Real-world prevalence and consequences of potential drug-drug interactions in the first-wave COVID-19 treatments.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Initial treatment recommendations of COVID-19 were based on the use of antimicrobial drugs and immunomodulators. Although information on drug interactions was available for other pathologies, there was little evidence in the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this study was to analyse the potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) derived from the medication used in COVID-19 patients in the first pandemic wave and to evaluate the real consequences of such interactions in clinical practice. METHODS: Cohort, retrospective and single-centre study carried out in a third-level hospital. Adult patients, admitted with suspected COVID-19, that received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon beta 1-b or tocilizumab and with any pDDIs according to "Liverpool Drug Interaction Group" between March and May 2020 were included. The possible consequences of pDDIs at the QTc interval level or any other adverse event according to the patient's medical record were analysed. A descriptive analysis was carried out to assess possible factors that may affect the QTc interval prolongation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Two hundred and eighteen (62.3%) patients of a total of 350 patients admitted with COVID-19 had at least one pDDI. There were 598 pDDIs. Thirty-eight pDDIs (6.3%) were categorized as not recommended or contraindicated. The mean value difference between baseline and pDDI posterior ECG was 412.3 ms ± 25.8 ms vs. 426.3 ms ± 26.7 ms; p < 0.001. Seven patients (5.7%) had a clinically significant alteration of QTc. A total of 44 non-cardiological events (7.3%) with a possible connection to a pDDI were detected. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The number of pDDIs in patients admitted for COVID-19 in the first pandemic wave was remarkably high. However, clinical consequences occurred in a low percentage of patients. Interactions involving medications that would be contraindicated for concomitant administration are rare. Knowledge of these pDDIs and their consequences could help to establish appropriate therapeutic strategies in patients with COVID-19 or other diseases with these treatments.

Haemophagocytic syndrome and paradoxical reaction to tuberculostatics after treatment with infliximab.

CASE: A 44-year-old man was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, on treatment with infliximab. After three doses, he was admitted to hospital with fever, fatigue and nausea. A bone marrow biopsy confirmed haemophagocytic syndrome. He was treated with immunoglobulin, cyclosporine and corticosteroids. CT scan revealed tuberculosis. Tuberculostatic treatment was started 26 days after admission. One month later, he was transferred intensive care with septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome. After improvement, he was transferred to the medical ward and later discharged. Two weeks after discharge, he was readmitted with a suspected paradoxical reaction (PR) to tuberculostatics and treated with prednisone. He was discharged 15 days later. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with anti-TNF therapy it may be advisable to monitor the signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. HPS is a rare complication of rheumatic diseases. The possibility of developing a PR in immunosuppressed patients treated with antituberculous should be considered.

[Pharmaceutical care strategies to prevent medication errors]. / Estrategias de atención farmacéutica para prevenir errores de medicación.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of implementing new programs to improve the quality of the pharmaceutical care and unit-dose distribution system for in-patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational and prospective study was carried out in a general hospital during two different six-monthly period. Transcription and dispensation errors were evaluated in twelve wards during the first six months. Then, two new measures were introduced: the first- reference ward-pharmacist and the second-a new protocol for checking medication on the ward. Results were evaluated by SPSS v. 14 program. RESULTS: In the transcription evaluation, units without a ward pharmacist did not improve. Transcription errors significantly decreased in three units: gynaecology-urology (3.24% vs. 0.52%), orthopaedic (2% vs. 1.69%) and neurology-pneumology (2.81% vs. 2.02%). In dispensing, only units with the new protocol decreased their medication errors (1.77% vs. 1.24%). CONCLUSIONS: The participation of pharmacists in multidisciplinary teams and exhaustive protocols for dispensing medication were effective in detecting and decreasing medication errors in patients.