Compatibility of medication admixtures in continuous subcutaneous infusions: prioritizing laboratory testing for common combinations.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Marco Cheok In Leong, Natasha Michael, Robert Wojnar
{"title":"Compatibility of medication admixtures in continuous subcutaneous infusions: prioritizing laboratory testing for common combinations.","authors":"Marco Cheok In Leong, Natasha Michael, Robert Wojnar","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riae039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Continuous subcutaneous infusions (CSCIs) are indicated as an alternative therapy when the oral route is not viable. However, despite their widespread use in palliative care, the evidence for admixture compatibility remains a limitation. It is estimated that a significant number of admixtures used in practice are not supported by laboratory studies, which may lead to suboptimal clinical outcomes. The study aimed to determine the frequency of admixtures used in clinical practice without compatibility data generated by laboratory studies, and thereby identifying the most commonly prescribed admixtures that require laboratory data, which can help to guide the prioritization of future testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted across five palliative care services (three inpatients and two communities) in Victoria, Australia between May and July 2021. Electronic or paper medication charts of CSCIs were reviewed across all participating sites for all infusions administered. Data collected included medication combinations, dose, diluent, final volume, duration of infusion, reports of infusion-related reactions, and observed incompatibility.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>A total of 616 infusions containing two to three medications were assessed. Only 60% of these infusions were validated by laboratory data. Eleven most commonly prescribed admixtures with no laboratory compatibility data were identified over the 3-month period.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laboratory testing for the identified admixtures should be advocated to promote the safe and effective use of these medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riae039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Continuous subcutaneous infusions (CSCIs) are indicated as an alternative therapy when the oral route is not viable. However, despite their widespread use in palliative care, the evidence for admixture compatibility remains a limitation. It is estimated that a significant number of admixtures used in practice are not supported by laboratory studies, which may lead to suboptimal clinical outcomes. The study aimed to determine the frequency of admixtures used in clinical practice without compatibility data generated by laboratory studies, and thereby identifying the most commonly prescribed admixtures that require laboratory data, which can help to guide the prioritization of future testing.

Methods: This study was conducted across five palliative care services (three inpatients and two communities) in Victoria, Australia between May and July 2021. Electronic or paper medication charts of CSCIs were reviewed across all participating sites for all infusions administered. Data collected included medication combinations, dose, diluent, final volume, duration of infusion, reports of infusion-related reactions, and observed incompatibility.

Key findings: A total of 616 infusions containing two to three medications were assessed. Only 60% of these infusions were validated by laboratory data. Eleven most commonly prescribed admixtures with no laboratory compatibility data were identified over the 3-month period.

Conclusion: Laboratory testing for the identified admixtures should be advocated to promote the safe and effective use of these medications.

连续皮下注射药物混合物的兼容性:确定常见混合物实验室检测的优先次序。
目的:当口服途径不可行时,连续皮下注射(CSCI)可作为一种替代疗法。然而,尽管它们在姑息治疗中被广泛使用,但有关混合剂兼容性的证据仍然是一个限制因素。据估计,在实践中使用的大量混合物并没有得到实验室研究的支持,这可能会导致不理想的临床结果。本研究旨在确定临床实践中使用的混合剂中没有实验室研究产生的兼容性数据的频率,从而确定需要实验室数据的最常用处方混合剂,这有助于指导未来测试的优先顺序:本研究于 2021 年 5 月至 7 月期间在澳大利亚维多利亚州的五家姑息关怀服务机构(三家住院机构和两家社区机构)进行。所有参与研究的机构都审查了 CSCIs 的电子或纸质用药记录,并记录了所有输液情况。收集的数据包括药物组合、剂量、稀释剂、最终容量、输液持续时间、输液相关反应报告以及观察到的不相容性:主要研究结果:共评估了 616 种含有两到三种药物的输液。这些输液中只有 60% 经过实验室数据验证。在 3 个月的时间里,发现了 11 种最常见的处方混合物,但没有实验室兼容性数据:结论:应提倡对已确定的混合物进行实验室检测,以促进安全有效地使用这些药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信