Search

Introduction: Drug therapy is a high-risk process and requires special attention, especially at sectoral borders. Pharmaceutical services such as medication review are appropriate measures to identify drug-related problems and thus improve the safety of drug therapy. Risk-scoring tools have been described in the literature as helpful for prioritizing medication reviews for patients at high risk for drug-related problems., Methods: In a multi-centre point prevalence study, we identified patients at increased risk for medication-related problems at hospital admission using the medication risk tool. In addition, the current level of implementation of pharmacy services was surveyed., Results: A total of 11 (58%; 11/19) hospital pharmacies in Saxony participated in the point prevalence survey. The scoring tool identified 32% (279/875) of patients at increased risk for medication-related problems (Meris score >12 group) at admission. Thereby, the number of drugs in the Meris score >12 group was 10.6 (average; standard deviation 3.5; n=279), while in the Meris score ≤12 group it was only five drugs per patient (average 4.6; standard deviation 2.8; n=596). The age of patients in the Meris score >12 group averaged 75.9 ± 11 years, while the age of patients in the Meris score ≤12 group averaged 60.6 ± 17.9 years., Discussion: Prioritization with the help of a risk-scoring tool is essential as pharmacy services in Saxon hospitals still need to be regularly established and in order to identify patients with an increased risk for drug-related problems at an early stage., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: A medication review aims at the optimization of medication use, the detection of drug-related problems (DRPs) and the recommendation of interventions. As part of the pilot project "Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen" (ARMIN) and caused by the introduction of several training programs, numerous public pharmacies in Germany currently offer medication reviews for patients. However, a standardized method for external quality control has so far not been established., Methods: A round robin test for medication reviews was designed in written form by five pharmacists with expertise in different areas (Drug information service ARMIN, Saxonian Chamber of pharmacists, public pharmacy, hospital pharmacy), based on the recommendations of the guideline for medication reviews of the German Federal Chamber of Pharmacists (Bundesapothekerkammer). On the basis of a fictitious case study the participants were asked to check a patient's medication data for the presence of DRPs, propose possible solutions and generate a medication plan. The solutions were assessed by two pharmacists of the drug information service ARMIN on the basis of a best practice solution that had been consented in the study group beforehand., Results: 102 pharmacists and 13 pharmacy students in internship took part in the round robin test. On average, participants achieved a score of 7,62 out of 9 for recognizing DRPs and recommending solutions and a score of 0,79 out of 1 for generating a correct medication plan. 106 participants (92%) met the requirements for successful participation (recognizing the three most relevant DRPs and at least one further DRP as well as generating an adequate medication plan). The implementation of the approach described here proved to be practicable The State Directorate of Saxony accepted the round robin test as a measure for external quality assessment in accordance with legal requirements., Conclusions: Due to the nationwide introduction of medication reviews as a pharmaceutical service in June 2022, medication reviews performed by German community pharmacies will gain in importance in the coming years. This is why quality assurance is necessary. Since the participants' performance in medication analysis becomes comparable by completing the round robin test, this instrument appears to be potentially suitable for the external quality assessment of medications reviews nationwide., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Purpose: High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX)-associated acute kidney injury with delayed MTX clearance has been linked to an excess in MTX-induced toxicities. Glucarpidase is a recombinant enzyme that rapidly hydrolyzes MTX into non-toxic metabolites. The recommended dose of glucarpidase is 50 U/kg, which has never been formally established in a dose finding study in humans. Few case reports, mostly in children, suggest that lower doses of glucarpidase might be equally effective in lowering MTX levels., Methods: Seven patients with toxic MTX plasma concentrations following HDMTX therapy were treated with half-dose glucarpidase (mean 25 U/kg, range 17-32 U/kg). MTX levels were measured immunologically as well as by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Toxicities were assessed according to National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0., Results: All patients experienced HDMTX-associated kidney injury (median increase in creatinine levels within 48 h after HDMTX initiation compared to baseline of 251%, range 80-455%) and showed toxic MTX plasma concentrations (range 3.1-182.4 µmol/L) before glucarpidase injection. The drug was administered 42-70 h after HDMTX initiation. Within one day after glucarpidase injection, MTX plasma concentrations decreased by ≥ 97.7% translating into levels of 0.02-2.03 µmol/L. MTX rebound was detected in plasma 42-73 h after glucarpidase initiation, but concentrations remained consistent at < 10 µmol/L., Conclusion: Half-dose glucarpidase seems to be effective in lowering MTX levels to concentrations manageable with continued intensified folinic acid