Electronic monitoring of potential adverse drug events related to lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine during the first wave of COVID-19

Financial impact of medication reviews by clinical pharmacists to reduce in-hospital adverse drug events: a return-on-investment analysis

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug events contribute to rising health care costs. Clinical pharmacists can reduce their risks by identifying and solving drug-related problems (DRPs) through medication review.

AIM

To develop an economic model to determine whether medication reviews performed by clinical pharmacists could lead to a reduction in health care costs associated with the prevention of potential adverse drug events.

METHOD

Two pharmacists performed medication reviews during ward rounds in an internal medicine setting over one year. Avoided costs were estimated by monetizing five categories of DRPs (improper drug selection, drug interactions, untreated indications, inadequate dosages, and drug use without an indication). An expert panel assessed potential adverse drug events and their probabilities of occurrence for 20 randomly selected DRPs in each category. The costs of adverse drug events were extracted from internal hospital financial data. A partial economic study from a hospital perspective then estimated the annual costs avoided by resolving DRPs identified by 3 part-time clinical pharmacists (0.9 full-time equivalent) from 2019 to 2020. The return on investment (ROI) of medication review was calculated.

RESULTS

The estimated annual avoided costs associated with the potential adverse drug events induced by 676 DRPs detected was € 304,170. The cost of a 0.9 full-time equivalent clinical pharmacist was € 112,408. Extrapolated to 1 full-time equivalent, the annual net savings was € 213,069 or an ROI of 1-1.71. Sensitivity analyses showed that the economic model was robust.

CONCLUSION

This economic model revealed the positive financial impact and favorable return on investment of a medication review intervention performed by clinical pharmacists. These findings should encourage the future deployment of a pharmacist-led adverse drug events prevention program.

Safety of Drugs Used during the First Wave of COVID-19: A Hospital-Registry-Based Study

The emergency of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the off-label use of drugs without data on their toxicity profiles in patients with COVID-19, or on their concomitant use. Patients included in the COVID-19 Patient Registry of a tertiary hospital during the first wave were analyzed to evaluate the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with the selected treatments. Twenty-one percent of patients (197 out of 933) had at least one ADR, with a total of 240 ADRs. Patients with ADRs were more commonly treated with multiple drugs for COVID-19 infection than patients without ADRs (p < 0.001). They were younger (median 62 years vs. 70.1 years; p < 0.001) and took less medication regularly (69.5% vs. 75.7%; p = 0.031). The most frequent ADRs were gastrointestinal (67.1%), hepatobiliary (10.8%), and cardiac disorders (3.3%). Drugs more frequently involved included lopinavir/ritonavir (82.2%), hydroxychloroquine (72.1%), and azithromycin (66.5%). Although most ADRs recovered without sequelae, fatal cases were described, even though the role of the disease could not be completely ruled out. In similar situations, efforts should be made to use the drugs in the context of clinical trials, and to limit off-label use to those drugs with a better benefit/risk profile in specific situations and for patients at high risk of poor disease prognosis.

Development and assessment of PharmaCheck: an electronic screening tool for the prevention of twenty major adverse drug events

Background

Adverse drug events (ADEs) can be prevented by deploying clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that directly assist physicians, via computerized order entry systems, and clinical pharmacists performing medication reviews as part of medical rounds. However, physicians using CDSS are known to be exposed to the alert-fatigue phenomenon. Our study aimed to assess the performance of PharmaCheck—a CDSS to help clinical pharmacists detect high-risk situations with the potential to lead to ADEs—and its impact on clinical pharmacists’ activities.

Methods

Twenty clinical rules, divided into four risk classes, were set for the daily screening of high-risk situations in the electronic health records of patients admitted to our General Internal Medicine Department. Alerts to clinical pharmacists encouraged them to telephone prescribers and suggest any necessary treatment adjustments. PharmaCheck’s performance was assessed using the intervention’s positive predictive value (PPV), which characterizes the proportion of interventions for each alert triggered. PharmaCheck’s impact was assessed by considering clinical pharmacists as a filter for ruling out futile alerts and by comparing the final clinical PPV with a pharmacist (the proportion of interventions that led to a change in the medical regimen) to the final clinical PPV without a pharmacist.

Results

Over 132 days, 447 alerts were triggered for 383 patients, leading to 90 interventions (overall intervention PPV = 20.1%). By risk class, intervention PPVs made up 26.9% (n = 65/242) of abnormal laboratory value alerts, 3.1% (4/127) of alerts for contraindicated medications or medications to be used with caution, 28.2% (20/71) of drug–drug interaction alerts, and 14.3% (1/7) of inadequate mode of administration alerts. Clinical PPVs reached 71.0% (64/90) when pharmacists filtered alerts and 14% (64/242) if they were not doing it.

Conclusion

PharmaCheck enabled clinical pharmacists to improve their traditional processes and broaden their coverage by focusing on 20 high-risk situations. Alert management by pharmacists seemed to be a more effective way of preventing risky situations and alert-fatigue than a model addressing alerts to physicians exclusively. Some fine-tuning could enhance PharmaCheck's performance by considering the information quality of triggers, the variability of clinical settings, and the fact that some prescription processes are already highly secured.