This review aims to determine the prevalence of clinically manifested drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in hospitalized patients. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Lilacs databases were used to identify articles published before June 2019 that met specific inclusion criteria. The search strategy was developed using both controlled and uncontrolled vocabulary related to the following domains: "drug interactions," "clinically relevant," and "hospital." In this review, we discuss original observational studies that detected DDIs in the hospital setting, studies that provided enough data to allow us to calculate the prevalence of clinically manifested DDIs, and studies that described the drugs prescribed or provided DDI adverse reaction reports, published in either English, Portuguese, or Spanish. Results From the initial 5,999 articles identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of clinically manifested DDIs was 9.2% (CI 95% 4.0-19.7). The mean number of medications per patient reported in six studies ranged from 4.0 to 9.0, with an overall average of 5.47 ± 1.77 drugs per patient. The quality of the included studies was moderate. The main methods used to identify clinically manifested DDIs were evaluating medical records and ward visits (n = 7). Micromedex® (27.7%) and Lexi-Comp® (27.7%) online reference databases were commonly used to detect DDIs and none of the studies evaluated used more than one database for this purpose.

Summary What is known and objective Qualified dispensing is fundamental for the promotion of the rational use of medicines. Documentation is an indicator of quality and one of the essential steps in the care process. However, in Brazil, there are no models of clinical documentation applicable to dispensing practices. Thus, the objective of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to document the dispensing process of prescribed medicines. Methods A methodological development study was carried out from February 2017 to October 2017 in two stages, which were (i) the development of the instrument and (ii) content validation of the proposed instrument. The development phase comprised three stages, which were (i) the elaboration of the prototype based on a previously performed systematic review, (ii) academic brainstorming and (iii) a pre‐Delphi consensus. The content validation process was performed using the Delphi technique. The instrument was sent to 40 experts with experience in dispensing, and the consensus among them was calculated using the content validity index (CVI). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee, and all participants signed an informed consent document detailing the terms of the study. Results In the development stage, three versions of the instrument were generated, which were the prototype, version 1 (changed after academic brainstorming) and version 2 (changed after the pre‐Delphi). In the content validation process of version 2 of the instrument, 23 experts returned their evaluation in the first round of the Delphi process and 17 in the second. All the items obtained a CVI >0.83, which resulted in the validation of the instrument. The final instrument comprised the following sections: general information, the identification of technical and legal problems of prescriptions, the conduct for the resolution of the technical and legal problems of prescriptions, medication dispensed, suspected drug‐related problems, verbal guidance, written guidance, referral and the referral result. What is new and conclusion The developed and validated instrument presents the main variables that should be documented during the dispensing process.

Introduction Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is considered one of the biggest health challenges of the 21st century. It has both social and economic consequences; therefore, timely review of public health policies that have been designed to manage AMR is essential. Brazil too has developed and implemented various polices for the prevention and control of AMR. However, till date, no study provides insights regarding the various public health policies or other programs implemented by Brazilian institutes. Objective The objective is to define a scoping review protocol of policies that were developed to address prevention and control of antimicrobial resistance in Brazil, from a human health perspective. Method This protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/EC9ZJ). Indexed literature in English, Spanish and Portuguese published till December 2020 in Lilacs, PubMed, Embase, and official websites of the Brazilian government will be reviewed. This review considers all studies identified through a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and grey literature databases that have a reference for policies made for managing AMR in Brazil. The criteria for the scoping review will be set by two evaluators. A third evaluator will be consulted, if there is any disagreement between the two primary evaluators. A standardized form will be used for data extraction from the selected studies. The results will be presented in a tabular form with narrative abstracts related to the topics identified through the scoping review protocol. The PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews tool will be used.

No abstract

Objective The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence and main types of harm caused by high-alert medication after medication errors (MEs) in hospitals. Method A literature systematic review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Lilacs. Eligible studies published until June 2017 were included. Result Of 6244 studies identified through searching four electronic databases, five studies meeting the selection criteria of this study were analyzed. There was wide variation in the overall prevalence of harm due to MEs involving HAM, from 3.8% to 100%, whereas the pooled prevalence was 16.3%. Overall, 0.01% of harm caused by MEs involving HAM resulted in death. The severity of errors ranged from 0.1% to 19.2% for moderate errors, 0.2% to 15.4% for serious errors, and 1.9% lethal to the patients. The highest prevalences of harm occurred after errors involving potassium chloride 15%, insulin, and epoprostenol. The lowest prevalence of harm was related to errors of anticoagulants administration. The methodological heterogeneity limited direct comparisons among the studies. Conclusions Of the 15 drugs on the list of Institute for Safe Medication Practices HAMs in the United States and Brazil, nine did not present scientific evidence of the potential for harm. In general, few studies, characterized by methodological and conceptual heterogeneity, were performed to determine the harm prevalence resulting from errors involving these drugs.