Publications by authors named "Carmen Sobrino"

3 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Inhaled bronchodilators use and clinical course of adult inpatients with Covid-19 pneumonia in Spain: A retrospective cohort study.

Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2021 Jun 12;69:102007. Epub 2021 Jun 12.

Pneumology Department, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain.

Background: In the current coronavirus health crisis, inhaled bronchodilators(IB) have been suggested as a possible treatment for patients hospitalized. Patients with evidence of Covid-19 pneumonia worldwide have been prescribed these medications as part of therapy for the disease, an indication for which this medications could be ineffective taken on account the pathophysiology and mechanisms of disease progression.

Objective: The main objective was to evaluate whether there is an association between IB use and length of stay. Primary end points were the number of days that a patient stayed in the hospital and death as a final event in a time to event analysis. Pneumonia severity, oxygen requirement, involved drugs, comorbidity, historical or current respiratory diagnoses and other drugs prescribed to treat coronavirus pneumonia were also evaluated.

Methods: A descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study was performed in this tertiary hospital in Madrid (Spain). Data were obtained regarding patients hospitalized with Covid-19, excluding those who were intubated. The primary and secondary outcomes such as duration of hospitalization and death were compared in patients who received IB with those in patients who did not.

Results: 327 patients were evaluated, mean age was 64.4 ± 15.8 years. Median length of hospitalization stay was 10 days. Of them 292 (89.3%) overcame the disease, the remaining 35 died. Patients who had received IB did not have less mortality rate (odds ratio 0.839; 95% CI: 0.401 to 1.752) and less hospitalization period when compared with patients who did not received IB (odds ratio 1.280; 95% CI: 0.813 to 2.027). There was no significant association between IB use and recovery or death. Hypertension and diabetes were the most common comorbidities. The prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in our cohort was low (21.1%). Anticholinergics were the IB more frequently prescribed for Covid-19 pneumonia. Better response in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids was not observed.

Conclusion: Off-label indication of inhaled-bronchodilators for Covid-19 patients are common in admitted patients. Taken on account our results, the use of IB for coronavirus pneumonia apparently is not associated with a significantly patient's improvement. Our study confirms the hypothesis that inhaled bronchodilators do not improve clinical outcomes or reduce the risk of Covid-19 mortality. This could be due to the fact that the virus mainly affects the lung parenchyma and the pulmonary vasculature and probably not the airway. More researches are necessary in order to fill the gap in evidence for this new indication.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2021.102007DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8196225PMC
June 2021

Off-label use of inhaled bronchodilators in hospitalised patients in Spain: a multicentre observational study.

Eur J Hosp Pharm 2020 Apr 24. Epub 2020 Apr 24.

Pneumology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

Background: Off-label prescription of inhaled bronchodilators (IB) is frequent, despite the fact that they can be ineffective and increase avoidable healthcare costs.

Objective: To analyse the frequency of off-label prescription of IB in hospitalised patients. Indications and level of evidence, involved drugs, medical specialties prescribing off-label IB and patients' adherence to IBs were also evaluated.

Method: A descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study was performed in four tertiary hospitals in Spain. The main outcome measure was the number of patients prescribed off-label IBs. Prescriptions were checked against the European Medicines Agency-approved indications. The level of evidence supporting off-label prescription of IBs (according to MICROMEDEX 2.0) was also analysed. Patients were interviewed to test differences (off-label vs on-label) in adherence and knowledge about their inhaled therapy.

Results: 217 patients were prescribed IBs, 92 of whom were givend off-label IBs (54.7% men, mean age 73.9±12.9 years). The most common off-label prescriptions for IBs were: unspecified dyspnoea (not related to COPD or asthma) (27.2%), respiratory infections (23.9%) and heart failure (22.8%). 76.8% of patients did not have evidence supporting them. Beta-agonist+corticosteroids and anticholinergics were most commonly prescribed off-label. Internal Medicine was the main medical specialty involved. There were no differences between off-label and on-label users in terms of patients' knowledge about treatment and adherence.

Conclusion: Off-label indications for IBs are common in hospitalised patients and are generally indicated without scientific support. Dyspnoea not related to COPD or asthma, respiratory infections and heart failure were the main off-label indications, most frequently treated with anticholinergics and beta-agonists+corticosteroids, for which their efficacy and safety has not been proved. Our results show that prescribing needs to be improved to follow the evidence that exists. Moreover, further research focused on off-label indications is needed to clarify whether they are effective, safe and cost-effective.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-002171DOI Listing
April 2020

Informed consent in clinical research; Do patients understand what they have signed?

Farm Hosp 2016 05 1;40(3):209-18. Epub 2016 May 1.

Hospital Pharmacy Unit. Hospital Universitario La Paz. IdiPaz, Madrid..

Informed consent is an essential element of research, and signing this document is required to conduct most clinical trials. Its aim is to inform patients what their participation in the study will involve. However, increasingly, their complexity and length are making them difficult to understand, which might lead patients to give their authorization without having read them previously or without having understood what is stated. In this sense, the Ethics Committees for Clinical Research, and Pharmacists specialized in Hospital Pharmacy and Primary Care in their capacity as members of said committees, play an important and difficult role in defending the rights of patients. These Committees will review thoroughly these documents to guarantee that all legal requirements have been met and, at the same time, that they are easy to understand by the potential participants in a clinical trial.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7399/fh.2016.40.3.10411DOI Listing
May 2016
-->