-CoV-2, type of therapy (empirical/targeted), duration and previous azole treatment (yes/no). Effectiveness was evaluated by symptoms resolution, reasons for treatment suspension and status (alive/death) 30 days after completion of treatment. Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AE). Results Thirty-three patients (54.5% men) with mean age of 61 (35-77) years were evaluated. Twenty-nine patients (87.9%) had comorbidities, the most frequent were: hypertension (19.1%), dyslipidaemia (12.8%), obesity (11.7%) and diabetes (8.5%). Thirty-two (96.9%) had coinfections, with a mean of 1.8 (SD 1.2) infections/patient. The most implicated pathogens were: Acinetobacter baumanii (18.8%), Candida albicans (11.6%) and Aspergillus fumigatus (8.7%). Twentythree patients (69.7%) received isavuconazole as empirical therapy and 10 (30.3%) as targeted. Mean duration of treatment was 12.3 (SD 7.5) days. Twenty-five (75.6%) patients had not previously received azole treatment, 7 (21.3%) had received voriconazole and 1 (3%) fluconazole. Symptoms resolution was observed in 12 (36.4%) cases. Seven patients (21.2%) discontinued treatment due to negative culture, 12 (36.4%) due to symptoms resolution and 14 (42.4%) due to death. At 30 days completion of treatment, 15 patients (45.5%) remained alive and 18 (54.5%) had died. AE were recorded in 6 cases (18.2%): liver disorders (n=4) and electrolytic alterations (n=2). Conclusion and relevance Most patients presented comorbidities and coinfections in addition to COVID-19. Effectiveness of isavuconazol was adequate in approximately one-third of patients, despite the high severity and clinical complexity. Approximately half the patients remained alive at 30 days following completion of treatment. Isavuconazol was well tolerated in most cases.

2.
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. Science and Practice ; 29(Suppl 1):A146, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1874603

ABSTRACT

Background and importanceThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has generated new needs in outpatient care of the hospital pharmacy. Despite the current improvement in the pandemic situation, many of the implemented progress have been maintained. Telepharmacy and home delivery programmes avoid hospital visits for vulnerable patients (elderly, pluripathology, mobility problems).Aim and objectivesTo analyse the degree of satisfaction of patients included in a telepharmacy and home delivery programme.Material and methodsDescriptive retrospective study of patients included in a telepharmacy and home delivery programme between November 2020 and September 2021 was conducted. Electronic clinical history and prescription software Farmatools were used to record data: sex, age, pathology, locality, transport conditions of the medication and number of shipments per patient. A telephone survey was conducted, consisting of four questions about: satisfaction with telepharmacy programme (yes/no), adequate pharmaceutical telephone support (yes/no), medication delivery conditions (correct/incorrect) and global assessment (ranged 1–10). Comments and suggestions were also requested.ResultsFifty-six patients were included, 35 (63%) were women and 21 (37%) men. Mean age was 65 (37–90) years. The pathologies involved were: 11 (20%) infectious diseases, 10 (18%) respiratory, 9 (16%) rheumatic, 8 (14%) neurological, 7 (12%) renal, 5 (9%) haematological, 3 (5%) ophthalmological, 2 (4%) digestive and 1 (2%) allergic. A total of 456 medication shipments were delivered during the study period, with a mean of 8 (2–24) per patient. The shipments were distributed among 31 different localities in the same health area. The medication for 27 (48%) patients required refrigerated transport, and 29 (52%) required ambient temperature. All (100%) patients were satisfied with telepharmacy programme and reported an adequate pharmaceutical telephone support. Medication delivery conditions were considered correct to 54 (96%) patients and incorrect to 2 (4%). Mean global assessment score was 9.6 (8–10). Four (7%) patients suggested an improvement in delivery conditions.Conclusion and relevanceThe survey results indicated a high degree of satisfaction of the patients included in the telepharmacy and home delivery programme. Although this system of pharmaceutical care and distribution of medicines was implemented because of the pandemic, its subsequent maintenance has allowed vulnerable patients to benefit. Further measures could be implemented to improve delivery conditions.References and/or acknowledgementsConflict of interestNo conflict of interest

3.
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. Science and Practice ; 29(Suppl 1):A127-A128, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1874598

