Search

Complete medication reconciliation during hospital admission is the rationale for further treatment decisions. A consecutive, controlled intervention study was conducted to assess discrepancies in medication reconciliation performed by nurses of the Urology Department compared to the Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) established by pharmacists. This study included pre-intervention (control group, CG), nursing training as a pharmaceutical intervention, and post-intervention (intervention group, IG) groups. The discrepancies were classified as "Missing" (not recorded but taken), "Added" (additionally recorded) "Strength" (incorrect documented dosage), "Intake" (incorrect intake time/schedule), "Double" (double prescription), and "Others" (no clear assignment). Additionally, high-risk drug subgroup discrepancies were particularly prevalent and were evaluated. Training success was compared concerning discrepancies in the CG and IG. Generally, the percentage of discrepancies per patient found was lower in the IG than in the CG (78.1% vs. 87.5%, significantly). The category most identified was "Missing" (IG, 33.3% vs. CG, 35.2%). Overall, a discrepancy of 7.4% each (discrepancies: IG, 27 vs. CG, 38) was determined for high-risk drugs while "Missing" occurred (77.8% vs. 52.6%, out of 7.4%). Despite nursing training only partially reducing discrepancies, the implementation of medication reconciliation using BPMH by pharmacists could improve the process, especially for high-risk drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Pegfilgrastim is a covalently bound conjugate of filgrastim and mono-methoxypolyethylene glycol with a longer half-life.Study Design and Methods: We report on phase II prospective monocentric trial examining the feasibility of stem cell mobilization with 12 mg single dose pegfilgrastim in related donors. The objectives were to determine the optimal collection day, defined as CD34+ concentration in peripheral blood (PB) >50 cells/μl, the number of donors collected with single leukapheresis, and the peak level of pegfilgrastim in donor-serum. Furthermore, the cell composition of grafts was assessed and compared to published data.Results: The results included about 28 matched related donors. The median pegfilgrastim serum level remained >200 ng/mL for 48 hours before declining, with the maximal measured concentration of 259.49 ng/ml 24 h after application. The median white blood cell count and CD34 count in PB peaked on day four with 52.6 (range 22.8-85.0) Gpt/l and 66.25 (range 22.9-136.6) cells/μl, respectively. A CD34+ count >50 cells/μl on day four was detected in 75% of donors. 79% of the donors underwent a single collection. Conventional filgrastim was administered additionally in two donors, due to insufficient CD 34+ concentration in PB. 89% of donors showed CD34+ yields ≥4 (median 6.5, range 4.6-14.5) × 10/kg body weight of the recipient. All grafts were administered without rejections.Discussion: The results of this trial showed that stem cell mobilization with pegfilgrastim is a feasible, and attractive option. This is the first trial presenting the kinetics of pegfilgrastim serum levels in healthy donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fasudil is a small molecule inhibitor of Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) and is approved for the treatment of subarachnoid haemorrhage. In preclinical studies, fasudil has been shown to attenuate neurodegeneration, modulate neuroinflammation, and foster axonal regeneration. We aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fasudil in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis., Methods: ROCK-ALS was a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 19 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis centres in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Individuals (aged 18-80 years) with at least probable amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (as per the revised El Escorial criteria), a disease duration of 6-24 months, and a slow vital capacity greater than 65% of predicted normal were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 30 mg (15 mg twice daily) or 60 mg (30 mg twice daily) fasudil or matched placebo intravenously for 20 days over a 4-week period. Follow-up assessments were performed at 45, 90, and 180 days after treatment initiation. The co-primary endpoints were safety until day 180 (defined as the proportion without drug-related serious adverse events) and tolerability during the treatment period (defined as the proportion who did not discontinue treatment due to suspected drug-related adverse events). The primary analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population, which included all participants who entered the treatment phase. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03792490) and Eudra-CT (2017-003676-31) and is now completed., Findings: Between Feb 20, 2019, and April 20, 2022, 120 participants were enrolled and randomised; two individuals assigned fasudil 30 mg withdrew consent before the baseline visit. Thus, the intention-to-treat population comprised 35 in the fasudil 30 mg group, 39 in the fasudil 60 mg group, and 44 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion without a drug-related serious adverse event was 1·00 (95% CI 0·91 to 1·00) with placebo, 1·00 (0·89 to 1·00) with fasudil 30 mg, and 1·00 (0·90 to 1·00) with fasudil 60 mg; the difference in proportions was 0·00 (95% CI -0·11 to 0·10; p>0·99) for fasudil 30 mg versus placebo and 0·00 (-0·10 to 0·10; p>0·99) for fasudil 60 mg versus placebo. Treatment tolerability (the estimated proportion who did not discontinue) was 0·93 (95% CI 0·81 to 0·99) with placebo, 1·00 (0·90 to 1·00) with fasudil 30 mg, and 0·90 (0·76 to 0·97) with fasudil 60 mg; the difference in proportions was 0·07 (95% CI -0·05 to 0·20; p=0·25) for fasudil 30 mg versus placebo, and -0·03 (-0·18 to 0·10; p=0·70) for fasudil 60 mg versus placebo. Eight deaths occurred: two in the placebo group, four in the fasudil 30 mg group, and two in the fasudil 60 mg group. The most common serious adverse events were respiratory failure (seven events), gastrostomy (five events), pneumonia (four events), and dysphagia (four events). No serious adverse events or deaths were attributed to study