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.

CYP3A5 genetic polymorphism in HIV-patients

Poster presented at the From Basic Sciences to Clinical Research - First International Congress of CiiEM. Egas Moniz, Caparica, Portugal, 27-28 November 2015

Predicted residual activity of rilpivirine in HIV-1 infected patients failing therapy including NNRTIs efavirenz or nevirapine

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Long-term benefit of early pre-reperfusion metoprolol administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Results from the Metocard-CNIC trial (Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection during an Acute Myocardial Infarction)

The goal of this trial was to study the long-term effects of intravenous (IV) metoprolol administration before reperfusion on left ventricular (LV) function and clinical events. Early IV metoprolol during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been shown to reduce infarct size when used in conjunction with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). The METOCARD-CNIC (Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial recruited 270 patients with Killip class ≤II anterior STEMI presenting early after symptom onset (<6 h) and randomized them to pre-reperfusion IV metoprolol or control group. Long-term magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on 202 patients (101 per group) 6 months after STEMI. Patients had a minimal 12-month clinical follow-up. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at the 6 months MRI was higher after IV metoprolol (48.7 ± 9.9% vs. 45.0 ± 11.7% in control subjects; adjusted treatment effect 3.49%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44% to 6.55%; p = 0.025). The occurrence of severely depressed LVEF (≤35%) at 6 months was significantly lower in patients treated with IV metoprolol (11% vs. 27%, p = 0.006). The proportion of patients fulfilling Class I indications for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was significantly lower in the IV metoprolol group (7% vs. 20%, p = 0.012). At a median follow-up of 2 years, occurrence of the pre-specified composite of death, heart failure admission, reinfarction, and malignant arrhythmias was 10.8% in the IV metoprolol group versus 18.3% in the control group, adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.55; 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.04; p = 0.065. Heart failure admission was significantly lower in the IV metoprolol group (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.015 to 0.95; p = 0.046). In patients with anterior Killip class ≤II STEMI undergoing pPCI, early IV metoprolol before reperfusion resulted in higher long-term LVEF, reduced incidence of severe LV systolic dysfunction and ICD indications, and fewer heart failure admissions.

Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among cardiogenic shock patients. Prognostic and therapeutic implications

Cardiogenic shock (CS) has a poor prognosis. The heterogeneity in the mortality through different subgroups suggests that some factors can be useful to perform risk stratification and guide management. We aimed to find predictors of in-hospital mortality in these patients. We analyzed all cases of cardiogenic shock due to medical conditions admitted in our intensive acute cardiovascular care unity from November 2010 till November 2015. Clinical, biochemical and hemodynamic variables were registered, as was the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile at 24 h of CS diagnosis. From a total of 281 patients, 28 died within the first 24 h and were not included in the analysis. A total of 253 patients survived the first 24 h, mean age was 68.8 ± 14.4 years, and 174 (68.8%) were men. Etiologies: acute coronary syndrome 146 (57.7%), acute heart failure 60 (23.7%), arrhythmias 35 (13.8%), and others 12 (4.8%). A total of 91 patients (36.0%) died during hospitalization. We found the following independent predictors of in-hospital mortality: age (odds ratio [OR] 1.032, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003–1.062), blood glucose (OR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001–1.008), heart rate (OR 1.014, 95% CI 1.001–1.028), and INTERMACS profile (OR 0.168, 95% CI 0.107–0.266). In patients with CS the INTERMACS profile at 24 h of diagnosis was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. This and other prognostic variables (age, blood glucose, and heart rate) may be useful for risk stratification and to select appropriate medical or invasive interventions.

Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens

The aim is tassess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%). A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘condensed’ regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘conservative’ regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in (‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’) 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for ‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/‘condensed’ vs. high-dose/‘conservative’ and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/‘conservative’ vs. low-dose/‘condensed’. Initiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group.

The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and its Association with Quality of Life in Ambulatory Patients Receiving Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the scored Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) tool as an outcome measure in clinical nutrition practice and determine its association with quality of life (QoL). DESIGN: A prospective 4 week study assessing the nutritional status and QoL of ambulatory patients receiving radiation therapy to the head, neck, rectal or abdominal area. SETTING: Australian radiation oncology facilities. SUBJECTS: Sixty cancer patients aged 24-85 y. INTERVENTION: Scored PG-SGA questionnaire, subjective global assessment (SGA), QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3). RESULTS: According to SGA, 65.0% (39) of subjects were well-nourished, 28.3% (17) moderately or suspected of being malnourished and 6.7% (4) severely malnourished. PG-SGA score and global QoL were correlated (r=-0.66, P<0.001) at baseline. There was a decrease in nutritional status according to PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and SGA (P<0.001); and a decrease in global QoL (P<0.001) after 4 weeks of radiotherapy. There was a linear trend for change in PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and change in global QoL (P=0.003) between those patients who improved (5%) maintained (56.7%) or deteriorated (33.3%) in nutritional status according to SGA. There was a correlation between change in PG-SGA score and change in QoL after 4 weeks of radiotherapy (r=-0.55, P<0.001). Regression analysis determined that 26% of the variation of change in QoL was explained by change in PG-SGA (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The scored PG-SGA is a nutrition assessment tool that identifies malnutrition in ambulatory oncology patients receiving radiotherapy and can be used to predict the magnitude of change in QoL.