ABSTRACT
Introducción: El objetivo del manuscrito es describir la vía clínica de tratamiento precoz de pacientes con infección aguda por SARS-CoV-2 y evaluar los primeros resultados de su implementación. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de la implementación de una vía clínica de tratamiento en pacientes no hospitalizados (del 1 de enero al 30 de junio de 2022). Elaboración de vía clínica: sistemas de detección y derivación desde Atención Primaria, Servicio de Urgencias, especialidades médicas y sistema de detección automatizada; evaluación clínica y administración de tratamiento en hospital de día COVID-19, y seguimiento clínico posterior. Variables explicativas: demográficas, comorbilidad, estado vacunal, vías de derivación y administración de tratamiento. Variables de resultado: hospitalización y muerte a los 30 días, toxicidad grado 2-3 relacionada con el tratamiento. Resultados: Se administró tratamiento a 262 pacientes (53,4% mujeres, mediana de edad 60 años). Criterio de indicación de tratamiento: inmunosupresión (68,3%), y la combinación de edad, estado vacunal y comorbilidad en el resto. El 47,3% de los pacientes recibieron remdesivir, el 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, el 13,4% sotrovimab y el 2,4% tratamiento combinado, con una mediana de 4 días tras el inicio de síntomas. El 6,1% de los pacientes precisó ingreso hospitalario, el 3,8% por progresión de COVID-19. Ningún paciente falleció. El 18,7% presentaron toxicidad grado 2-3: 89,8% disgeusia y sabor metálico relacionado con nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Siete pacientes interrumpieron tratamiento por toxicidad. Conclusión: La creación e implementación de una vía clínica para pacientes no hospitalizados con infección por SARS-CoV-2 es efectiva y permite la accesibilidad temprana y la equidad de los tratamientos actualmente disponibles.(AU)
Introduction: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. Methods: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30, 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. Outcome variables: hospitalization and death within 30 days, grade 23 toxicity related to treatment. Results: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53.4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosuppression (68.3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest; 47.3% of the patients received remdesivir, 35.9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13.4% sotrovimab and 2.4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6.1% of the patients, 3.8% related to COVID-19 progression. No patient died. Toxicity grade 23 toxicity was reported in 18.7%, 89.8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Conclusion: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , /epidemiology , Critical Pathways , Epidemiology, Descriptive , Retrospective Studies , Communicable DiseasesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest 47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Pathways , Lactams , Leucine , Nitriles , Proline , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Infant , Male , Ritonavir , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Background: About 70% of neurologists report that PD patients do not get their medication properly when hospitalized, and 33% are prescribed contraindicated drugs. Objectives: To execute medication reconciliation (MedRec) focused on antiparkinsonian drugs to identify, characterize and, eventually, prevent medication errors, thus promoting therapeutic quality and safety in daily practice. Methods: An interventional, single-center, 1 year, prospective study. All the patients who were hospitalized and had, at least, one active prescription containing an antiparkinsonian drug at hospital admission were included. MedRec was performed by following a three-phased check: inpatient electronic prescription validation after assessing the outpatient medication schedule, review of the latest clinical report emitted by the Neurology Department/General Practitioner, and pharmacist-driven interview of the patient and/or caregiver to confirm the information regarding medication gathered. Results: A total of 171 admission episodes from 132 patients were registered (February 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022). Of 224 prescription lines involving antiparkinsonian drugs, 179 contained, at least, one medication error (59.8%). Commission errors (91.62%) were more frequent than omitted drugs (8.38%). The most common medication errors were related to timing (41.90%), frequency (21.23%), and dosing (19.55%). The implementation of this program prevented the erroneous administration of 2716 antiparkinsonian doses, 60% of the total number of doses prescribed. Interestingly, a significant relationship between the number of medication errors and having levodopa prescribed was evidenced (P < 0.05). A contraindicated drug was prescribed in almost one-third of the episodes (29.82%). Conclusions: Clinical pharmacists' implementation of an antiparkinsonians reconciliation program sharply reduced medication errors and prescription of contraindicated drugs.