Search

Background To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). Methods We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18–60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8–12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing. Findings Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84–85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53–8161·96) at day 14 (p

espanolObjetivo: conocer la opinion de los profesionales de Enfermeria sobre la influencia de la isoapariencia farmaceutica en el desarrollo de errores de medicacion. Metodo: se realizo un estudio descriptivo transversal entre abril y mayo de 2017. Los sujetos de estudio fueron profesionales de Enfermeria procedentes de dos hospitales espanoles de nivel terciario. Para la recoleccion de los datos se utilizo un cuestionario disenado ad hoc para el estudio, que incluia 21 items con cinco posibles respuestas segun escala Likert (1= muy en desacuerdo a 5= muy de acuerdo). Se realizo estadistica descriptiva. Se uso del software estadistico SPSS v.22. Resultados: participaron 123 profesionales de Enfermeria. El 96% (n= 118) de los encuestados considero la isoapariencia farmaceutica como un factor de riesgo para la incursion en un error de medicacion. Un 15% (n= 19) de la muestra reconocio haber cometido un error por este motivo. Conclusiones: la isoapariencia farmaceutica es percibida por los profesionales de Enfermeria como un factor de riesgo de errores de medicacion. EnglishObjective: to understand the opinion of Nursing Professionals about the influence of pharmaceutical “isoappearance” on the occurrence of medication errors. Method: a descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between April and May, 2017. The study subjects were Nursing Professionals from two Spanish tertiary hospitals. Data collection was conducted through a questionnaire designed ad hoc for the study, including 21 items with five possible answers according to the Likert Scale (1=extremely disagree to 5=extremely agree). Descriptive statistics analysis was conducted, using the SPSS statistical software version 22. Results: the study included 124 Nursing professionals; 96% (n= 118) of the participants considered that pharmaceutical “isoappearance” was a risk factor for making medication errors, while 15% (n= 19) of the sample admitted that they had made a mistake for this reason. Conclusions: pharmaceutical “isoappearance” is perceived by Nursing professionals as a risk factor for medication errors.

Background: Amphotericin B is the treatment of choice for systemic fungal infections. Among the different AB formulations available, the lipid forms appear to have a better profile of reliability, however, their cost is noticeably higher. In 1999 (pre-initiative period) an evaluation of the quality of the prescription of these preparations was made in our hospital, which revealed that they were not being used to best advantage and were responsible for generating a significant unnecessary expenditure. As a result of this, an information initiative was implemented with respect to the prescribing physicians for the purpose of reducing the inappropriate use of AB. Method: The quality of 100 prescriptions was evaluated prospectively, according to the standards of use of Amphotericin B established in the hospital. Following each evaluation, a pharmacologist personally handed over to each prescribing physician a set of rules governing the use of the Amphotericin B, discussing the indication and recommending the best alternative in each case. In order to measure the impact of this initiative, the appropriateness of the prescriptions during this period was compared with the pre-initiative period. Results: The percentage of inappropriate prescriptions dropped from 58% to 21% following the implementation of the initiative. Likewise, a 33-million-peseta reduction in the total expenditure was achieved in 15 months as well as a savings of 24 million in inappropriate prescriptions. Conclusions: The information initiative improved the quality of the prescribing of preparations of Amphotericin B associated with lipids and considerably reduced the unnecessary expense associated with Amphotericin B misuse in our hospital.

FUNDAMENTO: La anfotericina B es el tratamiento de elección de las infecciones fúngicas sistémicas, pero su utilidad clínica está limitada por su toxicidad. Las formulaciones lipídicas parecen igualmente eficaces y más seguras, pero tienen un mayor coste. El incremento del consumo y del gasto de estas formulaciones nos llevo a plantear un estudio para conocer su perfil de utilización (cuantitativo y cualitativo) y evaluar la repercusión económica de su uso inapropiado. MÉTODOS: Se desarrollaron unas normas de uso de la anfotericina B y se evaluó de forma retrospectiva, la calidad de la prescripción de la anfotericina B no convencional (anfotericina B noC) y la repercusión económica de su uso incorrecto. RESULTADOS: En el 54% de los tratamientos se hizo una mala selección de anfotericina B; en el 3.5% no estaba indicada la utilización de anfotericina B. El exceso de gasto derivado de la prescripción incorrecta fue de 42 millones de pesetas, un 35% del gasto total en medicamentos; el gasto por prescripción innecesaria fue de 1.720.327 pesetas. CONCLUSIONES: La evaluación retrospectiva ha mostrado que existe un elevado porcentaje de tratamientos que no se adecuan a lo recomendado en las normas de prescripción. La puesta en marcha de intervenciones informativas permitiría realizar una selección más eficiente de la anfotericina B noC, mejorando la calidad de la prescripción, lo que podría suponer un importante ahorro económico.