inpatient pharmacy and outpatient pharmacy orders were verified through remote access. Conclusion and relevanceIn conclusion, the implementation of telepharmacy via the utilisation of medication home delivery services, remote access, and modification of the previous workflow was associated with promising outcomes in terms of efficient, high-quality pharmaceutical care delivery while avoiding medication distribution disturbances as well as containing the spread of the pandemic among staff and patients, thus ensuring their safety during this crisis.

BackgroundThe high economic impact of biologic therapy justifies the need of supervising and monitoring patients treated by the requesting department (Dermatology) and service responsible of dispensing (Pharmacy).PurposeTo analyse biological therapy resolutions submitted by a commission formed by dermatologic experts.Material and methodsDescriptive, retrospective study. Applications emitted by a local commission were reviewed between September 2013 and March 2014.The variables collected were: treatment suggestion, diagnosis, resolution, therapeutic alternative in case of refusal, PASI (>10 as initial criterium) and BSA (%) at the beginning.Treatment adherence’s was also checked, using dispensations made by pharmacists.Results43 applications were collected from 38 patients. 5 were evaluated twice after a previous rejection.Regarding to applications, 54% were Adalimumab, 19% Ustekinumab, 14% Infliximab, 7% Etanercept, 4% Metotrexate and 2% Infliximab + Metotrexate. Diagnosis included: serious plaque psoriasis (9), moderate-severe (4), severe (21); psoriasis with artropathy (4) severe hidradenitis suppurative (2). This last two requiered an Adalimumab’s use which were “off-label”.Nine proposal were rejected: 4 with Adalimumab in serious plaque psoriasis (1), moderate-sever (1), severe (1) and with artropathy (1), 2 with Etanercept in psoriasis and artropathy and 1 Infliximab in serious plaque psoriasis.In 89% of refusal, a therapeutic alternative was proposed: cyclosporine (2), methotrexate (4) or phototherapy (2). In another one no treatment was proposed.From the 34 approvals, 25 patients accomplished the PASI criteria greater than 10, 3 did not and 7 did not reveal that information. Checking adherence treatment, 88% of patients continue with their treatment, 6% did not collect medication and another 6% have discontinued therapy due to incompatibility with other pathology.ConclusionThe work made by these experts can help to regulate the use of biological therapies, restricting them to patients for whom there is solid evidence to support its use, and offering a therapeutic alternative in case of refusal. The Pharmacy Service reviews patient progress and adherence treatment, thus promoting rational drug use.References and/or AcknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.

cycles for this cohort of patients after performing statistic analyses. Conclusion and relevance Not using adjusted body weight in obese patient or capping the level of serum creatinine in cachectic patients (0.7-0.8 mg/dL) may lead to incorrect doses of carboplatin and subsequent toxicity (neutropenia and thrombocytopenia).

BackgroundSurveys of satisfaction are an important tool to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the service and to assess influential factors to improve the quality of care provided.PurposeTo assess the degree of satisfaction of health professionals on the pharmacy service. To analyse the factors that have influenced the results and identify areas for improvement.Material and methodsObservational and retrospective study. Annual satisfaction surveys were reviewed for the period 2011–2014. The surveys assessed the degree of satisfaction across 24 items based on closed questions that were scored: 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree.The mean scores per item were analysed per professional category and per hospital (maternity and children hospital MCH; general hospital (GH), rehabilitation and trauma hospital (RTH). A quantitative analysis was conducted with these data using Excel 2010.Results296 surveys were conducted: 55 in 2011; 46 in 2012; 94 in 2013; and 101 in 2014. The average score per ítem was highest in doctors compared with other healthcare staff. As for hospitals studied, MCH had a higher mean score per item.In general for all centres: In 2012 a clear decrease in the valuation was observed.In 2013 the scores improved significantly.In 2014 the highest values were obtained compared with previous years.The best valued items were: “The personal attention of professional pharmacy”, “The quality of the preparations “ and “drug distribution system in unit dose provides the rational use drug “.The worst rated items were: “management procedures with the pharmacy is easy”, ”The consumption information that facilitates pharmacy seems adequate”.Factors that have influenced and explain the results are: In 2012, incorporation of a comprehensive system of procurement, reducing working hours and a change in the pharmacy computer system.In 2013–2014, implementation of electronic prescribing in the GH.In 2014, automation project for MCH.ConclusionThe services provided by the pharmacy are valued positively. Factors such as electronic prescribing and the automation system have been able to improve the quality of services provided.No conflict of interest.

BackgroundThe appropriate dose and frequency of omalizumab in patients with severe asthma was determined in clinical trials based on body weight (kg) and baseline IgE (IU/mL). However, in clinical practice a conversion chart promoted by stakeholders is used for dose determination.PurposeTo assess the correlation between omalizumab´s estimated dose calculated from the formula used in pivotal clinical trials (PCT) and prescribed omalizumab dose in clinical practice. We also aimed to analyse the effectiveness of omalizumab based on FEV modifications from baseline.Material and methodsAsthmatic patients treated with omalizumab up to July 2015 were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data (gender and age), body weight, posology (dose and frequency), duration of treatment, baseline and current IgE level, and baseline and current FEV were recorded. Omalizumab estimated dose was calculated according to the PVT formula at baseline: 0.016*weight*IgE (UI/mL) every 4 weeks or 0.008*weight*IgE (UI/mL) every 2 weeks. For patients treated with omalizumab for 3 or more years current weight and IgE was used instead of baseline data to assess omalizumab´s estimated dose. Also, to analyse the effectiveness of treatment, we calculated the difference in FEV from baseline. Statistical analysis were performed using SPSS15.Results60 patients met the inclusion criteria. 68.3% were female and mean age was 51.8 years (range 16–80). Mean FEV improvement from baseline was 9.69% (range -25%-51.1%). This meant that 56.9% of patients developed an improvement in FEV but 25% had worsening FEV and in 18.3% of patients these data were missing. Comparison between the prescribed dose and estimated dose from the PCT formula showed a concordance of doses in only 20% of cases. Based on these data, 46.3% of patients would benefit from omalizumab dose reduction. Also, 36.7% of patients had a lower prescribed dose than omalizumab’s estimated dose based on the PCT formula. Nevertheless, 61.1% of these patients would not need an increase in dose based on FEV improvement from baseline.ConclusionWe found a great discrepancy between estimated omalizumab dose by the PCT formula and the prescribed omalizumab dose in clinical practice. By using the formula we optimised the efficiency of treatment with omalizumab.No conflict of interest.