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of COVID19 pandemic on the incidence of health-care associated Clostridioides difficile infection (HA-CDI). METHODS: Retrospective study conducted in the Hospital Universitario de Valme (HUV) and the Hospital General Universitario de Alicante (HGUA) in Spain between January 2019 and February 2021. The study period was divided into non-COVID19 period (2019 and months from 2020 to 2021 with ≤30 hospitalized COVID19 patients) and COVID19 period (months from 2020 to 2021 with >30 COVID19 patients). HA-CDI incidence rates (IR) were calculated as the number of new CDI cases per 10.000 occupied bed-days (OBD) and antimicrobial consumption by means of the defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 OBD. RESULTS: During the COVID19 period, HA-CDI IR in the HUV was 2.6 per 10.000 OBD, which was lower than what was observed during the non-COVID19 period (4.1 per 10.000 OBD; p = 0.1). In the HGUA, HA-CDI IR during COVID19 period was 3.9 per 10.000 OBD, which was not significantly different to the IR observed during the non-COVID19 period (3.7 per 10.000 OBD; p = 0.8). There was a slight increase in the total antibiotic consumption during COVID19 period in both hospitals, with significant increases of certain high-risk antibiotics as cephalosporins. CONCLSUSIONS: HA-CDI incidence has not increased during the COVID19 pandemic in two tertiary centers in Spain, in spite of a slightly higher antibiotic consumption during the COVID19 period in both hospitals. These findings suggest that, in the presence of strict infection control measures, hospital antibiotic consumption might have a lower impact than expected on HA-CDI.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clostridioides difficile , Clostridium Infections , Cross Infection , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clostridium Infections/drug therapy , Clostridium Infections/epidemiology , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Pandemics , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Background. Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality among inpatients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a stewardship program on clinical and antimicrobial therapy-related outcomes in patients with bacteraemia. Methods. Single-centre, before-and-after quasi-experimental study in adult inpatients. Over 1 January 2013 to 31 June 2013 all patients aged 18 years or older with a bacteraemia (interven-tion group, N=200) were compared to a historical cohort (1 Janu-ary 2012 to 31 December 2012) (control group, N=200). Results. Following blood culture results and adjusting for potential confounders, the stewardship program was associated with more changes to antibiotic regimens (adjusted odds ratio [ORa]: 4.6, 95% CI 2.9, 7.4), more adjustments to antimicrobial therapy (ORa: 2.4, 95% CI 1.5, 3.8), and better source control in the first five days (ORa 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0, 2.7). In the subgroup that initially received inappropriate empiric treatment (n=138), the intervention was associated with more antibiotic changes (OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.8, 8.5) and a better choice of definitive antimicrobial therapy (OR 2.3 95% CI: 1.2, 4.6). There were also more antibiotic changes in the subgroups with both Gram-negative (OR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6, 4.9; n=217) and Gram-positive (OR: 4.6, 95% CI: 1.8, 9.9; n=135) bacteraemia among those receiving the intervention, while the Gram-positive subgroup also received more appropriate definitive antimicrobial therapy (OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.8, 8.8). Conclusion. The stewardship program improved treatment of patients with bacteraemia and appropriateness of therapy (AU)
Introducción. Las bacteriemias están asociadas con una elevada morbilidad y mortalidad en pacientes hospitalizados. El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar el impacto de un programa de intervención clínica y de terapia antimicrobiana en pacientes con bacteriemia. Material. Estudio en un centro tipo cuasi-experimental pre y post-intervención en pacientes adultos hospitalizados. Desde 1 enero 2013 a 31 junio 2013, todos los pacientes mayores de 18 años en los que se identificaba una bacteriemia (grupo de intervención) se compararon con una cohorte histórica de bacteriemia (1 enero 2012 a 31 diciembre 2012) (grupo control). Resultados. Se incluyeron 200 pacientes en cada grupo. Después de ajustar por los posibles factores de confusión y tras conocer el resultado de los hemocultivos, el grupo de intervención tuvo más cambios de antibióticos (Odds ratio ajustada [ORa]: 4,6, intervalo de confianza [IC] 95%: 2,9-7,4), mayor adecuación del tratamiento antibiótico (ORa: 2,4, IC 95%: 1,5-3,8) y mayor control de la infección en los primeros cinco días (ORa 1,6, IC 95%: 1,0-2,7). En el subgrupo de pacientes que seguían un tratamiento inadecuado cuando se identificó el microorganismo en el hemocultivo (n =138), la intervención se asoció con un mayor cambio de antibiótico (OR: 3,9, IC 95%: 1,8-8,5) y una mejor elección final del antibiótico (OR: 2.3; IC 95%: 1.2-4.6). En el subgrupo de bacteriemia por gramnegativos (n=217), el programa de intervención en bacteriemia se asoció con un mayor cambio de antibiótico (OR: 2,8; IC 95%: 1,6-4,9) y en el subgrupo de bacteriemia por microorganismos grampositivos (n=135), el programa de intervención indujo un mayor cambio en el uso de antibióticos (OR: 4,6, IC 95%: 1,8-9,9) y una mejor elección final del tratamiento (OR: 3,9; 95% CI: 1,8-8,8). Conclusión. El programa de intervención en bacteriemia mejoró el tratamiento de los pacientes con bacteriemia y la adecuación del mismo (AU)
