Highlights Few large series have described the clinical characteristics, treatments, costs and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in western countries. We report our experience with the first 1,255 cases who received anti-COVID-19 treatment at a Spanish hospital. The prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and mortality was high in the early days of the Spanish epidemic. Older age, the presence of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and the presence of severe hypoxemia, lymphocytopenia and increased C-reactive protein at admission are factors independently associated to an increased risk of death. The cost of COVID-19 treatment is high (€0.44 million per 1,000 hospitalized patients). Higher expenses are attributable to the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome with tocilizumab.

No abstract

The combination of OBV/PTV/r+DSV with or without ribavirin for 12-week settings achieved a high rate of SVR12, with an acceptable safety profile in routine clinical care.

Summary What is known and objectives Inadequate management of chronic medication puts patients at risk and causes unnecessary suspension of surgical procedures. The objective of the study was to calculate the rate of cancellation of elective surgical procedures due to inadequate management of chronic medications and to analyse the underlying causes of cancellation. Methods We designed an analytic, observational, retrospective study of all elective surgical procedures performed from July to October 2017 in a tertiary hospital. The main variable was the percentage of surgeries cancelled owing to inadequate management of chronic medications. Other variables recorded included demographic characteristics, time between the preanaesthesia evaluation and surgery, drug involved, and the reason for incorrect management of the medication. Results During the study period, 5415 surgical procedures were programmed, and 793 (14.6%) were cancelled. Cancellations due to inadequate patient preparation accounted for 5.3% (42 cases), and 19 were related to incorrect medication management (2.4% of the total number of cancellations). The 19 patients, who were mostly men (73.7%), had a median age of 76 years (IQR 68‐81). The drugs involved were acenocoumarol (6), enoxaparin (4), clopidogrel (4), direct‐acting oral anticoagulants (2), acetylsalicylic acid (1), tocilizumab (1) and leflunomide (1). The reasons for drug mishandling were poor understanding of the anaesthesiology recommendations (15) and lack of a preanaesthesia evaluation (4). What is new and conclusion Inadequate management of chronic medications (2.4%) is not the most frequent reason for cancellation, although it is one of the easiest to avoid. Based on our results, starting in October 2017, the Pharmacy Department began to offer a pharmaceutical service to patients with doubts about the preoperative management of chronic medications.

ObjectivesTo determine if an advanced medication review carried out in the emergency department (ED) increases the number of pharmacotherapy recommendations (PR) and the severity of the detected prescribing errors.MethodsWe designed an analytic observational prospective cohort study with preintervention assessment (PRE) and postintervention assessment (POST). In PRE, prescription review was done by pharmacists located in the pharmacy department; they took into account only the information provided by the computerised physician order entry system. In POST, pharmacists were physically present in the ED and performed an advanced medication review. The main variables were number of PR and the severity of detected prescribing errors according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) severity index. Clinical variables were number of calls to physicians on duty during the first 48 hours of admission, readmissions at 30 days, visits to the ED at 30 days, inhospital mortality and length of stay.ResultsThe study population comprised 102 patients (51 in PRE and 51 in POST). In PRE, the number of PR per patient was 1.1; in POST, this value increased by 53% (1.7 PR per patient; P=0.014), especially in the case of PR related to home medications. The severity of prescribing errors was higher in POST (P=0.004). There was a trend towards better results for all clinical outcomes in POST although statistical significance was not reached.ConclusionsAn advanced medication review in the ED increases the number of PR and the severity of the detected prescribing errors.

Introduction: In March 2020, due to the pandemic caused by COVID-19, a pilot experience of pharmaceutical continuity of care received by hospital outpatients was launched in Cantabria, a Spanish autonomous community. Thanks to this experience, the medication was dispensed by the hospital pharmacy through the community pharmacy of the patient’s choice. Our objective was to estimate the costs avoided by this practice during the months of April and May 2020. Methods: The analysis of the economic impact was carried out in terms of saved costs, from the hospital and from the social perspective. Savings associated with the avoided home delivery of medication and avoided labor productivity losses were calculated, as well as the time associated with avoided trips in monetary terms. Results: A total of 2,249 hospital-dispensed drugs were delivered through the community pharmacy in the analyzed period, with an average of 57.7 daily deliveries. The experience, which involved one hospital and 262 pharmacies of Cantabria, saved patients 93,305 km in trips to the hospital, associated with an average time saving of 1,374 hours. In terms of costs, the hospital saved on shipments by courier, estimated at €30,205, since it was the community pharmacy and the distribution warehouses that delivered the drugs. From a social perspective, this initiative saved €23,309 due to the trips (€8,907) and productivity losses (€14,402) that were avoided. Conclusions: This exceptional situation may be a good opportunity to improve the coordination between hospital pharmacies and community pharmacies in Spain, not only during the pandemic but also in the post-COVID-19 era.

Background : We report the long-term outcomes, changes in laboratory parameters, the incidence of secondary nosocomial infections and treatment cost of a Spanish cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 that received tocilizumab (TCZ). Methods : Retrospective cohort of PCR confirmed adult patients who received TCZ from March 1 to 24, 2020 in a tertiary hospital was analyzed. Patients were followed up until 10 May 2020. Results : We included 162 patients (median age 64 years; 70.4% male). At time of TCZ administration, 48.1% of patients were on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Over a median follow-up of 53 days, 46.9% of patients were discharge in good conditions and 19.8% were still hospitalized. The overall mortality was 33.3%, being higher in patients on IMV than those who did not (46.2% vs 26.7%, P < 0.001). A significant improvement in the lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, and D-dimer was observed. Overall, 43.2% patients presented nosocomial infections, causing death in 8%. Infections were more prevalent in ICU units (63.0% vs 17.1%, P < 0.001). The total cost of TCZ was €371,784. Conclusions : Among the patients who used TCZ, one third died, regardless the improvement in some inflammatory biomarkers. The incidence of secondary nosocomial infections was high.

BackgroundOncology clinical trials can lead to relevant financial savings in drug acquisition for healthcare providers. Considerable methodological heterogeneity is observed among previous studies estimating these savings.MethodsWe developed a methodology to estimate the economic benefit obtained from the enrollment of patients into clinical trials through the analysis of drug cost avoidance. We designed a decision algorithm to determine if a clinical trial is associated with drug cost avoidance. This algorithm is based on five scenarios according to the availability or not of standard treatment, the presence or absence of a control arm (placebo or active treatment), and the provider of the medication. We considered as reference the cost of the standard treatment that the patient would have received in routine clinical practice. We standardized drug doses and treatment durations according to the literature. Costs were considered from a National Health System perspective. We applied this methodology at a single, research-active University Hospital in 2019. A cost avoidance analysis per trial and patient was carried out on cancer patients.ResultsWe analyzed 140 trials in which 198 patients were recruited. Drug cost avoidance was found in 120 trials (85.7%). The estimated total drug cost avoidance amounted to over €3,200,000. Melanoma and genitourinary tumors were the tumor types associated with the highest cost avoidance. The average drug cost avoidance per patient was €16,245.ConclusionWe describe a standardized method to estimate drug cost avoidance in clinical trials. We have applied it to all ongoing oncology clinical trials in our center. This methodology could be valuable for other centers to analyze the potential saving of clinical trials.