Search

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programs encompass a range of healthcare processes aiming to treat infections at home, with the preferential use of the intravenous route. Although several barriers arise during the implementation of OPAT circuits, recent cumulative data have supported the effectiveness of these programs, demonstrating their application in a safe and cost-effective manner. Given that OPAT is evolving towards treating patients with higher complexity, a multidisciplinary team including physicians, pharmacists, and nursing staff should lead the program. The professionals involved require previous experience in infectious diseases treatment as well as in outpatient healthcare and self-administration. As we describe here, clinical pharmacists exert a key role in OPAT multidisciplinary teams. Their intervention is essential to optimize antimicrobial prescriptions through their participation in stewardship programs as well as to closely follow patients from a pharmacotherapeutic perspective. Moreover, pharmacists provide specialized counseling on antimicrobial treatment technical compounding. In fact, OPAT elaboration in sterile environments and pharmacy department clean rooms increases OPAT stability and safety, enhancing the quality of the program. In summary, building multidisciplinary teams with the involvement of clinical pharmacists improves the management of home-treated infections, promoting a safe self-administration and increasing OPAT patients’ quality of life.

Abstract Background To assess uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for orphan medicinal products (OMP), a summary of the current basis for approval is required; a systematic grouping of medical conditions may be useful in summarizing information and issuing recommendations for practice. Methods A grouping of medical conditions with similar characteristics regarding the potential applicability of methods and designs was created using a consensus approach. The 125 dossiers for authorised OMP published between 1999 and 2014 on the EMA webpage were grouped accordingly and data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to assess the extent and robustness of the pivotal evidence supporting regulatory decisions. Results 88% (110/125) of OMP authorizations were based on clinical trials, with 35% (38/110) including replicated pivotal trials. The mean (SD) number of pivotal trials per indication was 1.4 (0.7), and the EPARs included a median of three additional non-pivotal supportive studies. 10% of OMPs (13/125) were authorised despite only negative pivotal trials. One-third of trials (53/159) did not include a control arm, one-third (50/159) did not use randomisation, half the trials (75/159) were open-label and 75% (119/159) used intermediate or surrogate variables as the main outcome. Chronic progressive conditions led by multiple system/organs, conditions with single acute episodes and progressive conditions led by one organ/system were the groups where the evidence deviated most from conventional standards. Conditions with recurrent acute episodes had the most robust datasets. The overall size of the exposed population at the time of authorisation of OMP − mean(SD) 190.5 (202.5) − was lower than that required for the qualification of clinically-relevant adverse reactions. Conclusions The regulatory evidence supporting OMP authorization showed substantial uncertainties, including weak protection against errors, substantial use of designs unsuited for conclusions on causality, use of intermediate variables, lack of a priorism and insufficient safety data to quantify risks of relevant magnitude. Grouping medical conditions based on clinical features and their methodological requirements may facilitate specific methodological and regulatory recommendations for the study of OMP to strengthen the evidence base.