No abstract

Aim and objectives To analyse the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical intervention to prevent the potential interaction between integrase inhibitors and vitamin supplements or antacids.Material and methods Retrospective study conducted between May and September 2021. Patients were included if they were on treatment with ART containing an integrase inhibitor, both naive and continuation, and if they attended the pharmacy outpatient service during the study period.Demographic (sex and age) and pharmacological variables were collected. It was also documented whether patients were taking their treatment adequately and, if not, whether they were committed to modifying their medication management.Results One hundred and thirty-five patients treated with antiretroviral therapy (ART) containing raltegravir, dolutegravir, elvitegravir, bictegravir or cabotegravir were interviewed. Mean age was 47 years and 72% were men.33% of the patients confirmed that they took a multivitamin and mineral complex daily and 21% took antacids occasionally.Pharmaceutical advice was given to these patients using infographics to help them understand how to take their treatments properly (taking ART 2 hours before or 6 hours after multivitamins or antacids). 80% of these patients were not taking their therapy properly due to lack of information and 100% of them committed to following the pharmaceutical advice in order to improve the effectiveness of their treatment.Two months later, the counselled patients were contacted by telephone and 92% confirmed that they were following the pharmacist's recommended guidelines. The remaining 8% could not be contacted. Conclusion and relevanceThis study shows a large population that takes non-prescription drugs and is uninformed. Patients should be adequately interviewed during dispensing of treatment to find out what other non-prescription medicines they are taking in order to effectively prevent drug-drug interactions and to optimise ART.

The aim of this study was to know the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with long-term macrolides and to describe the factors associated with worse outcomes. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Primary Care setting. Patients with macrolides dispensed continuously from 1 October 2019 to 31 March 2020, were considered. Main outcome: diagnosis of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Secondary outcomes: symptoms, severity, characteristics of patients, comorbidities, concomitant treatments. A total of 3057 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age: 73 (64–81) years; 55% were men; 62% smokers/ex-smokers; 56% obese/overweight. Overall, 95% of patients had chronic respiratory diseases and four comorbidities as a median. Prevalence of COVID-19: 4.8%. This was in accordance with official data during the first wave of the pandemic. The most common symptoms were respiratory: shortness of breath, cough, and pneumonia. Additionally, 53% percent of patients had mild/moderate symptoms, 28% required hospital admission, and 19% died with COVID-19. The percentage of patients hospitalized and deaths were 2.6 and 5.8 times higher, respectively, in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of long-term courses of macrolides in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or the progression to worse outcomes in old patients with underlying chronic respiratory diseases and a high burden of comorbidity.

BackgroundThe introduction of oral drugs in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) has changed the treatment possibilities in which only parenteral treatments were available until recently.PurposeTo analyse the evolution of MS treatment prescriptions.Material and methodsAn observational retrospective study was carried out in a medium sized hospital between January 2015 and September 2016 that included MS patients. Through the programme Farmatools, we obtained the list of patients in whom treatments for MS were dispensed from the hospital pharmacy.ResultsDuring the study, 114 patients collected medication, with an average age of 42 years (72.81% women). The treatments provided most often were: glatiramer acetate 35.96%, interferon β 1-A 27.19%, teriflunomide 10.53% and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) 9.65%. There was 26 treatment changes (34.62% to DMF, 34.62% to teriflunomide, 15.38% to glatiramer acetate, 7.69% to peginterferon, 3.85% to interferon β 1-A and 3.85% to interferon β 1-B), 14 starts (interferon β 1-A 35.71%, glatiramer acetate 28.57%, teriflumonide 21.43% and DMF 14.29%) and 11 treatments discontinued. 46.83% of patients continued with their usual treatment. Cause of treatment changes was: inefficacy (61.54%), patient request (19.23%) and adverse events (19.23%).ConclusionAlthough the main cause of treatment change was lack of efficacy, a significant proportion was at the request of the patient, which is then determined by the prescribing physician. The emergence of new oral agents has been a change in the prescription treatment of MS, which is mainly reflected in the large number of cases which have been changed from parenteral to oral administration, and treatment decisions that are largely based on patient preference and efficacy.References and/or acknowledgementsZagmutt FJ, Carroll CA. Int J Neurosci2015;125:798–807.English C. Aloi JJ Clin Ther 2015;37:691–715i. Lorefice L, Fenu G, Frau J, et al. Antiinflamm Antiallergy Agents Med Chem.No conflict of interest