Objectives Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the pressure to minimise its impact on public health has led to the implementation of different therapeutic strategies, the efficacy of which for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was unknown at the time. Remdesivir (REM) was granted its first conditional marketing authorisation in the EU in June 2020. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and local health authorities all across the EU have since strongly recommended the implementation of pharmacovigilance activities aimed at further evaluating the safety of this new drug. The objective of this study was to evaluate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) attributed to either REM or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, a Portuguese hospital centre based in Lisbon. We present the preliminary results reporting plausible adverse effects of either HCQ or REM. Methods An observational cohort study was carried out between 16 March and 15 August 2020. Participants were divided into two cohorts: those prescribed an HCQ regimen, and those prescribed REM. Suspected ADRs were identified using an active monitoring model and reported to the Portuguese Pharmacovigilance System through its online notification tool. The ADR cumulative incidence was compared between the two cohorts. Results The study included 149 patients, of whom 101 were treated with HCQ and the remaining 48 with REM. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. A total of 102 ADRs were identified during the study period, with a greater incidence in the HCQ cohort compared with the REM cohort (47.5% vs 12.5%; p<0.001). Causality was assessed in 81 ADRs, all of which were considered possible. Conclusions Real-world data are crucial to further establish the safety profile for REM. HCQ is no longer recommended for the treatment of COVID-19.

Objective The aim of this study is to describe and categorise pharmacist interventions (PIs) in a central hospital and report acceptance rates by physicians. Methods A retrospective study was carried out in a 350-bed central hospital between January and June 2013. Eleven pharmacists screened the pharmacotherapy charts for drug-related problems leading to PIs. The recommendations resulting from this analysis were entered in the electronic prescribing system. All the PIs registered on the electronic medical record system during the study period were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were quantified and characterised. Computer records were consulted to assess acceptance rate by physicians. Results A total of 1249 PIs were made by 11 pharmacists, and covered 147 drugs, with the most common being antibacterial (25%) and for the central nervous system (24%) and cardiovascular system (18%). Of the 1249 PIs, 18% concerned acetaminophen, 13% enoxaparin and 10% amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. The PIs were classified into three main categories: drug, dosage and administration related. When we analysed the most relevant PI type (n>20), the highest acceptance rate was for dosage adjustment according to therapeutic indication (58.1%) and renal function (57.4%). The global rate of acceptance was 53%. Conclusions Pharmacists' recommendations entered in the electronic prescribing system with a short explanation, as well as the pharmacotherapy recommendation, are immediately available to the doctor; however, the relatively low acceptance rate suggests that a further study also evaluating verbal interventions is needed, since the most urgent recommendations are made verbally, and this would likely increase the acceptance rate.

Highlights PSGL-1 protein is frequently expressed at the surface of malignant T cells. Enforced expression of PSGL-1 promotes T cell tumorigenesis in mice. PSGL-1 expression accelerates malignant T cell dissemination from tumors to several organs. PSGL-1 expression promotes malignant T cell expansion in kidneys and lungs.

Background Morbidity and mortality associated with the use of medicines is a great problem of public health. The pharmacist has a key role in detection, preventing and resolving drug-related problems (DRP). This is even more important in the case of cancer patients, where the high number of treatment protocols and the extensive supportive therapy increases the number of drugs used. This particular setting is a challenge to the clinical pharmacist. Purpose Analysis and characterisation of pharmacotherapeutic follow-up and pharmacist interventions in oncology patients. Materials and methods Retrospective study of pharmacotherapeutic follow-up from January to September of 2011, in a central hospital. Results Between January to September of 2011 the team of oncology pharmacists monitored 56 patients (29 males and 26 females) with mean age of 69 years (min.: 33; max.: 93). Colorectal cancer was the most prevalent cancer in the study population, followed by breast and pulmonary cancers. The team monitored 316 drugs (a mean of 5.64 drugs per patient). The follow-up detected 43 DRPs, resulted in 43 pharmaceutical interventions (0.77/patient). The majority of interventions were related to the need to adjust dosages (53.5%), followed by the need to substitute one or more medicines (11.6%) and those related to adverse effects (11.6%), such as emesis protocol optimisation and other supportive treatment. The physicians accepted approximately 79% of pharmacist interventions. Conclusions The results show that cancer patients are one of the groups most at risk of DRPs. The analysis, characterisation and quantification of pharmaceutical interventions performed on the oncology unit are an important step in documenting the activities of hospital pharmacists in this area, enabling them to be measured. The pharmacist interventions stand out as individual contributions throughout the patient's cancer treatment, highlighting the role of the pharmacist as part of the multidisciplinary team.