Search

Background: Hemorrhagic events are amongst the significant adverse effects of injectable anticoagulants such as heparin and enoxaparin. This undesirable effect needs close monitoring of their use for clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Objectives: To study the rate of hemorrhagic events, the anatomical site, and the severity of the bleeding in patients receiving heparin or enoxaparin in combination with clopidogrel, Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), and warfarin. Methods: We designed a prospective, multi-center, case-series study. Patients admitted to two teaching hospitals who received either an NSAID, or warfarin, or clopidogrel were evaluated. Any hemorrhagic event was recorded by Yellow Card Scheme. Also, the Naranjo scale was utilized for causality assessment. Results: A total of 123 patients were eligible for inclusion. They were admitted between November 2014 and April 2015. Sixty-five patients (52.5%) received heparin and 58 patients (47.2%) received enoxaparin. Of 123 patients, 115 patients (93.5%) received aspirin, 69 (56.1%) warfarin, 34 (27.6%) an antiplatelet medication, and 121 (98.4%) NSAIDs in combination with heparin or enoxaparin. Overall, 26 cases (21.1%) of the hemorrhagic incident were reported, of whom six cases (4.9%) were categorized as major bleeding. Patients receiving heparin constituted the largest proportion among all 26 hemorrhagic incidents (57.7%). All patients with the hemorrhagic incident had aspirin in their medication regimen, while 19 patients (73.0%) were concomitantly receiving warfarin as well. Hematuria (46.2%), hematoma in the injection site (38.5%), and hematoma (34.6%) were the top three types of hemorrhagic events. In Naranjo scale analysis, 19 patients scored more than 9 points, indicating a definite Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) causality. Moreover, seven patients scored 5 to 8, affirming a possible association with ADR. Conclusion: The risk of hemorrhagic can be influenced by undesir

Desloratadine is a relatively new, second-generation, tricyclic antihistamine which came into medical use in 2001. This study aimed to review the available evidence in the literature around the clinical efficacy of desloratadine on a range of allergic conditions. A database search in Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted for the research articles published until July 2020, using the keyword desloratadine. An additional reference lists search and citation tracking were also performed. Research articles in English pertaining to desloratadine and its efficacy were considered for inclusion. Study designs, including randomized controlled trials (RCT), observational/case-control studies, and case series were considered. The collective evidence from the current literature shows superior efficacy of desloratadine compared to placebo and some of the other treatment options in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU), and asthmatic symptoms. There is also evidence for potential new roles introduced for desloratadine such as acne treatment, chronic otitis media, and chronic rhinosinusitis, which warrants further investigation. In most studies, desloratadine’s safety and tolerability were comparable with placebo. Current evidence suggest that desloratadine is an ideal option for most of the allergic conditions due to its efficacy as well as favourable safety and tolerability profile. Further large-scale studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety profile of desloratadine and to compare its effectiveness against other treatments in the management of allergic conditions.

Medication interactions are associated with various unwanted adverse drug reactions. Medication Reconciliation involves a process in which a complete list of patient's previously prescribed medications are recorded and subsequently evaluated within the context of concomitantly prescribed medications and present medical condition during the hospitalization. Medical records of randomly selected 270 patients hospitalized in internal medicine, cardiovascular and infectious diseases wards were evaluated. Drug interactions were checked by LexiComp® database. Each interaction was assigned a risk rating of A, B, C, D, or X. The progression from A to X was based on increased urgency for responding to the data. Completed reconciliation forms were attached to patient charts for evaluation of physicians' compliance. Drug interactions were observed in 65.2% (176/270) of cases. The risk rating of interactions was categorized as C, D and X in 54.2%, 32.4%, and 13.4% of cases, respectively. There was a positive correlation between the number of prescribed medications and the rate of interactions (p-value < 0.001, Kendall's correlation coefficient = 0.487). Moreover, the length of hospitalization and the rate of drug interactions were significantly correlated (p-value < 0.001, Kendall's correlation coefficient = 0.350). Cardiovascular agents constituted the largest proportion of interactions (25%) followed by antibiotics (18%) and immunosuppressive agents (6%). In 59.6% of cases, no corrective action was taken by the physicians. Medication discrepancies occur commonly in hospital settings. Structured medication reconciliation may have a positive impact on prevention of medication errors.

