Comparison of drug survival between infliximab and adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease.

Background Conventional therapy of inflammatory bowel disease with traditional immunosuppressant medication is increasingly being replaced by biological agents. However, the response to these biological agents may be lost over time, with discontinuation being a marker of loss of effectiveness. There are few published reports on the treatment drug survival of infliximab and adalimumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Objective This study compared the drug survival of infliximab versus adalimumab as first- and second-line treatments, identified factors associated with drug survival, and described reasons for treatment withdrawal. Setting A pharmacy department of a university hospital in Spain. Method A retrospective single-centre cohort study of all patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with biological agents between 2008 and 2017 at a regional referral hospital. The primary outcome was drug survival and associated factors during a follow-up of 52 months. Main outcome measure Drug survival of infliximab versus adalimumab. Results One hundred thirty-four patients with inflammatory bowel disease (73.9% Crohn's disease and 26.1% ulcerative colitis) were treated with biological therapy. The overall mean drug survival of first-line treatment with an anti-tumour necrosis factor agent was 18.6 months (SD 14.9), with mean values of 20.2 months (SD 16.6) for adalimumab and 17.1 months (SD 13.1) for infliximab. As a second-line treatment, the drug survival of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents was 17.9 months (SD 15.6), with mean values of 22.9 months (SD 17.1) for adalimumab and 12.5 months (SD 11.7) for infliximab. The difference in time to discontinuation at 52 months of follow-up between the infliximab and adalimumab subgroups, as either first- or second-line treatment, was not statistically significant (p = 0.547 and p = 0.676, respectively). Therapeutic drug monitoring was the only factor associated with greater drug survival in first-line treatment (HR 0.27; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.15-0.50) and second-line treatment (HR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.65). Secondary failure to treatment was the most frequent reason for withdrawal. Conclusion Infliximab and adalimumab showed similar drug survival as first- and second-line anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments. Therapeutic drug monitoring was associated with higher drug survival for both first- and second-line anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments.

Hypoglycemic treatment of diabetic patients in the Emergency Department / Tratamiento hipoglucemiante del paciente diabético en el Servicio de Urgencias Carmen Caballero

Objectives: To analyze if the hypoglycemic therapy prescribed in the Emergency Department adapts to the consensus recommendations available, as well as to assess its clinical impact. Methods: A descriptive observational study, which included patients awaiting hospital admission, who were in the Observation Ward of the Emergency Department and had been previously diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, and were receiving treatment with hypoglycemic drugs at home. The management of antidiabetic treatment and its clinical impact were assessed. Results: 78 patients were included. At admission to the Emergency Department, treatment was modified for 91% of patients, and omitted for 9%. The most prescribed treatment was sliding scale insulin (68%). The treatments prescribed coincided in a 16.7% with the recommendations by the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine. After intervention by the Pharmacist, the omission descended to 1.3%, and the adaptation to the recommendations increased to 20.5%. Comparing patients whose treatment coincided with the recommendations and those who did not, the clinical impact was respectively: mean glycemia at 24 hours: 138.3 ± 49.5 mg/dL versus 182.7 ± 97.1 mg/dL (p = 0.688); mean rescues with insulin lispro: ± 1.6 versus 1.5 ± 1.8 (p = 0.293); mean units of insulin lispro administered: 4.6 ± 12.7 IU versus 6.6 ± 11.3 IU (p = 0.155). Conclusions: We found antidiabetic prescriptions to have a low adaptation to consensus recommendations. These results are in line with other studies, showing an abuse of sliding scale regimen as single hypoglycemic treatment (AU)

