[Impact of a quality improvement plan on the validation of drug prescriptions on the safety of the hospitalised patient]. / Impacto de un plan de mejora de calidad en la validación de la prescripción de fármacos sobre la seguridad de los pacientes hospitalizados.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medication errors are the most common adverse events in healthcare. Pharmaceutical validation (PV) seeks to reduce them. The aims of this study were to assess the impact of the introduction of an automated tool for the validation (VPAT) of the high clinical relevance drugs prescription (HCRD) over time of pharmaceutical intervention (PI), and to quantify the number of medication errors detected before and after its implementation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A two phase retrospective-observational single centre study was designed. A pre-intervention phase (Pre-P): PV of beds with Unit Dose Dispensing (October 2015 - February 2016), was followed by a post-intervention phase (Post-P): PV using a VPAT of HCRD in hospital patients (October 2016 - February 2017). HCRD were selected from the list of high-risk drugs of Institute for Safe Medication Practices. The data was obtained from the PI record (Access®) and the computerised prescription. The variables collected were: age and gender of the patients included, data of drugs prescription, and time to PI. RESULTS: A total of 477 PI were analysed in 404 patients, with a mean age of 65.9±19.5 years (53.22% women). The mean time up to PI was 25.6±24.72h in the Pre-P, and 18.87±20.44h in the Post-P (P=0.01). In Pre-P, 106 PI were performed (35.85% prevention of adverse reactions) compared to 371 PI (39.62% medication reconciliation) in Post-P. CONCLUSIONS: The VPAT enabled a greater number of medication errors to be detected and intervened in hospitalised patients, with a significantly reduced time to PI.

Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. METHOD: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. RESULTS: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. CONCLUSIONS: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.

Objetivo: Analizar las intervenciones farmacéuticas realizadas con el apoyo de un sistema automático de validación de tratamientos vs. el método tradicional sin apoyo informático. Metodos: El programa automatizado, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS ® version 0, cuenta con 925.052 celdas con información de aproximadamente 20.000 medicamentos, analizando dosis, vías de administración, días de tratamiento, dosificación en insuficiencia renal y hepática, control de interacciones, de medicamentos semejantes y de medicamentos por vía enteral. Durante ocho días distribuidos en cuatro hospitales diferentes (alta complejidad con más de 1.000 camas, intermedio de 400 camas, geriátrico y monográfico), los mismos pacientes y tratamientos se analizaron mediante los dos sistemas. Resultados: Se han analizado 3.490 pacientes diferentes con 42.155 tratamientos. Por el sistema tradicional se han realizado 238 intervenciones (0,56% intervenciones/posibles intervenciones) vs. 580 (1,38%) con el automatizado. Las intervenciones farmacéuticas muy significativas fueron 0,14 vs. 0,46%, las significativas 0,38 vs. 0,90%, las no significativas 0,05 vs. 0,01%. Las intervenciones fueron del 1,85% al utilizar los dos sistemas vs. 0.56% usando solo el sistema tradicional. El sistema tradicional detectó el 30,5% de las posibles intervenciones, sin embargo con el sistema automático se detectaron el 84% de dichas intervenciones. Conclusiones: La automatización multiplica entre 2,43 a 3,64 veces las intervenciones farmacéuticas. En base a los resultados de este estudio el sistema tradicional de validación debería ser modificado, apoyándose en sistemas automatizados. El programa automático funciona en diferentes hospitales.

Revisión de las reacciones de hipersensibilidad a antineoplásicos / Review of hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents

Objetivo Revisar las características y el manejo de las reacciones de hipersensibilidad causadas por agentes antineoplásicos. Método Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en las bases de datos Pubmed y EMBASE de los últimos 10 años. Resultados Casi todos los quimioterápicos tienen potencial para causar una reacción de hipersensibilidad, pero determinados grupos han sido asociados con un mayor riesgo, como los derivados del platino, los taxanos, las asparraginasas, los anticuerpos monoclonales y las epipodofilotoxinas. Las manifestaciones clínicas de estas reacciones son variables e impredecibles incluyendo síntomas cutáneos, respiratorios, cardiacos y gastrointestinales. El mecanismo asociado con su desarrollo aún no se conoce en su totalidad. El diagnóstico se basa en los signos y síntomas que desarrolle el paciente y en la realización de pruebas cutáneas. El manejo de los pacientes que sufran una reacción de hipersensibilidad a un quimioterápico variará según el grado de severidad de la reacción, de la necesidad de continuar con el tratamiento y de las alternativas terapéuticas disponibles. Conclusiones Al producirse un incremento progresivo en la utilización de los agentes quimioterápicos, se puede esperar un aumento de la incidencia de las reacciones de hipersensibilidad. Los protocolos de desensibilización destacan como una alternativa que nos van a permitir reintroducir en la terapia del paciente el agente causal de la reacción de hipersensibilidad. Su utilización debe valorarse individualmente sopesando los beneficios y los riesgos (AU)

Objective To review the characteristics and management of hypersensitivity reactions caused by antineoplastic agents. Method We conducted a search in the Pubmed and EMBASE databases for the last 10 years. Results Almost all chemotherapeutic agents have the potential to cause hypersensitivity reactions, but some groups have been associated with increased risk, such as platinum compounds, taxanes, asparaginase, monoclonal antibodies and epipodophyllotoxins. The clinical manifestations of these reactions are variable and unpredictable, including symptoms affecting the skin and the pulmonary, cardiac and gastrointestinal systems. The mechanism associated with their development is not yet fully understood. Diagnosis is based on patients’ signs and symptoms and skin testing. The management of patients who suffer a hypersensitivity reaction to a chemotherapeutic agent varies with the severity of the reaction, the need to continue treatment, and the availability of alternative therapies. Conclusions Due to a progressive increase in the use of chemotherapeutic agents an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions is to be expected. Desensitisation protocols are a noteworthy alternative that make it possible to re-initiate patients’ therapy with the causative agent of the hypersensitivity reaction. Their use should be assessed individually, weighing risks and benefits (AU)

Review of hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents.

OBJECTIVE: To review the characteristics and management of hypersensitivity reactions caused by antineoplastic agents. METHOD: We conducted a search in the Pubmed and EMBASE databases for the last 10 years. RESULTS: Almost all chemotherapeutic agents have the potential to cause hypersensitivity reactions, but some groups have been associated with increased risk, such as platinum compounds, taxanes, asparaginase, monoclonal antibodies and epipodophyllotoxins. The clinical manifestations of these reactions are variable and unpredictable, including symptoms affecting the skin and the pulmonary, cardiac and gastrointestinal systems. The mechanism associated with their development is not yet fully understood. Diagnosis is based on patients' signs and symptoms and skin testing. The management of patients who suffer a hypersensitivity reaction to a chemotherapeutic agent varies with the severity of the reaction, the need to continue treatment, and the availability of alternative therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a progressive increase in the use of chemotherapeutic agents an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions is to be expected. Desensitisation protocols are a noteworthy alternative that make it possible to re-initiate patients' therapy with the causative agent of the hypersensitivity reaction. Their use should be assessed individually, weighing risks and benefits.