rescue., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Clinical pharmacy services in German hospitals appear to be underdeveloped compared with other European countries. However, recent developments have increased the interest in expanding these services. Detailed data about the current state of clinical pharmacy services in Germany are lacking. This survey establishes the current level of pharmacy services in Germany and the barriers to implementation., Methods: An online survey conducted in 2017 was distributed to directors of all 389 German hospital pharmacies. The survey contained 26 questions addressing hospital and pharmacy characteristics, clinical pharmacy services provided, the number of clinical pharmacists and the frequency as well as the quality assurance of these services., Results: There were 133 responses (34%). Of these, 84 (63%) pharmacies provided some form of clinical pharmacy services. Based on the 389 contacted pharmacies, a clinical pharmacy service is available in at least 22% of hospital pharmacies in Germany. On average there are 2.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) clinical pharmacists per hospital employed, although there is a wide variation in numbers (0.3-22 FTE) and service provision between hospitals. Clinical pharmacy services are generally provided on a daily or weekly basis, with a principal focus on general surgery, critical care and general medicine wards., Conclusions: This is the first survey providing a detailed picture of clinical pharmacy services in Germany. There is wide variation in clinical service provision among hospitals, with some hospitals having developed a comprehensive range of clinical services. Compared with other countries, particularly the UK where the focus has shifted to provision of 7-day clinical services, the gap in clinical pharmacy services remains large. The focus should be turned to refining clinical pharmacy services in hospital admissions and discharge planning while also improving Health IT, the opportunities for specialisation and aligning education in accordance with the EAHP common training framework., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Migraine, endometriosis, and the comorbidity of both are frequent pain disorders of special relevance for women. The neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is critically involved in migraine, and circumstantial evidence suggests a role in endometriosis. We assessed CGRP levels at different times of menstrual cycle in four groups: healthy women, women with migraine or endometriosis and with the comorbidity of both., Methods: Women with episodic migraine and women with a histologically confirmed endometriosis were recruited from specialized centers. For CGRP determination with a commercial enzyme immunoassay kit, cubital vein blood samples were collected on menstrual cycle day 2 ± 2 (during menstruation) and on day 15 ± 2 (periovulatory period). The primary endpoint of the study was the absolute difference of CGRP plasma levels between the menstrual and the periovulatory phase of all study groups. Groups were compared using nonparametric test procedures., Results: A total of 124 women were included in the study. The change of CGRP plasma levels between menstruation and the periovulatory period was different between groups (p = 0.007). Women with comorbid migraine and endometriosis showed an increase of CGRP in the menstrual phase of +6.32 (interquartile range, IQR -3.64-13.60) compared to the periovulatory time, while healthy controls had a decrease of -10.14 (-22.54-0.91, p = 0.004). CGRP levels were different in the periovulatory phase among groups (p = 0.008), with highest values in healthy controls., Interpretation: CGRP levels change significantly during the menstrual cycle. Different patterns in women with the comorbidity point to a deviant regulation of CGRP release., (© 2021 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.)

Objectives: The capability to measure and monitor the quality of antibiotic prescribing is an important component of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) programmes. Several catalogues of consensus-based structure and process-of-care quality indicators (QIs) have been proposed, but only a few studies have tested and validated ABS QIs in practice tests. This multicentre study determined the clinimetric properties and suitability of a set of 33 process QIs for ABS that had earlier been developed and in part recommended in a German-Austrian hospital ABS practice guideline., Methods: Two point prevalence surveys were conducted in a convenience sample of 24 acute care hospitals throughout Germany, and data of all screened adult inpatients with prescription of a systemic antibiotic at a given day (n=4310) were included in the study. For each QI, the following clinimetric properties were assessed: applicability, feasibility, performance, case mix stability and interobserver reliability., Results: Eighteen QIs were considered sufficiently feasible, applicable and reliable, and had adequate room for improvement. The finally selected QIs primarily cover antibiotic therapy of common infections (bloodstream infection, pneumonia and urinary tract infection), while two of the QIs each address surgical prophylaxis and general aspects of antibiotic administration., Conclusions: Practice tests may be important to test the suitability of consensus process-of-care QIs in the field of hospital ABS. The 18 selected QIs considered suitable enough for hospital ABS in this study should be regarded as priority QIs useful for internal quality control and assurance. More research and additional practice tests may be needed to confirm their suitability for external quality assessment schemes., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)