Medication interactions are associated with various unwanted adverse drug reactions. Medication Reconciliation involves a process in which a complete list of patient's previously prescribed medications are recorded and subsequently evaluated within the context of concomitantly prescribed medications and present medical condition during the hospitalization. Medical records of randomly selected 270 patients hospitalized in internal medicine, cardiovascular and infectious diseases wards were evaluated. Drug interactions were checked by LexiComp® database. Each interaction was assigned a risk rating of A, B, C, D, or X. The progression from A to X was based on increased urgency for responding to the data. Completed reconciliation forms were attached to patient charts for evaluation of physicians' compliance. Drug interactions were observed in 65.2% (176/270) of cases. The risk rating of interactions was categorized as C, D and X in 54.2%, 32.4%, and 13.4% of cases, respectively. There was a positive correlation between the number of prescribed medications and the rate of interactions (p-value < 0.001, Kendall's correlation coefficient = 0.487). Moreover, the length of hospitalization and the rate of drug interactions were significantly correlated (p-value < 0.001, Kendall's correlation coefficient = 0.350). Cardiovascular agents constituted the largest proportion of interactions (25%) followed by antibiotics (18%) and immunosuppressive agents (6%). In 59.6% of cases, no corrective action was taken by the physicians. Medication discrepancies occur commonly in hospital settings. Structured medication reconciliation may have a positive impact on prevention of medication errors.

Medication errors are commonly encountered in hospital setting. Intravenous medications pose particular risks because of their greater complexity and the multiple steps required in their preparation, administration and monitoring. We aimed to determine the rate of errors during the preparation and administration phase of intravenous medications and the correlation of these errors with the demographics of nurses involved in the process. One hundred patients who were receiving IV medications were monitored by a trained pharmacist. The researcher accompanied the nurses during the preparation and administration process of IV medications. Collected data were compared with the acceptable guidelines. A checklist was filled for each IV medication. Demographic data of the nurses were collected as well. A total of 454 IV medications were recorded. Inappropriate administration rate constituted a large proportion of errors in our study (35.3%). No significant or life threatening drug interaction was recorded during the study. Evaluating the impact of the nurses' demographic characteristics on the incidence of medication errors showed that there is a direct correlation between nurses' employment status and the rate of medication errors, while other characteristics did not show a significant impact on the rate of administration errors. Administration errors were significantly higher in temporary 1-year contract group than other groups (p-value < 0.0001). Study results show that there should be more vigilance on administration rate of IV medications to prevent negative consequences especially by pharmacists. Optimizing the working conditions of nurses may play a crucial role.

Introduction: Adverse drug events are mostly dose dependent and preventable. About 50% of these adverse effects are due to inappropriate dosing especially in patients with renal failure. Objective: We aimed to determine the impact of short message alerting on physicians' drug dosing of patients with decreased renal function. Methods: Eighteen physicians accepted to enroll in the study. Their patients who received at least one of the six selected drugs were selected for evaluation. The patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 ml/minute or lower were randomly divided into two groups of case and control. An alert was sent to the physician in charge of the intervention (case) group. Physicians' reactions was recorded as "dose adjustment", "discontinuation of medication" or "none" and were compared in both groups. The reaction time of physicians before and after receiving alerts was recorded as well. Results: One hundred and thirty seven patients entered the study. The study results showed a significant difference in overall changes between the two groups (*** P <0.001). The rate of dose adjustment increased significantly after sending alerts to physicians (*** P <0.001). However, there was not a significant difference regarding discontinuation of medication between groups (P= 0.76). On the other hand, prompt reaction of physicians (0-6 hours after sending short message) significantly increased after intervention (* P < 0.05). Nevertheless, physicians' reaction time in 6-24 hours and 24-48 hours was not changed significantly after intervention. Conclusion: The results of this study show that informing physicians about the renal function of the patients leads to appropriate dosing.