Objectives:The aim of this study was to develop and to assess a specific Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to evaluate new drugs in an hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committee (P&TC) setting.Methods:A pilot criteria framework was developed based on the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking) framework, together with other relevant criteria, and assessed by a group of P&TC's members. The weighting of included criteria was done using a 5-point weighting technique. Two drugs were chosen by evaluation: an orphan-drug for Gaucher disease, and a nonorphan drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence matrices were developed, and value contribution of each drug was evaluated by P&TC's members. An agreed final framework was obtained through a discussion between the P&TC's members.Results:After criteria assessment, the pilot framework included eight quantitative criteria: “disease severity,” “unmet needs,” “comparative efficacy/effectiveness,” “comparative safety/tolerability,” “comparative patient-reported outcomes,” “comparative cost consequences-cost of treatment,” “comparative cost consequences-other medical costs,” and “quality of evidence”; and one contextual criterion: “opportunity costs and affordability.” The most valued criteria were: “comparative safety/tolerability,” “disease severity,” and “comparative efficacy/effectiveness.” When assessing the drugs most valued characteristics of the MCDA were the possibility that all team may contribute to drug assessment by means of scoring the matrices and the discussion to reach a consensus in drug positioning and value decision making.Conclusions:The reflective MCDA would integrate quantitative and qualitative criteria relevant for a P&TC setting, allowing reflective discussions based on the criteria weighting score.

Background The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020. The first vaccine became available in December, with practically no post-marketing data. Methods An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in a third-level hospital in Spain between March and April 2021 to describe the difference in adverse events with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines. The participants were hospital workers who completed a survey voluntarily at least 14 days after the last vaccine. The STROBE checklist was followed. Results One thousand two hundred and forty-nine respondents completed the survey; 48% (599) received mRNA-1273 and 52% (650) BNT162b2. Fourteen thousand four hundred and two adverse reactions were recorded, 6896 local (3939 with mRNA-1273 and 2957 with BNT162b2 (6.6 vs 4.4 reactions per patient)) and 7506 systemic (4460 with mRNA-1273 and 3046 with BNT162b2 (7.4 vs 4.7 per patient)). Local reactions were more frequent after the first dose, while systemic reactions were higher after the second, for both vaccines and in a higher percentage with mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 (p-value<0.05). Conclusions Licensed mRNA vaccines were highly safe when administered under post-marketing conditions among working-age adults. The main adverse events were mild, although they occurred in most patients, especially after the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a threat to global public health. The use of prolonged infusions in the hospital setting for certain antimicrobials is widely increasing in order to improve their efficacy and safety, including resistance development.Due to limited vascular access, it is important to clarify whether they can be infused through the same line with other drugs during Y-site administration.Aim: The aim of this review is to update and summarize the evidence on Y-site compatibility of antibacterial agents administered as prolonged infusions in intensive care units (ICUs).Study Design: A literature review of PubMed, EMBASE and Trissel's Handbook on Injectable Drugs databases was conducted on the compatibility of selected antimicrobials administered simultaneously at a Y-site connection with parenteral nutrition and other widely used drugs in ICUs. All articles published up to October 30, 2021, in English or Spanish were included, regardless of the type of publication (original articles, case reports, letters, etc.). Eligible antimicrobials were those that can be administered as prolonged infusions: ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftaroline, cloxacillin, ceftobiprole, vancomycin and fosfomycin.Results: A total of 1302 drug-to-drug potential combinations were explored, 196 (15.05%) were found to be incompatible, and in 541 (41.55%), data were not available. The results were presented in a simple 2-dimensional consultation chart as a quick reference for health care professionals.Conclusions: This review provides useful and reliable information on the compatibility of antimicrobials administered as Y-site infusion with other drugs commonly used in the critical setting. This review contributes to patient safety in nursing practice.Relevance to Clinical Practice: To our knowledge, this is the first review on Y-site compatibility of antimicrobials used as prolonged infusions with other commonly used drugs, including anti-emetics, analgesics and anti-epileptic and parenteral nutrition. The results of the current review need to be addressed to promote the knowledge sharing between health professionals and improve the quality and safety of

No abstract