Ivanka Curkovic

Risks of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatment with Glucocorticosteroids and Aminosalicylates

Background: Glucocorticosteroids and aminosalicylates, mainly mesalazine (5-ASA), are both standard therapeutics in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. The glucocorticosteroids are highly effective in inducing remission in both ulcerative colitis and Crohns disease, but their use is limited by the high incidence and the potentially serious nature of adverse events. In an attempt to limit systemic side effects, rapidly metabolized corticosteroids such as budesonide have been introduced. The safety profile of aminosalicylates differs between the formulations. Methods: We summarize the potential risks associated with glucocorticosteroid and aminosalicylate therapy in IBDs. Results: The numerous adverse events of glucocorticosteroids, particularly at high doses and prolonged treatment, include opportunistic infections, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ocular effects (glaucoma and cataracts), psychiatric complications, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression and increased fracture risk. Partially, these systemic adverse events occur with budesonide, which only has a low systemic exposure. The safety profile of 5-ASA is comparable to placebo and superior to the old aminosalicylate prodrug sulfasalazine, which had a significantly higher incidence of intolerance reactions including allergic rashes. Only in rare cases has nephrotoxicity such as interstitial nephritis been associated with 5-ASA. Conclusion: Considering the toxicity profile of conventional glucocorticosteroids, one primary goal of treatment in IBD should be corticosteroid-free remission. Therapy with budesonide may result in a better safety profile. 5-ASA treatment is usually well tolerated, but with regard to the rare nephrotoxic events, it is advisable to assess renal function before and during treatment with 5-ASA.

Comparative evaluation of three clinical decision support systems: prospective screening for medication errors in 100 medical inpatients

PurposeClinical decision support systems (CDSS) are promoted as powerful screening tools to improve pharmacotherapy. The aim of our study was to evaluate the potential contribution of CDSS to patient management in clinical practice.MethodsWe prospectively analyzed the pharmacotherapy of 100 medical inpatients through the parallel use of three CDSS, namely, Pharmavista, DrugReax, and TheraOpt. After expert discussion that also considered all patient-specific clinical information, we selected apparently relevant alerts, issued suitable recommendations to physicians, and recorded subsequent prescription changes.ResultsFor 100 patients with a median of eight concomitant drugs, Pharmavista, DrugReax, and TheraOpt generated a total of 53, 362, and 328 interaction alerts, respectively. Among those we identified and forwarded 33 clinically relevant alerts to the attending physician, resulting in 19 prescription changes. Four adverse drug events were associated with interactions. The proportion of clinically relevant alerts among all alerts (positive predictive value) was 5.7, 8.0, and 7.6%, and the sensitivity to detect all 33 relevant alerts was 9.1, 87.9, and 75.8% for Pharmavista, DrugReax and TheraOpt, respectively. TheraOpt recommended 31 dose adjustments, of which we considered 11 to be relevant; three of these were followed by dose reductions.ConclusionsCDSS are valuable screening tools for medication errors, but only a small fraction of their alerts appear relevant in individual patients. In order to avoid overalerting CDSS should use patient-specific information and management-oriented classifications. Comprehensive information should be displayed on-demand, whereas a limited number of computer-triggered alerts that have management implications in the majority of affected patients should be based on locally customized and supported algorithms.

Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole Pharmacokinetics in Two Patients Undergoing Continuous Venovenous Hemodiafiltration

Objective: To determine the extent of elimination of trimethoprim (TMP) and sulfamethoxazole (SMX) via continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) in 2 critically ill patients with renal failure. Case Summary: A 62-year-old woman with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) was admitted to our intensive care unit for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. A 77-year-old man was admitted for aortic root replacement and developed septic shock and nosocomial pneumonia due to Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Both patients developed acute renal failure, necessitating CVVHDF. They were treated with intravenous TMP/SMX adapted to renal function. The first patient received TMP 6.4 mg/kg/day and SMX 32 mg/kg/day, corresponding to 50% of the recommended high-dose TMP/SMX regimen in PCP patients. The second patient received TMP 1.7 mg/kg/day and SMX 8.6 mg/kg/day, corresponding to 50% of the usual dose in bacterial infections. We determined peak and trough serum TMP and SMX concentrations and the extent of TMP/SMX CVVHDF clearance at steady-state while the patients were still anuric and oliguric. Discussion: Data on TMP and SMX pharmacokinetics in CVVHDF are lacking and dosing recommendations are inconclusive. In both patients, CVVHDF clearance of TMP ranged from 21.5 to 28.9 mL/min, corresponding with normal renal clearance (20–80 mL/min). SMX clearance in CVVHDF showed high variability (18.7, 26.7, and 42.6 mL/min) and exceeded renal clearance values in normal renal function (1–5 mL/min). Accordingly, peak TMP serum concentrations were within the recommended range in the patient treated with a reduced TMP/SMX dose for PCP, whereas her SMX peak concentrations were only one third of recommended target concentrations. Conclusions: Our data indicate that both TMP and SMX are removed by CVVHDF to a significant degree, and dose reduction of TMP/SMX in CVVHDF bears the risk of underdosing. Given variability in drug exposure in critically ill patients, therapeutic drug monitoring is advisable in anuric or oliguric patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy to ensure optimal TMP/SMX dosing.

Validation of a transparent decision model to rate drug interactions

BackgroundMultiple databases provide ratings of drug-drug interactions. The ratings are often based on different criteria and lack background information on the decision making process. User acceptance of rating systems could be improved by providing a transparent decision path for each category.MethodsWe rated 200 randomly selected potential drug-drug interactions by a transparent decision model developed by our team. The cases were generated from ward round observations and physicians’ queries from an outpatient setting. We compared our ratings to those assigned by a senior clinical pharmacologist and by a standard interaction database, and thus validated the model.ResultsThe decision model rated consistently with the standard database and the pharmacologist in 94 and 156 cases, respectively. In two cases the model decision required correction. Following removal of systematic model construction differences, the DM was fully consistent with other rating systems.ConclusionThe decision model reproducibly rates interactions and elucidates systematic differences. We propose to supply validated decision paths alongside the interaction rating to improve comprehensibility and to enable physicians to interpret the ratings in a clinical context.

Polymedikation in der Praxis

Zusammenfassung. Die Zunahme der Multimorbiditat in der Bevolkerung fuhrt dazu, dass auch die Anzahl an Patienten mit einer Polymedikation wachst. Es ist wichtig zwischen «angemessener» und «problematischer» Polymedikation zu unterscheiden. In dieser Ubersichtsarbeit werden Tools zur Unterstutzung im komplexen Prozess der Medikamentenverordnung vorgestellt. Die Tools wurden anhand von Erfahrungen, welche mit zahlreichen Patienten uber mehrere Behandlungsjahre gesammelt wurden, entwickelt.