Drugs Dosing in Geriatric Patients Depending on Kidney Function Estimated by MDRD and Cockroft-Gault Formulas

Radiomic-based biomarkers: Transforming age and body composition metrics into personalized age-informed indices

Chronological age has been the standard for quantifying the aging process. While it is simple to quantify it cannot fully discern the biological variability of aging between individuals. The growing body of interest in this variability of human aging has led to the introduction of new biomarkers to operationalize biological age. The inclusion of body composition may provide additional value to biological aging as a prediction and estimation factor of individual health outcomes. Diagnostic images based on radiomic techniques such as Computed Tomography contain an untapped wealth of patient-specific data that remain inaccessible to healthcare providers. These images are beneficial for collecting information from body composition that adds precision and granularity when compared to traditional measures. This information can subsequently be aggregated to construct models for changes in the human body associated with aging. In addition, aging leads to a natural decline in the best parameter of drug dosing in older adults, glomerular filtration rate. Since the conventional models of kidney function are correlated with age and body composition, the radiomic biomarkers representing age-related changes in body composition may also serve as potential new imaging biomarkers of kidney function for personalized dosing. Our review introduces potential radiomic biomarkers as measures of body composition change targeting the aging processes. As a functional example, we have hypothesized an age-related model of radiomics as a covariate of kidney function to improve personalized dosing. Future research focusing on evaluating this hypothesis in human subject studies is acknowledged.

Implementation of the standardized process of Pharmacotherapeutic evaluation in inpatients and outpatients

OBJECTIVES

The Pharmacotherapeutic follow-up program (PFU) carried out by the clinical pharmacist can be categorized within 3 fundamental activities; identification, resolution and prevention of adverse drug events. These must be adjusted to the requirements and resources of each institution, developing procedures to increase PFU efficiency and to guarantee patient safety. The clinical pharmacists of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network developed a Standardized Pharmacotherapeutic Evaluation Process (SPEP). The main goal of our study is to evaluate the impact of this tool through the pharmacist evaluation number and pharmacist interventions number. Secondarily to determine the potential and direct cost savings associated with the pharmacist interventions in an Intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study evaluated the frequency and type of pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in adult patients units of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network, before and after the implementation of SPEP. The distribution of variables was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the association between the use of SPEP and the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was performed using the Chi-square test. The cost evaluation associated with pharmacist interventions in the ICU was carried out using methodology proposed by Hammond et al. RESULTS: A total number of 1,781 patients was evaluated before and 2,129 after the SPEP. The pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in the before-SPEP period were 5,209 and 2,246. In the after-SPEP period were 6,105 and 2,641, respectively. The increase in both the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was significant only in critical care patients. The potential cost saving in after-SPEP period in the ICU was USD 492,805. Major adverse drug events prevention was the intervention that generated the most savings with a reduction of 60.2%. The total direct savings for sequential therapy was USD 8,072 in the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a clinical pharmacist developed tool called SPEP that increased the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in multiple clinical scenarios. These were significant only in critical care patients. Future investigations should make effort to evaluate the quality and clinical impact of these interventions.

[Translated article] Implementation of the standardized process of drug therapy evaluation in inpatients and outpatients

OBJECTIVES

The Pharmacotherapeutic follow-up program (PFU) carried out by the clinical pharmacist can be categorized within 3 fundamental activities; identification, resolution and prevention of adverse drug events. These must be adjusted to the requirements and resources of each institution, developing procedures to increase PFU efficiency and to guarantee patient safety. The clinical pharmacists of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network developed a Standardized Pharmacotherapeutic Evaluation Process (SPEP). The main goal of our study is to evaluate the impact of this tool through the pharmacist evaluation number and pharmacist interventions number. Secondarily to determine the potential and direct cost savings associated with the pharmacist interventions in an Intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study evaluated the frequency and type of pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in adult patients units of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network, before and after the implementation of SPEP. The distribution of variables was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the association between the use of SPEP and the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was performed using the Chi-square test. The cost evaluation associated with pharmacist interventions in the ICU was carried out using methodology proposed by Hammond et al. RESULTS: A total number of 1781 patients was evaluated before and 2129 after the SPEP. The pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in the before-SPEP period were 5209 and 2246. In the after-SPEP period were 6105 and 2641, respectively. The increase in both the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was significant only in critical care patients. The potential cost saving in after-SPEP period in the ICU was USD 492,805. Major adverse drug events prevention was the intervention that generated the most savings with a reduction of 60.2%. The total direct savings for sequential therapy was USD 8072 in the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a clinical pharmacist developed tool called SPEP that increased the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in multiple clinical scenarios. These were significant only in critical care patients. Future investigations should make effort to evaluate the quality and clinical impact of these interventions.