Cidofovir ILIs were prepared by diluting a vial of cidofovir 375 mg in 60 ml of 0.9% sodium chloride, obtaining a final concentration of 6.25 mg/ml. Of these 60 ml, 5 syringes of 12 ml were loaded (75 mg of cidofovir in each one), which have a stability of 5 months refrigerated (2-8°C), according previous studies.Intralesional cidofovir treatment started in February 2022. After three drug administrations, a significant improvement in lesions was described by a reduction in both their volume and extension. A bad odor of superficial exudate was also reported, which was solved with first polymyxin and later fusidic acid, both administered topically, twice a day. The patient presented good tolerance to injections, only requiring local anesthesia with lidocaine for pain. Conclusion and RelevanceThis is the first case of use of this formulation of cidofovir ILIs in a patient with anogenital condylomatosis and immune deficiency. Previously, it was used in other manifestations of HPV infection. The formulation also proved to be stable, well-tolerated, and easy to prepare. Therefore, this therapy may be considered a reasonable option for the treatment of HVP condylomatosis when other treatments seem ineffective.

the mortality risk is being assessed but not registered in clinical charts.

No abstract

Background and Importance The opening of a pharmaceutical care service for onco-haematology patients (OHP) in the midst of the health care crisis caused by the COVID19 pandemic, made it possible to maintain the healthcare activity, avoid the collapse and provide the opportunity to implement Comprehensive Medication Management (CMM). Aim and Objectives To investigate the pharmacotherapeutic experience of OHP in outpatient therapy with CMM services; to know important aspects perceived for the identification of barriers/facilitators that determine the quality of the service and proposals for improvement. Material and Methods Descriptive observational design with a qualitative approach, using informal and semi-structured indepth interviews (participant observation and peer review) during January-June 2021. ATLAS.ti software was used for content analysis. Oncohaematology patients in outpatient therapy with any medication-related problem and who received CMM services were interviewed. Those who, due to cognitive limitation, could not be interviewed or who did not have a caregiver/family member available were excluded. Results 19 interviews were conducted: 57.89% patients and 42.10% caregivers; 57.89% were women. All patients were very satisfied with the care received, the vast majority preferred to be attended by a pharmacist, and valued telepharmacy as an alternative or complementary option. The vision of the pharmacy professional as an expert in medicines improves. They suggest improvement related to location, waiting times and greater accessibility of the pharmacist. After the researchers' reflective process, were identified as barriers: care pressure, limited time/resources, lack of interlevel coordination, and facilitators: prioritisation of interventions, integration of pharmacist in the multidisciplinary team, trust in the pharmacist and the new model of care. Improvement strategies: provision of human/material resources with release of pharmacist's time to provide the CMM, extension of hours, information management with the development of personal learning environment and use of programs for recording/integration of information and interventions. Conclusion and RelevanceDelving into patients' experiences can be key to improving the quality of care. In our case, the implementation of the CMM service in OHP has been a challenge and an opportunity in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pharmacy adapted to the needs and implemented a new model of care with excellent acceptance by users.

biological therapy with monoclonal antibodies against selective targets may be a suitable option. Aim and Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety in routine clinical practice of omalizumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. Material and Methods Retrospective observational study in a regional hospital undergoing patients diagnosed with severe asthma treated with omalizumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab. Effectiveness was assessed based on oral corticosteroid dose reduction, exacerbations and improvement in lung capacity. Safety was demonstrated based on adverse effects onset. Data was obtained from clinical history program and drug dispensing program. Results 30 patients (53% women) with a median age of 56 years (range: 16-78) have received biological drugs in our hospital to treat severe uncontrolled asthma. 9 patients were treated only with omalizumab, 5 with Mepolizumab, 2 with benralizumab; 7 patients sequentially omalizumab!mepolizumab, 5 cases omalizumab!benralizumab and 2 with the three drugs sequentially.52% of patients on omalizumab, 71% of patients on mepolizumab, and 78% on benralizumab experienced a decrease in oral corticosteroid dose. Regarding exacerbations: 65% omalizumab, 85% mepolizumab and 78% benralizumab reduced the number of exacerbations. Improvement in lung capacity as a function of Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) was observed in 74% of patients on omalizumab, 79% on mepolizumab, and 89% on benralizumab. Adverse reactions occurred in 5 cases treated with omalizumab: arthralgia (2), headache, tiredness, cough; 2 cases with benralizumab: skin rash, nasal congestion; and one case of hypertension with the administration of mepolizumab. Conclusion and RelevanceTreatment with omalizumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab in severe asthma is effective in most patients under normal clinical practice conditions. The frequency of adverse effects is low, being mild in most cases, so they can be considered safe drugs.