Drug utilisation in neonatal units in England and Wales: a national cohort study

Purpose To describe drug utilisation patterns in neonatal units. Methods Retrospective observational cohort study using data held in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) for neonatal units in England and Wales including infants born at 23 to 44 weeks’ gestational age (GA) from 01 January 2010 to 31 December 2017. Results The cohort included 17,501 (3%) extremely preterm infants; 40,607 (7%) very preterm infants; 193,536 (31%) moderate-to-late preterm infants; and 371,606 (59%) term infants. The number of unique drugs received by an infant (median (IQR)) increased with decreasing GA: 17 (11–24) in extremely preterm, 7 (5–11) in very preterm, 3 (0–4) in moderate-to-late preterm, and 3 (0–3) in term infants. The two most frequently prescribed drugs were benzylpenicillin and gentamicin in all GA groups, and caffeine in extremely preterm. Other frequently used drugs among preterm infants were electrolytes, diuretics and anti-reflux medications. Among infants <32 weeks’ GA, the largest increase in use was for surfactant (given on the neonatal unit), caffeine and probiotics, while domperidone and ranitidine had the largest decline. Conclusion Antibiotics, for all GAs and caffeine, among preterm infants, are the most frequently used drugs in neonatal medicine. Preterm infants are exposed to a high burden of drugs, particularly antibiotics. Changing patterns in use reflect the emergence of evidence in some areas but several non-evidence-based drugs continue to be used widely. Improvements are needed to ensure rational drug use on neonatal units. Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03773289). Date of registration 21 Dec 2018.

Man vs. machine: comparison of pharmacogenetic expert counselling with a clinical medication support system in a study with 200 genotyped patients

Background Medication problems such as strong side effects or inefficacy occur frequently. At our university hospital, a consultation group of specialists takes care of patients suffering from medication problems. Nevertheless, the counselling of poly-treated patients is complex, as it requires the consideration of a large network of interactions between drugs and their targets, their metabolizing enzymes, and their transporters, etc. Purpose This study aims to check whether a score-based decision-support system (1) reduces the time and effort and (2) suggests solutions at the same quality level. Patients and methods A total of 200 multimorbid, poly-treated patients with medication problems were included. All patients were considered twice: manually, as clinically established, and using the Drug-PIN decision-support system. Besides diagnoses, lab data (kidney, liver), phenotype (age, gender, BMI, habits), and genotype (genetic variants with actionable clinical evidence I or IIa) were considered, to eliminate potentially inappropriate medications and to select individually favourable drugs from existing medication classes. The algorithm is connected to automatically updated knowledge resources to provide reproducible up-to-date decision support. Results The average turnaround time for manual poly-therapy counselling per patient ranges from 3 to 6 working hours, while it can be reduced to ten minutes using Drug-PIN. At the same time, the results of the novel computerized approach coincide with the manual approach at a level of > 90%. The holistic medication score can be used to find favourable drugs within a class of drugs and also to judge the severity of medication problems, to identify critical cases early and automatically. Conclusion With the computerized version of this approach, it became possible to score all combinations of all alternative drugs from each class of drugs administered (“personalized medication landscape “) and to identify critical patients even before problems are reported (“medication alert”). Careful comparison of manual and score-based results shows that the incomplete manual consideration of genetic specialties and pharmacokinetic conflicts is responsible for most of the (minor) deviations between the two approaches. The meaning of the reduction of working time for experts by about 2 orders of magnitude should not be underestimated, as it enables practical application of personalized medicine in clinical routine.

Prevalence, contributory factors and severity of medication errors associated with direct-acting oral anticoagulants in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose This study aimed to estimate the prevalence, contributory factors, and severity of medication errors associated with direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken by searching 11 databases including Medline, Embase, and CINHAL between January 2008 and September 2020. The pooled prevalence of errors and predictive intervals were estimated using random-effects models using Stata software. Data related to error causation were synthesised according to Reason’s accident causation model. Results From the 5205 titles screened, 32 studies were included which were mostly based in hospitals and included DOAC treatment for thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation. The proportion of study population who experienced either prescription, administration, or dispensing error ranged from 5.3 to 37.3%. The pooled percentage of patients experiencing prescribing error was 20% (95% CI 15–25%; I2 = 96%; 95% PrI 4–43%). Prescribing error constituted the majority of all error types with a pooled estimate of 78% (95%CI 73–82%; I2 = 0) of all errors. The common reported causes were active failures including wrong drug, and dose for the indication. Mistakes such as non-consideration of renal function, and error-provoking conditions such as lack of knowledge were common contributing factors. Adverse events such as potentially fatal intracranial haemorrhage or patient deaths were linked to the errors but causality assessments were often missing. Conclusions Despite their favourable safety profile, DOAC medication errors are common. There is a need to promote multidisciplinary working, guideline-adherence, training, and education of healthcare professionals, and the use of theory-based and technology-facilitated interventions to minimise errors and maximise the benefits of DOACs usage in all settings. Protocol A protocol developed as per PRISMA-P guideline is registered under PROSPERO ID = CRD42019122996