ABSTRACT

Background and importanceCefiderocol is a new siderophore cephalosporin for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens such as Acinetobacter baumannii (AB).Aim and objectivesTo describe our clinical experience with cefiderocol use in two SARS-CoV-2 patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to multidrug-resistant AB (MRAB).Material and methodsA descriptive retrospective study on cefiderocol therapy in two patients with MRAB was conducted until 31 Augsut 2021. The electronic medical record was used to collect data: comorbidities, baseline clinical context, treatment, and clinical evolution of patients.ResultsA 49-year-old man with hypertension, obesity and chronic renal insufficiency was diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2. He required orotracheal intubation (OI) and mechanical ventilation (MV). The patient presented VAP after 4 weeks in the intensive care unit (ICU). Panresistant AB was isolated from bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and was treated with cefepime, imipenem, tigecycline and nebulised colistin. Given his poor clinical improvement, cefiderocol 2 g/8 hours (14 days) was initiated. No renal dose adjustment was performed for cefiderocol. Clinical evolution was favourable. The patient remained afebrile and acute phase reactants (APR) decreased. Unfavourable evolution and increased APR were observed on the third day after treatment with cefiderocol, with presence of AB in BAL. The patient died of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome 8 days later.A 65-year-old man with hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes was diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2. He required OI and MV. After 4 weeks in ICU, the patient presented VAP due to MRAB and coinfection with Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Tigecycline, nebulised colistin and ceftazidime/avibactam were used. A clinical worsening was observed and cefiderocol 2 g/8 hours (14 days) and amikacin (5 days) were started. The patient remained afebrile and APR slightly decreased after initiation of cefiderocol and amikacin treatments. BAL culture was negative, although AB colonisation persisted in pharynx. Tigecycline, piperacillin/tazobactam and nebulised colistin were administered. After 71 days in ICU, the patient was transferred to a hospital ward, where he remained for 98 days before discharge.Conclusion and relevanceThe use of cefiderocol led to a slight improvement in two patients with VAP caused by MRAB. One patient died due to multiorgan dysfunction syndrome after cefiderocol therapy, and the other case required subsequent antibiotherapy due to persistence of MRAB.References and/or acknowledgementsConflict of interestNo conflict of interest

4.
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy ; 28(SUPPL 1):A7, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1186297

ABSTRACT

Background and importance A greater benefit was suggested with early treatment with remdesivir against COVID-19. Aim and objectives To develop a systematic review and methodological interpretation of subgroup analyses according to timing of use of remdesivir in COVID-19. Material and methods A bibliographic review in MEDLINE was conducted up to 10 October 2020. The 'Clinical Queries/ Narrow' tool was used with the search strategy: ((Therapy/ Narrow[filter]) AND (remdesivir AND COVID)). Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with subset analysis about early and late use of remdesivir (≤10 vs >10 days from symptom onset, or ≤9 vs >9 days) were selected. The rest of the studies were excluded. All endpoints with subgroup analysis regarding timing of remdesivir use were assessed. Two methodologies were applied. The first considered statistical interaction among subsets, prespecification, biological plausibility and consistency of the subgroup analyses of similar RCTs.1 The second methodology was a validated tool with preliminary questions to discard subset analysis without minimal relevance, and a checklist.2 This checklist assigned a score related to a recommendation for applicability of subgroup analysis in clinical practice. Results 20 results were found after review;16 studies were excluded because they were not RCTs and 1 study had no efficacy evaluation of remdesivir. Therefore, three RCTs were selected. Endpoints considered were: time to clinical improvement, mortality, viral load, and clinical status at days 11 and 15. According to the first methodology, no statistical interaction was observed in the outcomes of the RCTs. Prespecification was established in time to clinical improvement, and clinical status at day 15 of an RCT. Biological plausibility was described in the subset analysis of each endpoint of the RCTs. No consistency of subgroup analyses were found. The second methodology discarded the applicability of the subset analysis through preliminary questions in two RCTs because of the absence of minimal relevance. For the third RCT, 'null' recommendation (score -3 points) of clinical applicability was reached for clinical status at day 11. Conclusion and relevance No differences were found between early and late use of remdesivir in COVID-19. We developed the first study with a systematic review and methodology about subgroup analysis of timing of use of remdesivir.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL