ABSTRACT
Objetivos: Identificar mujeres posmenopáusicas con riesgo de osteoporosis mediante ultrasonografía ósea cuantitativa y valorar la intervención médica tras la determinación de la densidad mineral ósea. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo transversal desarrollado en una farmacia comunitaria mediante la selección de las mujeres posmenopáusicas que acudieron durante el mes de junio de 2005. Se consideró criterio de exclusión estar en tratamiento con calcio, vitamina D, terapia hormonal sustitutiva, raloxifeno, calcitonina o bifosfonatos. A todas las mujeres que acceden a participar se les realizó un ultrasonografía ósea en el calcáneo derecho con el dispositivo Sahara (Hologic). Se aplicaron los criterios de clasificación de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, que clasifican a los pacientes con una DMO de más de 2,5 desviación estándar inferior a la media de una adulto joven (T-Score < -2,5) como osteoporótico, y a los pacientes con T-Score entre -1 y -2,5 como osteopénicos. Resultados: De las 100 mujeres estudiadas, 11 (11%) presentaban riesgo de osteoporosis y 61 (61%) riesgo de osteopenia. El 18,5% de las mujeres con un índice de masa corporal < 30 presentaba riesgo de osteoporosis y el 63% osteopenia. Conclusiones: La ultrasonografía ósea cuantitativa constituye una herramienta útil en farmacia comunitaria para el cribado de osteoporosis y supone una nueva vía de integración en la atención sanitaria (AU)
Objectives: To identify postmenopausal women with risk of osteoporosis through quantitative ultrasound imaging (QUI) and to value the medical intervention after the determination of the bone mineral density (BMD). Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study developed in a community pharmacy. During the month of June of 2005 the community pharmacy enrolled postmenopausal women into the study. Women in treatment with calcium, vitamin D, hormone replacement therapy, estrogen receptor modulators, calcitonin or biphosphonates were considered criteria for exclusion. To all the women that consent to participate, the pharmacist measured BMD with the device Sahara Hologic Ultrasound Bone Densitometer at right calcaneus. Following the World Health Organization, women were classified as osteoporotic if their T-Score was less than -2.5 and as osteopenic if their T-Score ranged between -2.5 and -1.0. Results: Of the 100 women screened, 11 (11%) presented risk of osteoporosis and 61 (61%) of osteopenia. The 18.5% postmenopausal women with body mass index lesser than 30 presented risk of osteoporosis and the 63.0% osteopenia. Conclusions: The QUI constitutes a useful tool in community pharmacy for the screening of osteoporosis and it supposes a greater integration of the community pharmacy within the health care (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal , Pharmacies/trends , Bone Diseases, Metabolic , Mass Screening , Risk Factors , Body Mass Index , Patient Selection , Bone Density , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To identify postmenopausal women with risk of osteoporosis through quantitative ultrasound imaging (QUI) and to value the medical intervention after the determination of the bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: Cross-sectional descriptive study developed in a community pharmacy. During the month of June of 2005 the community pharmacy enrolled postmenopausal women into the study. Women in treatment with calcium, vitamin D, hormone replacement therapy, estrogen receptor modulators, calcitonin or biphosphonates were considered criteria for exclusion. To all the women that consent to participate, the pharmacist measured BMD with the device Sahara Hologic Ultrasound Bone Densitometer at right calcaneus. Following the World Health Organization, women were classified as osteoporotic if their T-Score was less than -2.5 and as osteopenic if their T-Score ranged between -2.5 and -1.0. RESULTS: Of the 100 women screened, 11 (11%) presented risk of osteoporosis and 61 (61%) of osteopenia. The 18.5% postmenopausal women with body mass index lesser than 30 presented risk of osteoporosis and the 63.0% osteopenia. CONCLUSIONS: The QUI constitutes a useful tool in community pharmacy for the screening of osteoporosis and it supposes a greater integration of the community pharmacy within the health care.
ABSTRACT
Objetivos: Conocer la habilidad respecto a las maniobras de los diferentes sistemas de inhalación de pacientes de una farmacia comunitaria con tratamiento inhalador. Métodos: Estudio observacional prospectivo. El estudio se realiza en una farmacia comunitaria de Benalmádena (Málaga) con los pacientes que acuden por su medicación antiasmática inhalada durante 3 meses. A los que acceden participar en el estudio se les hace una encuesta que recoge: datos del paciente, datos del medicamento y médico prescriptor y datos referentes a la evaluación de la técnica inhalatoria (TI). Resultados: La TI fue incorrecta en un 71,7% de los pacientes (89,5% en los que utilizan inhalador de cartucho presurizado (ICP), 83,3% en ICP más cámara, 63,6% en Accuhaler y 52,9% en Turbuhaler). La maniobra con mayor porcentaje de error fue apnea al finalizar la inspiración (73,7% en ICP, 50,0% en ICP más cámara, 58,8% en Turbuhaler y 54,5% en Accuhaler). Conclusiones: En nuestro entorno, un elevado porcentaje de pacientes realiza de forma incorrecta la TI. Será necesario revisar nuestro servicio de dispensación activa para mejorar la educación sanitaria en manejo de SI entre los pacientes de la farmacia comunitaria (AU)
Objectives: To determine how skilled patients of a community pharmacy are in performing different steps in the use of different inhaler devices. Methods: Prospective observational study. The study took place in a community pharmacy in Benalmadena (Malaga) with the patients who acquired their antiasmathic inhaled medication during 3 months. A questionnaire was made on those agreeing to participate in the study which collected: patients data, drug and prescribing physicians data and data referring to the inhalation tecnique (IT) Main results: IT was incorrect in 71,7% of the patients (89,5% of those who used a pressurized canister inhaler (PCI), 83,3% of those who used a PCI + spacer, 63,6% of those who used an Accuhaler and 52,9% of those who used a Turbuhaler). The step with a highest error rate was holding the breath after inhalation (73,7% in PCI, 58,8% in Turbuhaler, 54,5% in Accuhaler and 50,0% in PCI + spacer). Conclusions: In our community pharmacy there is widespread incorrect use of systems for administering drugs through the inhalatory airway. This shows the need to check our active dispensing service to improve health education in the use of inhaler devices (AU)
