Results: The participants (61.7%) are aware of the use of risk assessment procedures as a coping strategy for medicine shortages, and named the particular risk assessment procedure they are familiar with failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) (26.4%), root cause analysis (RCA) (23.5%), the healthcare FMEA (HFMEA) (14.7%), and the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) (14.7%). Only 29.4% report risk assessment as integrated into mitigation strategy protocols. Risk assessment is typically conducted within multidisciplinary teams (35.3%). Whereas 14.7% participants were aware of legislation stipulating risk assessment implementation in shortages, 88.2% claimed not to have reported their findings to their respective official institutions. 85.3% consider risk assessment a useful mitigation strategy. Conclusion: The study indicates a lack of systematically organized tools used to prospectively analyze clinical as well as operationalized risk stemming from medicine shortages in healthcare. There is also a lack of legal instruments and sufficient data confirming the necessity and usefulness of risk assessment in mitigating medicine shortages in Europe.

Introduction: Medicine shortages result in great risk for the continuity of patient care especially for antimicrobial treatment, potentially enhancing resistance rates and having a higher economic impact. This study aims to identify, describe, assess, and assign risk priority levels to potential failures following substitution of antimicrobial treatment due to shortages among European hospitals. Furthermore, the study investigated the impact of corrective actions on risk reduction so as to provide guidance and improve future patient care. Methods: Health-care failure mode and effect analysis (HFMEA) was applied to hospitals in Austria (H-AT), Belgium (H-BE), Croatia (H-CR), Greece (H-GR), Spain (H-SP), and Serbia (H-SR). Multidisciplinary teams identified processes, failure modes, causes, and corrective actions related to antibiotic substitution following medicine shortages. Characteristics of study hospitals as well as severity, probability, and hazard scores (HSs) of failure modes/causes were analyzed using Microsoft Office Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics® via descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Through HFMEA, 74 failure modes were identified, with 53 of these scoring 8 or above on the basis of assigned severity and probability for a failure. Severity of failure modes differed before and after corrective actions in H-CR, H-GR, and H-SR (p < 0.005). Their probability differed in all study hospitals (p < 0.005) when compared before and after corrective actions aimed to be implemented. The highest number of failure-mode causes was detected in H-CR (46) and the lowest in H-SP (16). Corrective actions can address failure modes and lower HSs; therein, all teams proposed the following: structuring communication among stakeholders, introducing electronic prescribing, strengthening Miljković et al. HFMEA of European Medicine Shortages pharmacists' involvement, and increasing effectiveness of the ward stock assessment. These proposed actions led to HS reductions up to 83%. Conclusion: There is a lack of structure in addressing risks associated with antibiotic substitution following shortages. Furthermore, lack of communication, data scarcity on availability of antibiotics, non-supportive information technology (IT) systems, and lack of internal substitution protocols hinder quick assessment of alternatives addressing patient needs. Nevertheless, the study shows that health-care professionals manage to secure optimal antimicrobial treatment for patients using available IT and human resources.

No abstract

Objectives To assess the attitudes and opinions about generic antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) and single-tablet regimen (STR) de-simplification among physicians prescribing HIV treatment in the cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS). Methods An online questionnaire with 27 structured questions was sent to all physicians (n = 199) who prescribed ARVs among the 45 centres participating in the cohort. Results A total of 169 (84.9%) physicians answered the questionnaire. Only 4.1% of the physicians would never prescribe generic ARVs, but 53.3% would not prescribe them if the number of pills per day increased and 89.3% would not prescribe them if the number of doses per day increased. However, 84.0% of the physicians agreed to prescribe generic ARVs if doing so would decrease costs for the public healthcare system. The percentages of physicians stating that generic ARVs (compared with branded ones) would be associated with worse adherence, more adverse effects or more probability of virological failure, provided that the number of pills and doses per day would not change, were low: 0.6%, 7.7% and 3.6%, respectively. However, these percentages were much higher if the generic ARV entailed breaking an STR: 63.9%, 18.9% and 42.0%, respectively. Most physicians stated that they needed more information about the effectiveness and safety of generic ARVs and the price difference compared with their branded equivalents. Conclusions Although most physicians were confident about prescribing generic ARVs, the majority had strong concerns about de-simplifying STR, and they also needed more information about generic drugs.

Lack of response to aspirin decreases its protective effects. However, lack of a standard definition for aspirin resistance, the absence of diagnostic reference methods to identify resistant patients, and the different mechanisms of action involved in platelet aggregation call the clinical importance of this fact into question. Additional well-designed studies are needed to detect patients with real resistance in order to have more effective prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.