BackgroundEtanercept is a biological drug that treats autoimmune diseases by inhibiting tumour necrosis factor (TNF) with a considerable economic impact on the hospital’s annual budget. Biosimilar therapies are expected to be less costly for healthcare systems.PurposeThe primary endpoint was to analyse treatment costs with etanercept biosimilar (EB) vs etanercept reference product (ERP) as initial treatment and the potential economic impact of switching to EB for maintenance therapy.Material and methodsRetrospective observacional study including all patients treated with etanercept from March to September 2017. Data on prescription details, number of prescriptions and costs, were retrieved from the Farmatools® management tool (outpatients clinical module). The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee included EB as a cost-effective alternative and in the light of available scientific data, prescribers agreed with the pharmacy staff to use it as initial therapy. Regarding switching maintenance therapy from ERP to EB, prescribers were responsible for individualising the decision according to patients’ medical records.ResultsDuring the study period 190 patients were treated with etanercept. Seventy-eight per cent were rheumatology patients and 22% were dermatology patients. EB was prescribed as initial treatment in 100% of cases (25 new treatments in rheumatology, nine in dermatology). No switching to EB was prescribed in maintenance therapy. A total of 256 doses of EB 50 mg were dispensed, which generated savings of €43.491, when compared to ERP’s best offer. Regarding the potential economic impact of switching maintenance therapy, we estimated that this strategy would mean savings of €339.012 to our centre. No adverse effects or low efficacy data were reported with EB treatments.ConclusionIntroducing EB as initial therapy for rheumatology and dermatology patients has resulted in a modest reduction in drug spending in our centre. Potential savings justify the urgent need to implement agreed protocols for switching to EB in maintenance therapy as well. This would mean significant cost savings and improved access for patients to these highly effective therapies. A cross-sectoral collaboration among prescribers, pharmacists and nurses facilitate pharmacovigilance activities, in order to assure the quality, safety and efficacy of EB.No conflict of interest

No abstract

2018. Age, sex and pharmacotherapy were collected for each patient. AR was calculated using an Anticholinergic Burden web tool Calculator which includes 10 different Anticholinergic scales described in a systematic review. The scales offer final AR scores classified in three groups: low, medium and high, according to the risk categorisation made by the authors of each scale. Higher scores are associated with increased AR. RESULTS: We analysed 111 patients; mean age:73.93±8.35 years, 79.28% males. Mean prescribed drugs: 7.39±3.94. There were 16 patients (14.41%) without risk; 35 (31.53%) with medium risk and 35 (31.53%) with high risk. Twenty-five patients (22.52%) did not receive any anticholinergic drug.According to AR score, 70 patients (58.3%) were taking at least one anticholinergic drug, 39 drugs were involved.We identified 39 drugs with anticholinergic potency being the most common: alprazolam (43.6%), mirtazapine (25.6%), lorazepam (23.1%), sertraline (20.5%). Regarding ATC code, drugs from "N05 psycholeptics" group were mainly involved (30.63%); followed by "N06. Psychoanaleptics" (10.81%)and "A10. Drugs used in diabetes"(9.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of elderly patients are at risk of anticholinergics adverse events because of their prescribed treatment. In consequence, detection of AR can be an important strategy for optimising treatment in these patients, particularly in those suffering from dementia. Pharmaceutical care in elderly nursing home enables the optimisation of pharmacotherapy, improving patient safety. REFERENCES AND/OR ACKNOWL-EDGEMENTS All staff of Geriatric-Healthcare Centre.

No abstract

No abstract