treatment. Adverse events, which were mainly related to disease progression, occurred in 139 participants in the placebo group, 108 in the fasudil 30 mg group, and 105 in the fasudil 60 mg group., Interpretation: Fasudil was well tolerated and safe in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The effect of fasudil on efficacy outcomes should be explored in larger clinical trials with a longer treatment duration, oral administration, and potentially higher dose of the trial drug., Funding: Framework of the E-Rare Joint Transnational Call 2016 "Clinical research for new therapeutic uses of already existing molecules (repurposing) in rare diseases"., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JCK reports a grant from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Muskelkranke and consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Ipsen, Roche, and Zambon. RG reports grants from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Muskelkranke, Initiative SMA, and Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, as well as consulting fees from Biogen, Roche, ITF Pharma, and Zambon. DZ has received consulting fees from Novartis and Angelini Pharma and has served on an advisory board for Biogen. NB has received compensations from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. PC serves on the editorial advisory boards of ALS and The Revue Neurologique; reports consultancy work or participation on advisory boards for Amylyx, Biogen, Cytokinetics, Ferrer, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, VectorY, and Zambon; serves on the drug safety monitoring board for Quralis, and has received a research grant from Biogen. EDLC has received travel grants from Biogen and EFFIK. PW reports grants from the Boris Canessa Foundation and the Bundesministerium für Bildung and Forschung; and has received consulting fees from ITF Pharma, Zambon, Novartis, Biogen, and Roche. TM reports institutional grants from Cytokinetics, Ferrer, AL-S Pharma, Sanofi, Amylyx, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Apellis Pharmaceuticals, as well as personal fees from Biogen, Amylyx, and ITF Pharma; and is co-founder and shareholder of the Ambulanzpartner Soziotechnologie APST. JG has received personal fees from UCB, Alexion, Amylyx, Roche, and Zambon; and is a member of advisory boards of the European Network to Cure ALS, Neuroimaging Society in amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, EU ALS coalition, and the World Federation of Neurology Motoneuron Disease group. M-HS received compensations for consulting from Amylyx, Zambon, EFFIK-Italfarmaco, and SOS Oxygene. M-LR reports grants from FightMND, MND Research Australia and the US National Institutes of Health. CN has received fees for non-related services for Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Roche, and Argenx. JW reports grants from the US National Institutes of Health. JS has received payments for participation on advisory boards, talks, travel, and research projects from Abcuro, Alnylam, Argenx, Biotest, CSL Behring, Grifols, Johnson & Johnson, Kezar, LFB, Lupin, Momenta, Novartis, Octapharma, and UCB, all unrelated to the present study. TF has received personal fees from Actimed, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, CSLBehring, Daiichi Sankyo, Galapagos, Immunic, KyowaKirin, LivaNova, Minoryx, Novartis, RECARDIO, Relaxera, Roche, Servier, Viatris, Vifor, Fresenius Kabi, PINK gegen Brustkrebs, Aslan, BionsenseWebster, Enanta, VICO Therapeutics, Pharmaceutical Product Development, and IQVIA, as well as institutional grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, and the European Commission. MB reports grants from the US National Institutes of Health, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and the ALS Association; as well as consulting fees for Alector, Alexion, Annexon, Arrowhead, Biogen, Cartesian, Denali, Eli Lilly, Horizon, Immunovant, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and uniQure; the University of Miami has licensed intellectual property to Biogen to support the design of the ATLAS trial (NCT04856982), for which MB is academic lead. PL reports grants from the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amylyx, Bial, Desitin, ITF Pharma, Novartis, Stadapharm, Raya Therapeutic, Woolsey Pharmaceuticals, and Zambon; and is co-inventor on a patent for the use of fasudil in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (EP 2825175 B1, US 9.980,972 B2). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a large proportion of patients admitted to the emergency department (ED), the initial main symptom is nonspecific. One possible reason for this, especially in older patients, may be adverse drug reactions (ADR) due to their frequent polypharmacy., Aim: To illustrate the incidence of ADRs, the affected patient population including risk factors, and drug classes with ADRs leading to nonspecific symptoms. To provide practice recommendations for the management of ADRs in the ED., Material and Methods: Presentation of the pharmacological principles on ADRs, statistics of pharmacovigilance centers as well as original literature including experiences from clinical practice and own projects., Results: In 10% of patients with nonspecific symptoms an ADR is responsible for presentation in the ED. In 60% of cases these ADRs are not correctly identified in the ED setting. A small number of drug classes are responsible for most of these referrals. Databases, risk stratification, clinical pharmacists, or clinical decision support systems are available to improve ADR identification and management. As these options are partly associated with considerable costs or the validation for German EDs is missing, a widespread application does not take place., Conclusion: Correct identification of ADRs in patients with nonspecific symptoms in the ED is necessary to initiate adequate treatment. These ADRs are often overlooked because processes and tools for identification and management are not applied in the ED, leading to a lack of awareness. For high-risk patients in the ED, the focus should be on drug history, ideally considering patient-specific risk factors and specific drug classes., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

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/).)