In rural Portugal about one fifth of the pharmacy customers engaged in self-medication. However, further research should be made to address appropriateness of self-medication.

Objective Poor compliance to antihypertensive medications has been identified as a primary cause of uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), with consequent increases in hypertension‐related morbidity and mortality. Therefore, any measure known to improve compliance should be encouraged. This study assessed the impact of reminder cards on compliance to antihypertensive therapy. Method A field trial was undertaken in pharmacies located in the districts of Lisbon and Porto. Eligible participants comprised those aged 30–74 years, prescribed an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in monotherapy, and taken on a once‐daily regimen. Patients were allocated to control group (CG) or intervention group (IG), the latter being provided with a reminder card, an alarm‐type device due to remind the patient of the time to take his medication. Patients were monitored monthly during 3 months for compliance and blood pressure control. Key findings Seventy‐one patients participated in the study (intervention: 35; control group: 36). Compliance was similar between the groups in the first 2 months of follow‐up (97.1% IG vs 94.9% CG at first follow‐up and 97.5% IG vs 94.2% CG at second follow‐up) and higher in the intervention group at the end of the study (97.3% IG vs 87.3% CG; P = 0.011). There were no mean blood pressure differences between compliant and non‐compliant subjects at the end of the study (P value for differences in systolic BP (Psyst) = 0.580; and P value for differences in diastolic BP (Pdlast) = 0.175). Conclusion This small‐scale study indicates a possible positive impact on patients' compliance resulting from the use of reminder cards. However, this needs confirming in larger scale studies with longer monitoring periods.

Objective The aim of this study is to describe and categorise pharmacist interventions (PIs) in a central hospital and report acceptance rates by physicians. Methods A retrospective study was carried out in a 350-bed central hospital between January and June 2013. Eleven pharmacists screened the pharmacotherapy charts for drug-related problems leading to PIs. The recommendations resulting from this analysis were entered in the electronic prescribing system. All the PIs registered on the electronic medical record system during the study period were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were quantified and characterised. Computer records were consulted to assess acceptance rate by physicians. Results A total of 1249 PIs were made by 11 pharmacists, and covered 147 drugs, with the most common being antibacterial (25%) and for the central nervous system (24%) and cardiovascular system (18%). Of the 1249 PIs, 18% concerned acetaminophen, 13% enoxaparin and 10% amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. The PIs were classified into three main categories: drug, dosage and administration related. When we analysed the most relevant PI type (n>20), the highest acceptance rate was for dosage adjustment according to therapeutic indication (58.1%) and renal function (57.4%). The global rate of acceptance was 53%. Conclusions Pharmacists' recommendations entered in the electronic prescribing system with a short explanation, as well as the pharmacotherapy recommendation, are immediately available to the doctor; however, the relatively low acceptance rate suggests that a further study also evaluating verbal interventions is needed, since the most urgent recommendations are made verbally, and this would likely increase the acceptance rate.

The conclusions presented in this work focused on the proposal for optimal biosimilar prescription criteria, the preparation of original biologics and biosimilars in the pharmacy, the management and selection of suppliers, extrapolation issues, the specific role of pharmacovigilance and risk management for the optimal use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies.

No abstract

This abstract was published in error and withdrawn at the author’s request.

BackgroundPolymedication increases the risk of developing drug interactions, and this risk is higher as the number of drugs used increases. At the hospital, medication review is performed for patients receiving treatment with drugs subject to additional monitoring.PurposeCharacterise the profile of drug interactions in oncological/haematological patients proposed for treatment with drugs subject to justification.Material and methodsDescriptive, observational, retrospective study conducted between January and December 2016 in a central general hospital. Oncological/haematological patients with drug prescription subject to justification were included. Information was collected through consultation of the clinical process and other hospital records. Drug interactions were manually screened and classified using Lexi-interact database risk rating. Data were recorded and processed in Microsoft Excel 2010.ResultsA total of 174 patients that had drugs subject to justification were included. We identified 57 drug interactions between the drug for other comorbidities and the proposed therapy, corresponding to 32.7% of the patients. The majority of patients in this group were on five or more drugs. Drug-drug interactions identified had the following risk classification: 48 with risk C, five with risk D and four with risk X. The groups with the highest number of interactions were the cardiovascular system, CNS and drugs used to treat endocrine diseases. Everolimus (three drug interactions/two requests) followed by bortezomib (28 drug interactions/23 requests) had the highest number of drug interactions/number of requests. A management plan for patients’ therapy that included monitoring (risk C interactions), suggestions to change therapy (risk D interactions) and therapy modification (risk X interactions) was established with the oncologist.ConclusionThe present study allowed the identification of the need for pharmaceutical intervention in the pharmacotherapy review. Knowledge of potential drug interactions can lead to the development of institutional strategies to minimise it and to prevent significant changes in therapy goal. Thus, it is important to identify thecriteria for selecting patients who can benefit most from this type of evaluation.References and/or Acknowledgements1. Riechelmann RP, Girardi D. Drug interactions in cancer patients: a hidden risk? J Res Pharm Pract2016Apr–Jun;5(2):77–78.2. Blenkinsopp A, Bond C, Raynor DK. Medication reviews. Br J Clin Pharmacol2012Oct;74(4):573–580.No conflict of interest

No abstract