Objetivo: Analizar la adecuación del tratamiento hipoglucemiante prescrito en el Servicio de Urgencias a las recomendaciones de consenso disponibles, así como evaluar su repercusión clínica. Método: Estudio observacional descriptivo. Se incluyeron pacientes que se encontraban en la sala de observación del Servicio de Urgencias pendientes de ingreso hospitalario, con diagnóstico previo de diabetes mellitus y en tratamiento domiciliario con fármacos hipoglucemiantes. Se evaluó el manejo del tratamiento antidiabético y su repercusión clínica. Resultados: Se incluyeron 78 pacientes. Al ingreso en el Servicio de Urgencias se modificó el tratamiento en el 91% de los pacientes, y se omitió en el 9%, siendo el tratamiento más pautado los rescates con insulina rápida (68%). Los tratamientos prescritos se ajustaron en un 16,7% a las recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias. Tras la intervención del farmacéutico, la omisión descendió al 1,3% y la adecuación a las recomendaciones aumentó al 20,5%. Comparando los pacientes cuyo tratamiento se ajustó a las recomendaciones y los que no, la repercusión clínica fue, respectivamente: media de glucemia a las 24 horas 138,3 ± 49,5 mg/dL versus 182,7 ± 97,1 mg/dL (p = 0,688); media de rescates con insulina lispro 1 ± 1,6 versus 1,5 ± 1,8 (p = 0,293); media de unidades de insulina lispro administradas 4,6 ± 12,7 UI frente a 6,6 ± 11,3 UI (p = 0,155). Conclusiones: Encontramos una baja adecuación de las prescripciones de antidiabéticos a las recomendaciones de consenso. Estos resultados van en línea con otros estudios, objetivándose un abuso de las pautas de rescate con insulina rápida como único tratamiento hipoglucemiante (AU)

Hypoglycemic treatment of diabetic patients in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze if the hypoglycemic therapy prescribed in the Emergency Department adapts to the consensus recommendations available, as well as to assess its clinical impact. METHODS: A descriptive observational study, which included patients awaiting hospital admission, who were in the Observation Ward of the Emergency Department and had been previously diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, and were receiving treatment with hypoglycemic drugs at home. The management of antidiabetic treatment and its clinical impact were assessed. RESULTS: 78 patients were included. At admission to the Emergency Department, treatment was modified for 91% of patients, and omitted for 9%. The most prescribed treatment was sliding scale insulin (68%). The treatments prescribed coincided in a 16.7% with the recommendations by the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine. After intervention by the Pharmacist, the omission descended to 1.3%, and the adaptation to the recommendations increased to 20.5%. Comparing patients whose treatment coincided with the recommendations and those who did not, the clinical impact was respectively: mean glycemia at 24 hours: 138.3 } 49.5 mg/dL versus 182.7 } 97.1 mg/dL (p = 0.688); mean rescues with insulin lispro: } 1.6 versus 1.5 } 1.8 (p = 0.293); mean units of insulin lispro administered: 4.6 } 12.7 IU versus 6.6 } 11.3 IU (p = 0.155). CONCLUSIONS: We found antidiabetic prescriptions to have a low adaptation to consensus recommendations. These results are in line with other studies, showing an abuse of sliding scale regimen as single hypoglycemic treatment.

Objetivo: Analizar la adecuacion del tratamiento hipoglucemiante prescrito en el Servicio de Urgencias a las recomendaciones de consenso disponibles, asi como evaluar su repercusion clinica. Método: Estudio observacional descriptivo. Se incluyeron pacientes que se encontraban en la sala de observacion del Servicio de Urgencias pendientes de ingreso hospitalario, con diagnostico previo de diabetes mellitus y en tratamiento domiciliario con farmacos hipoglucemiantes. Se evaluo el manejo del tratamiento antidiabetico y su repercusion clinica. Resultados: Se incluyeron 78 pacientes. Al ingreso en el Servicio de Urgencias se modifico el tratamiento en el 91% de los pacientes, y se omitio en el 9%, siendo el tratamiento mas pautado los rescates con insulina rapida (68%). Los tratamientos prescritos se ajustaron en un 16,7% a las recomendaciones de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias. Tras la intervencion del farmaceutico, la omision descendio al 1,3% y la adecuacion a las recomendaciones aumento al 20,5%. Comparando los pacientes cuyo tratamiento se ajusto a las recomendaciones y los que no, la repercusion clinica fue, respectivamente: media de glucemia a las 24 horas 138,3 } 49,5 mg/dL versus 182,7 } 97,1 mg/dL (p = 0,688); media de rescates con insulina lispro 1 } 1,6 versus 1,5 } 1,8 (p = 0,293); media de unidades de insulina lispro administradas 4,6 } 12,7 UI frente a 6,6 } 11,3 UI (p = 0,155). Conclusiones: Encontramos una baja adecuacion de las prescripciones de antidiabeticos a las recomendaciones de consenso. Estos resultados van en linea con otros estudios, objetivandose un abuso de las pautas de rescate con insulina rapida como unico tratamiento hipoglucemiante.