Search

Purpose Evaluate the potential Drug–Drug Interactions (pDDI) found in prescription orders of adult Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a Brazilian public health system hospital; quantify and qualify the pDDI regarding their severity and risks to the critical patient, using the database from Micromedex®. Methods Prospective study (January–December of 2011) collecting and evaluating 369 prescription orders (convenient sampling), one per patient. Results During the study 1844 pDDIs were identified and distributed in 405 pairs (medication A × medication B combination). There was an average of 5.00 ± 5.06 pDDIs per prescription order, the most prevalent being moderate and important interactions, present in 74% and 67% of prescription orders, respectively. In total, there were 9 contraindicated, 129 important and 204 moderate pDDIs. Among them 52 had as management recommendation to “avoid concomitant use” or “suspension of medication”, while 306 had as recommendation “continuous and adequate monitoring”. Conclusion The high number of pDDIs found in the study combined with the evaluation of the clinical relevancy of the most frequent pDDIs in the ICU shows that moderate and important interactions are highly incident. As the majority of them demand monitoring and adequate management, being aware of these interactions is major information for the safe and individualized risk management.

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and profile of spontaneous reports of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and quality deviations in a Brazilian teaching hospital and propose a consistent classification to study quality deviations. Methods This is a descriptive and retrospective study involving the analysis of spontaneous reports of ADRs and quality deviations in 2010. ADRs were classified according to the reaction mechanism, severity, and causality. The drugs were classified according to their therapeutic classes and symptoms according to the affected organ. The quality deviations were classified according to the type of deviation and type of medicine available in the Brazilian market. Results A total of 68 forms were examined; ADRs accounted for 39.7% of the notifications, while quality deviations accounted for 60.3%. ADRs occurred more frequently in men (51.9%) and adults (63.0%). The skin (28.0%) was the most affected organ, while anti-infectives (40.7%) were the therapeutic class that caused the most ADRs. The most common ADRs were type B (74.0%), moderates (37.0%), and probables (55.6%). In relation to quality deviations, the most frequent notifications were breaks, splits and leaks (20.9%) and related to generic drugs (43.9%). Conclusion The classification system to study quality deviations was clear and consistent. This study demonstrated that practices and public policies related to more effective pharmacovigilance need to be implemented so that the number of spontaneous reports increases.

Background: Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is complex and many factors contribute to a patient’s response to initial therapy including adherence, drug effectiveness, and tolerance. Close HAART follow-up is needed, particularly when there are concurrent therapies such as prophylactic antibiotics and medications for the treatment of comorbidities. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of pharmacist intervention in reducing drug related problems in HIV/AIDS outpatients (intervention group) and in improving clinical parameters in the intervention group compared to the control group. Methods: We conducted a prospective controlled intervention study with patients paired by gender and initial T CD4+ lymphocyte (CD4) count. HIV-infected patients of a public outpatient service were enrolled for the study by consecutive and convenience sampling. Patients selected for the study were divided into a control group and an intervention group. Both groups were followed for one year; however, only the intervention group received pharmaceutical care. The primary outcome was the drug related problem (DRP) analysis for the intervention group. Secondary outcomes were CD4 count and viral load evaluation for both groups. Results: There was a total of 143 patients enrolled in this study, with 53 (37.06%) patients in the control group and 90 (62.94%) patients in the intervention group. A total of 202 pharmacist interventions with 193 pharmacist-patient and 9 pharmacist-physician interventions were proposed. After one year of pharmaceutical care, a reduction of 38.43% between the initial and final DRP was found (p=0.0001). The most common DRPs found were related to medication safety. The intervention group showed a mean increase of 84% for the CD4 count in comparison with that observed in the control group. The viral load was not significantly different between the final and initial mean values for both groups. Conclusion: Pharmacist appointments enabled identification, prevention, and solving of drug related problems, especially those related to drug safety. Also, pharmacist interventions improved adherence and increased HAART effectiveness as suggested by the higher elevation in the CD4 count seen in the intervention group in comparison with the control group.