开发和实施Hdc.DrApp.la和SIMDA计划以减少内科住院患者的多药和药物相互作用。

IF 1.4 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Reviews on recent clinical trials Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2174/1574887118666230208124744
Ricardo E Barcia, Guillermo Alberto Keller, Francisco Azzato, Roberto A Diez, Mathias Sielecki, Ricardo Klaine Samson, Juan Alberto Lescano, Guido Giunti
{"title":"开发和实施Hdc.DrApp.la和SIMDA计划以减少内科住院患者的多药和药物相互作用。","authors":"Ricardo E Barcia,&nbsp;Guillermo Alberto Keller,&nbsp;Francisco Azzato,&nbsp;Roberto A Diez,&nbsp;Mathias Sielecki,&nbsp;Ricardo Klaine Samson,&nbsp;Juan Alberto Lescano,&nbsp;Guido Giunti","doi":"10.2174/1574887118666230208124744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated polypharmacy and possible drug-drug interactions (p-DDIs) in hospitalized patients before and after using the SIMDA Computerized Medical Decision Support System (CMDSS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We included the prescriptions of ≥ 18 years hospitalized patients in the internal medicine department. We developed and implemented the Hdc.DrApp Physician Order Entry System and the CMDSS SIMDA, which detects p-DDIs and signals dosage adjustment based on renal function. To evaluate the impact of the CMDSS, we made a comparison Before (Survey) / After (Intervention): Survey between Oct/22/2019, and Mar/21/2020, and Intervention between Apr/4/2020 and Sep/3/2020. We analyze prescriptions from the first day and after the first day. We compared the number of drugs, polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs), excessive polypharmacy (≥ 10 drugs), and p-DDIs. We evaluated differences with the X2 test, Yates correction, Fisher's exact test, ANOVA, and post hoc tests according to their characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We evaluated 2,834 admissions: Survey 1,211 and Intervention 1,623. The number of drugs per patient was 6.02 (± 3.20) in Survey and 5.17 (± 3.22) in Intervention (p < 0.001) on the first day and 9.68 (± 5.60) in Survey and 7.22 (± 4.93) in Intervention (p < 0.001) throughout the hospitalization. Polypharmacy was present in 64% of the Survey and 53% of Interventions (RR: 0.83 (0.78-0.88); and excessive polypharmacy in 14% of the Survey and 10% of Intervention (RR: 0.73, 0.60-0.90). The frequency of total p-DDIs was 1.91/patient (± 4.11) in Survey and 0.35 (± 0.81) in the Intervention (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We developed and implemented the Hdc.DrApp and SIMDA systems that were easy to use and allowed us to quantify and reduce polypharmacy and p-DDIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":21174,"journal":{"name":"Reviews on recent clinical trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Implementation of the Hdc.DrApp.la and SIMDA Programs to Reduce Polypharmacy and Drug-drug Interactions in Patients Hospitalized in Internal Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Ricardo E Barcia,&nbsp;Guillermo Alberto Keller,&nbsp;Francisco Azzato,&nbsp;Roberto A Diez,&nbsp;Mathias Sielecki,&nbsp;Ricardo Klaine Samson,&nbsp;Juan Alberto Lescano,&nbsp;Guido Giunti\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1574887118666230208124744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated polypharmacy and possible drug-drug interactions (p-DDIs) in hospitalized patients before and after using the SIMDA Computerized Medical Decision Support System (CMDSS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We included the prescriptions of ≥ 18 years hospitalized patients in the internal medicine department. We developed and implemented the Hdc.DrApp Physician Order Entry System and the CMDSS SIMDA, which detects p-DDIs and signals dosage adjustment based on renal function. To evaluate the impact of the CMDSS, we made a comparison Before (Survey) / After (Intervention): Survey between Oct/22/2019, and Mar/21/2020, and Intervention between Apr/4/2020 and Sep/3/2020. We analyze prescriptions from the first day and after the first day. We compared the number of drugs, polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs), excessive polypharmacy (≥ 10 drugs), and p-DDIs. We evaluated differences with the X2 test, Yates correction, Fisher's exact test, ANOVA, and post hoc tests according to their characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We evaluated 2,834 admissions: Survey 1,211 and Intervention 1,623. The number of drugs per patient was 6.02 (± 3.20) in Survey and 5.17 (± 3.22) in Intervention (p < 0.001) on the first day and 9.68 (± 5.60) in Survey and 7.22 (± 4.93) in Intervention (p < 0.001) throughout the hospitalization. Polypharmacy was present in 64% of the Survey and 53% of Interventions (RR: 0.83 (0.78-0.88); and excessive polypharmacy in 14% of the Survey and 10% of Intervention (RR: 0.73, 0.60-0.90). The frequency of total p-DDIs was 1.91/patient (± 4.11) in Survey and 0.35 (± 0.81) in the Intervention (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We developed and implemented the Hdc.DrApp and SIMDA systems that were easy to use and allowed us to quantify and reduce polypharmacy and p-DDIs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reviews on recent clinical trials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reviews on recent clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574887118666230208124744\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews on recent clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574887118666230208124744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:我们评估住院患者在使用SIMDA计算机化医疗决策支持系统(CMDSS)前后的多重用药和可能的药物-药物相互作用(p- ddi)。材料与方法:纳入内科住院≥18年患者的处方。我们开发并实现了Hdc。DrApp医嘱录入系统和CMDSS SIMDA,检测p- ddi并根据肾功能发出剂量调整信号。为了评估CMDSS的影响,我们比较了调查前(调查)和干预后(干预):2019年10月22日至2020年3月21日的调查和2020年4月4日至2020年9月3日的干预。我们分析第一天和第一天之后的处方。比较药物数量、多药(≥5种药物)、过度多药(≥10种药物)和p- ddi。我们根据其特点,采用X2检验、Yates校正、Fisher精确检验、方差分析和事后检验来评估差异。结果:我们评估了2834例入院患者:调查1211例,干预1623例。在整个住院期间,调查组患者人均用药数量为6.02(±3.20)个,干预组为5.17(±3.22)个(p < 0.001),调查组为9.68(±5.60)个,干预组为7.22(±4.93)个(p < 0.001)。64%的调查和53%的干预措施存在多重用药(RR: 0.83 (0.78-0.88);14%的调查对象和10%的干预对象过度使用多种药物(RR: 0.73, 0.60-0.90)。调查组总p- ddi频率为1.91例/例(±4.11例),干预组为0.35例(±0.81例)(p < 0.001)。结论:我们开发并实现了Hdc。DrApp和SIMDA系统易于使用,使我们能够量化和减少多药和p- ddi。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development and Implementation of the Hdc.DrApp.la and SIMDA Programs to Reduce Polypharmacy and Drug-drug Interactions in Patients Hospitalized in Internal Medicine.

