4CPS-372 Pharmaceutical interventions in hospitalised patients during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

A. Sancho, B. García, A. Villaescusa, L. L. Lopez, J. Amigo, E. Albert, N. Martínez
{"title":"4CPS-372 Pharmaceutical interventions in hospitalised patients during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic","authors":"A. Sancho, B. García, A. Villaescusa, L. L. Lopez, J. Amigo, E. Albert, N. Martínez","doi":"10.1136/EJHPHARM-2021-EAHPCONF.204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and importanceThe activity of pharmacy services increased during the first wave of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic An example of this was the activity carried out during the validation of inpatient treatments Aim and objectivesTo evaluate pharmaceutical interventions carried out in a second level hospital during the pandemic and compare them with those in the same period of the previous year Material and methodsThis was a retrospective study All pharmaceutical interventions between March and May 2020 (pandemic period: P) and those between March and May 2019 (pre-pandemic period: pre-P) were reviewed Data collected were: number of interventions, hospital stay, intervention rate (number of interventions × 1000 hospital stays), therapeutic group involved and type of intervention Data analysis: Stata V 15 1 The χ2 Mantel–Haenszel test was used to compare intervention rates and the χ2 Pearson to compare proportions ResultsThe number of interventions was 690 versus 115, and the number of hospital stays was 27 415 versus 27 062 for the P and pre-P periods, respectively The intervention rate (P vs pre-P) was 25 2×1000 stays versus 4 2×1000 stays (χ2 Mantel–Haenszel, p<0 0001) Therapeutic groups involved (P vs pre-P, respectively) were: P01-antiparasitics/hydroxychloroquine (40% vs 0%), J-01-antibiotics and J05-antivirals (17% vs 19%), N05-antipsychotics (7% vs 6%), B01-anticoagulants antiaggregants (6% vs 15%), N-02 analgesics (5% vs 21%) and other groups (25% vs 39%) Statistically significant differences were found between both distributions (χ2 Pearson, p<0,001) Type of interventions (P vs pre-P, respectively): drug interaction monitoring (40% vs 11%), stop treatment (26% vs 17%), dosage change (26% vs 60%) and other interventions (8% vs 12%) Both distributions (P and pre-P) were compared, and there were statistically significant differences between them (χ2 Pearson, p<0,001) Conclusion and relevanceDuring the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, activity related to the validation of inpatients treatments increased significantly in our centre The acceptance rate of interventions was not collected but it should be considered for future studies The therapeutic groups involved in the pharmaceutical interventions differed between the P and pre-P periods In the P period, those related to antiparasitic drugs (which includes hydroxychloroquine) increased significantly Types of interventions were also different between both periods In the P period, the interventions related to drug interactions and excessive durations of treatments were the most frequent Both types were interventions related to the safety of treatments during the pandemic References and/or acknowledgementsConflict of interestNo conflict of interest","PeriodicalId":11991,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy: Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy: Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/EJHPHARM-2021-EAHPCONF.204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and importanceThe activity of pharmacy services increased during the first wave of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic An example of this was the activity carried out during the validation of inpatient treatments Aim and objectivesTo evaluate pharmaceutical interventions carried out in a second level hospital during the pandemic and compare them with those in the same period of the previous year Material and methodsThis was a retrospective study All pharmaceutical interventions between March and May 2020 (pandemic period: P) and those between March and May 2019 (pre-pandemic period: pre-P) were reviewed Data collected were: number of interventions, hospital stay, intervention rate (number of interventions × 1000 hospital stays), therapeutic group involved and type of intervention Data analysis: Stata V 15 1 The χ2 Mantel–Haenszel test was used to compare intervention rates and the χ2 Pearson to compare proportions ResultsThe number of interventions was 690 versus 115, and the number of hospital stays was 27 415 versus 27 062 for the P and pre-P periods, respectively The intervention rate (P vs pre-P) was 25 2×1000 stays versus 4 2×1000 stays (χ2 Mantel–Haenszel, p<0 0001) Therapeutic groups involved (P vs pre-P, respectively) were: P01-antiparasitics/hydroxychloroquine (40% vs 0%), J-01-antibiotics and J05-antivirals (17% vs 19%), N05-antipsychotics (7% vs 6%), B01-anticoagulants antiaggregants (6% vs 15%), N-02 analgesics (5% vs 21%) and other groups (25% vs 39%) Statistically significant differences were found between both distributions (χ2 Pearson, p<0,001) Type of interventions (P vs pre-P, respectively): drug interaction monitoring (40% vs 11%), stop treatment (26% vs 17%), dosage change (26% vs 60%) and other interventions (8% vs 12%) Both distributions (P and pre-P) were compared, and there were statistically significant differences between them (χ2 Pearson, p<0,001) Conclusion and relevanceDuring the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, activity related to the validation of inpatients treatments increased significantly in our centre The acceptance rate of interventions was not collected but it should be considered for future studies The therapeutic groups involved in the pharmaceutical interventions differed between the P and pre-P periods In the P period, those related to antiparasitic drugs (which includes hydroxychloroquine) increased significantly Types of interventions were also different between both periods In the P period, the interventions related to drug interactions and excessive durations of treatments were the most frequent Both types were interventions related to the safety of treatments during the pandemic References and/or acknowledgementsConflict of interestNo conflict of interest
第一波SARS-CoV-2大流行期间住院患者的药物干预措施
背景与重要性在第一波SARS-Cov-2大流行期间,药房服务活动增加,住院治疗验证期间开展的活动就是一个例子目的与目的评价大流行期间二级医院开展的药物干预措施,并将其与上一年同期进行的药物干预措施进行比较材料和方法本研究为回顾性研究对2020年5月(大流行期间:P)和2019年3月至5月(大流行前期间:P前)的数据进行了回顾。收集的数据包括:干预次数、住院时间、干预率(干预次数× 1000住院时间)、涉及的治疗组和干预类型。χ2使用Mantel-Haenszel检验比较干预率,χ2 Pearson检验比较比例结果干预次数为690次,P和P前分别为115次,住院时间分别为27415次和27062次,干预率(P与P前)分别为25次2×1000和4次2×1000 (χ2 Mantel-Haenszel, p<0 0001)涉及的治疗组(P与P前)分别为:p01 -抗寄生虫药/羟氯喹(40% vs 0%)、j -01-抗生素和j05 -抗病毒药物(17% vs 19%)、n05 -抗精神病药(7% vs 6%)、b01 -抗凝剂、抗聚集剂(6% vs 15%)、N-02镇痛药(5% vs 21%)和其他组(25% vs 39%)两组分布差异均有统计学意义(χ2 Pearson, p< 0.001)。药物相互作用监测(40% vs 11%)、停止治疗(26% vs 17%)、剂量变化(26% vs 60%)和其他干预措施(8% vs 12%)的分布(P和P前)进行比较,差异均有统计学意义(χ2 Pearson, p< 0.001)。干预的接受率没有被收集,但在未来的研究中应该考虑到这一点。参与药物干预的治疗组在P期和P前阶段之间存在差异。与抗寄生虫药物(包括羟氯喹)相关的干预措施显著增加,干预措施的类型在两个时期之间也有所不同。在P期,与药物相互作用和治疗持续时间过长有关的干预措施最为常见
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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