The deficiency of clinical relevance of detected DDIs should be addressed in the upcoming research as it would provide more relevant information to the prescribers' in clinical practice.

No abstract

IntroductionPolypharmacy is common in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but little is known about the prevalence and significance of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This study evaluates DDIs in hospitalized patients.Material and methodsWe retrospectively screened medical charts over a 6-month period for diagnosis of chronic HF and/or COPD. Potential DDIs were evaluated using Lexi-Interact software.ResultsSeven hundred and seventy-eight patients were included in the study (median age 75 years, 61% men). The median number of drugs on admission and discharge was 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 4–9) and 7 (IQR 5–), respectively (p = 0.10). We recorded 6.5 ±5.7 potential DDIs per patient on admission and 7.2 ±5.6 on discharge (p = 0.2). From admission to discharge, type-C and type-X potential DDIs increased (p < 0.05 for both). Type X interactions were rare (< 1%), with the combination of a β-blocker and a β2 agonist being the most common (64%). There were significantly more type-C and type-D potential DDIs in patients with chronic HF as compared to patients with COPD (p < 0.001). Patients with concomitant chronic HF and COPD had more type-C and type-X potential DDIs when compared to those with individual disease (p < 0.005). An aldosterone antagonist and ACE inhibitor/ARB were prescribed to 3% of chronic HF patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 ml/(min × 1.73 m2).ConclusionsThe DDIs are common in patients with chronic HF and/or COPD, but only a few appear to be of clinical significance. The increase in potential DDIs from admission to discharge may reflect better guideline implementation rather than poor clinical practice.

Several biologic treatments are available in addition to intravenous also in subcutaneous form for treatment of chronic diseases. Benefits of the subcutaneous application of drugs include self-administration by the patient, shorter time of application process with less infusion related adverse events and consequently lower healthcare costs. With appropriate education and support patients are able to administer their treatments at home. This leads to improvement of quality of life, reduction of time needed to travel to the healthcare institution and consequently also reduces costs also for the patient.Over one million residents in the USA and 2.5 million in Europe are estimated to have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with substantial costs for health care. These estimates do not factor in the ‘real’ price of IBD, which can impede career aspirations, instil social stigma and impair quality of life in patients.The Virtual Community Meeting, which offered an exchange of experience and opinions from healthcare professionals who are active in treating IBD, and patients with this chronic disease, revealed in-depth arguments and answers to some essential questions: which patients prefer subcutaneous over intravenous dosing; which patients continue to favour intravenous infusions; what are the limitations regarding both applications; what is the patient’s role in therapeutical decision-making and how does IBD affect the patient’s work, finances and quality of life? The aim of this article is to discuss the differences between subcutaneous and intravenous dosing from the health-economic, scientific, and personal perspectives.The meeting offered strong confirmation that most of the patients and healthcare professionals prefer subcutaneous over intravenous drug administration but emphasise the management of risks associated with treatment compliance. Patient education provided by the IBD team in this regard is mandatory. Quality of life of patients is poorer during active disease, but the findings that it can improve over time, including as a result of home- or self-administration of biologics, may be encouraging for individuals with this chronic disease.