Objectives: We evaluated polypharmacy and possible drug-drug interactions (p-DDIs) in hospitalized patients before and after using the SIMDA Computerized Medical Decision Support System (CMDSS).

Materials and methods: We included the prescriptions of ≥ 18 years hospitalized patients in the internal medicine department. We developed and implemented the Hdc.DrApp Physician Order Entry System and the CMDSS SIMDA, which detects p-DDIs and signals dosage adjustment based on renal function. To evaluate the impact of the CMDSS, we made a comparison Before (Survey) / After (Intervention): Survey between Oct/22/2019, and Mar/21/2020, and Intervention between Apr/4/2020 and Sep/3/2020. We analyze prescriptions from the first day and after the first day. We compared the number of drugs, polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs), excessive polypharmacy (≥ 10 drugs), and p-DDIs. We evaluated differences with the X2 test, Yates correction, Fisher's exact test, ANOVA, and post hoc tests according to their characteristics.

Results: We evaluated 2,834 admissions: Survey 1,211 and Intervention 1,623. The number of drugs per patient was 6.02 (± 3.20) in Survey and 5.17 (± 3.22) in Intervention (p < 0.001) on the first day and 9.68 (± 5.60) in Survey and 7.22 (± 4.93) in Intervention (p < 0.001) throughout the hospitalization. Polypharmacy was present in 64% of the Survey and 53% of Interventions (RR: 0.83 (0.78-0.88); and excessive polypharmacy in 14% of the Survey and 10% of Intervention (RR: 0.73, 0.60-0.90). The frequency of total p-DDIs was 1.91/patient (± 4.11) in Survey and 0.35 (± 0.81) in the Intervention (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: We developed and implemented the Hdc.DrApp and SIMDA systems that were easy to use and allowed us to quantify and reduce polypharmacy and p-DDIs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Reviews on recent clinical trials
Reviews on recent clinical trials PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials publishes frontier reviews on recent clinical trials of major importance. The journal"s aim is to publish the highest quality review articles in the field. Topics covered include: important Phase I – IV clinical trial studies, clinical investigations at all stages of development and therapeutics. The journal is essential reading for all researchers and clinicians involved in drug therapy and clinical trials.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Upright Position during the First Stage of Labour on Maternal Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Study on Rapid, Quantitative, and Simultaneous Detection of Drug Residues and Immunoassay in Chickens. Impact of a Symbiotic Mixture on Moderate-to-severe Diverticular Disease of the Colon. Vanek's Tumour as a Rare Cause of Dyspeptic Syndrome in a Patient with Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A Case Report. Is There an Association between 5a Reductase Inhibitors and Metabolic Syndrome? A Narrative Review of the Literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1