Search

Aims: Since the publication of the American Gastroenterological Association's recommendations in 2017, there have been no significant changes in the biological monitoring recommendations in inflammatory bowel disease. Possible limitations are the lack of evidence to recommend proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (pTDM) over reactive TDM (rTDM), and the limited information about individualized dosing methods. This article aims to review the TDM strategy updates and the use of individualized dosing methods., Methods: For the analysis of the TDM strategies and individualized dosing method, a search was carried out in PubMed and Cochrane Central. In the TDM case, since August 2017., Results: A total of 263 publications were found, but only 7 related to proactive TDM. Five of these publications directly compared pTDM vs rTDM and 2 were randomized clinical trials. Six studies found benefits of pTDM and 1 found no differences. Regarding the individualized dosing method, 229 distinct results were found. Population pharmacokinetics was the most widely used method to develop individual dosage models and to analyse the influence of factors on drug concentrations (albumin concentration, weight, presence of anti-drug antibodies etc)., Conclusion: We have found no major changes in TDM strategies. There is a growing trend towards the use of pTDM because it has shown a longer duration of treatment response, lower rates of discontinuation and relapses. However, the available evidence is limited and of low quality. Despite the common use of population pharmacokinetic methods to analyse pharmacokinetic factors, they are not commonly used for personalized dosing., (© 2020 British Pharmacological Society.)

Background and Objective: The objective of this study was to reach a consensus on the minimum set of data that would allow to optimize the pharmacotherapy follow-up of patients on biologic agents for chronic systemic inflammatory conditions, through structured and standardized collection with an electronic tool in the hospital pharmacy., Materials and Method: A scientific committee was formed (n = 5 hospital pharmacists). The Delphi Technique was used, 2 rounds of consultation by e-mail for hospital pharmacists. A structured questionnaire was used, based on a bibliographic review and recommendations by the scientific committee; 37 statements were assessed with the Likert 5-point scale (1= "Strongly Disagree"; 5= "Strongly Agree"). Consensus was reached when 75% or more of panel members assigned a score of 1-2 (rejection consensus) or 4-5 (agreement consensus) to the matter reviewed. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted., Results: The study included 21 hospital pharmacists (70 were invited, there was 70% response). Consensus was reached for 100% of statements. The minimum set of data was agreed upon, as well as the recommendations that the pharmacist had to collect and make during visits: to document the health status, health-related quality of life, changes in treatment compliance and in patient autonomy, as well as the conditions to make feasible the systematic collection of the minimum data set., Conclusions: There is consensus among hospital pharmacists about a minimum data set to be collected, through an electronic tool, which will order, standardize and structure the pharmacotherapy follow-up of patients with chronic inflammatory conditions on treatment with biologic agents in the spanish public health system., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)

The use of parenteral antibiotic eye drop formulations with non-marketed compositions or concentrations, commonly called fortified antibiotic eye drops, is a common practice in Ophthalmology in the hospital setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro ocular toxicity of the main fortified antibiotic eye drops prepared in the Hospital Pharmacy Departments. We have conducted an in vitro experimental study in order to test the toxicity of gentamicin, amikacin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, vancomycin, colistimethate sodium and imipenem-cilastatin eye drops; their cytotoxicity and acute tissue irritation have been evaluated. Cell-based assays were performed on human stromal keratocytes, using a cell-based impedance biosensor system [xCELLigence Real-Time System Cell Analyzer (RTCA)], and the Hen's Egg Test for the ocular irritation tests. All the eye drops, except for vancomycin and imipenem, have shown a cytotoxic effect dependent on concentration and time; higher concentrations and longer exposure times will cause a steeper decline in the population of stromal keratocytes. Vancomycin showed a major initial cytotoxic effect, which was reverted over time; and imipenem appeared as a non-toxic compound for stromal cells. The eye drops with the highest irritating effect on the ocular surface were gentamicin and vancomycin. Those antibiotic eye drops prepared at the Hospital Pharmacy Departments included in this study were considered as compounds potentially cytotoxic for the ocular surface; this toxicity was dependent on the concentration used., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The objective of the study is to provide toxicological information through the HET-CAM test of Fluconazole and Voriconazole eye drops prepared commonly in Pharmacy Services for the treatment of fungal keratitis., Method: Experimental Study. The ocular toxicity of topical voriconazole 10 mg/ml and fluconazole 2 mg/ml were evaluated by the hen's egg test (HET) on the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM). The effects on blood vessels were based on its behavior during 300 seconds and processes that may occur at each time, then we calculated the irritation index (is, irritation score)., Results and Conclusions: Both eye drops, voriconazol and fluconazole have been proven to be safe, since the IS that we obtained was zero for both samples and did not present significant signs of irritation. Therefore, these eyedrops are considered suitable for ocular use from a toxicological point of view., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)