{"id":51836,"date":"2023-09-30T11:20:55","date_gmt":"2023-09-30T11:20:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=51836"},"modified":"2023-10-07T09:08:34","modified_gmt":"2023-10-07T09:08:34","slug":"targeted-pharmaceutical-analysis-of-antibiotic-use-by-risk-criteria-in-patients-hospitalized-in-the-infectious-and-tropical-diseases-department-at-treichville-teaching-hospital-abidjan-cote-divoir","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol16no3\/targeted-pharmaceutical-analysis-of-antibiotic-use-by-risk-criteria-in-patients-hospitalized-in-the-infectious-and-tropical-diseases-department-at-treichville-teaching-hospital-abidjan-cote-divoir\/","title":{"rendered":"Targeted Pharmaceutical Analysis of Antibiotic Use by Risk Criteria in Patients Hospitalized in the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Department at Treichville Teaching Hospital (Abidjan, C\u00f4te d’Ivoire)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most medication-related problems in hospitals are caused by anti-infectives 1<\/sup>. Inappropriate use of these drugs can lead to resistance and higher hospitalization costs 2-4<\/sup>. Therefore, pharmacoresistance is a real public health problem, especially since pharmaceutical innovation in infectious diseases is not very active 5<\/sup>. Indeed, many studies have demonstrated a significant association between irrational antibiotic use and resistance rates 5<\/sup>. Pharmaceutical interventions (PI) are therefore essential to promote optimal antibiotic use 6<\/sup>. However, simply following recommendations is not enough to make antibiotic prescribing adequate. The audit of prescriptions by a clinical pharmacist is an element of control and prevention of iatrogenic risks 7<\/sup>. Indeed, PI reduce drug-related problems by 37.4% through control of drug effectiveness and monitoring 8<\/sup>, promotion of treatment efficacy 9<\/sup>, and improvement of desired health outcomes 10-12<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In C\u00f4te d’Ivoire, data has revealed several pharmacotherapeutic problems. Thus, the problem of “non-optimal dosing” (88.9%) was the main problem encountered in this study, followed by underdosing (3.2%) and abnormally shortened treatment duration (7.9%) 13<\/sup>. Antibiotics are responsible for 24% of the increase in the incidence of adverse events, making them high-risk drugs 14<\/sup>. High-risk drugs are products with a high risk of causing serious harm to patients in the event of errors during their use in the drug circuit, according to the Institute for Safe Medications Practices (ISMP) 15<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While several\ninterventional studies have evaluated the quality of antibiotic prescribing,\nvery few studies have critically analyzed prescriptions in high-risk patients,\ntaking into account personal physiopathological contraindications and drug\ninteractions. Our study aimed to assess the utilization of antibiotics in\nhospitalized patients at the infectious diseases department of CHU Treichville\n(Abidjan, C\u00f4te d’Ivoire) based on risk criteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Type and setting of the study<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted from August to December 2022 at the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Department of  Treichville Teaching Hospital (TTH) in Abidjan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study population<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study included patients on antibiotics with risk criteria, either due to drug interactions (drug-related criteria) or due to altered clinical and biological status (clinicobiological criteria) not justifying the use of antibiotics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inclusion criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study included\nadult patients of both sexes on antibiotics with risk criteria in terms of\nprecautions, contraindications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exclusion criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study excluded patients on antibiotics who did not meet the above criteria and patients with incomplete medical records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data collection\ntools:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A questionnaire addressed to patients was used. It included three parts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A section on general patient information and their biological data;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A section on patient clinicobiological and therapeutic data;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A section on the risk criteria for antibiotic use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Detailed information\non pharmaceutical interventions performed, including information on patients,\nmedications, identified problems, and proposed interventions. The study used\nthis dashboard to assess the frequency and nature of pharmaceutical\ninterventions in a clinical environment, thus enabling a better understanding\nof the pharmacist’s role in the therapeutic management of patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pharmaceutical intervention coding tool<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In France,\nfollowing the observation of the absence of standardization and therefore the\ndifficulty of pooling data, a tool for collecting and classifying\npharmaceutical interventions was developed by the The French Society of\nPharmacy’s working group on standardization and enhancement of clinical\npharmacy practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study porotocol and Design (Figure 1)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 1: Description of the study protocol<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Definition and analysis of risk criteria in patients<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The optimization of a targeted drug risk analysis approach 21<\/sup> allowed us to describe risk criteria. These are a set of factors that could compromise therapeutic success and also alter a patient’s vital functions. In the context of our study, we adapted the model of the approach to identify situations of medication-induced risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Detection of pharmacotherapeutic problems (PP) and\npharmaceutical interventions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Avowed or potential pharmacotherapeutic problems (PP) were classified according to criteria published by French Society of clinical Pharmacy 22<\/sup>: drug interactions, subtherapeutic doses, high doses, drugs used without indications, untreated indications, inappropriate drug selection, and adverse effects. Adherence and observance problems were not addressed in this study. The clinical relevance of pharmaceutical interventions was initially described by several authors 23,24<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assessing of the pertinence of Pharmaceutical\nInterventions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relevance of pharmaceutical interventions was evaluated based on the acceptance rate by physicians and the evaluation of their clinical impact. The clinical impact of the interventions was interpreted using a score based on a particular rating system 25,26<\/sup>. Each pharmaceutical intervention was scored based on the principle that the potential clinical impact of the patient problem (PP) was linked to the severity of clinical consequences that could be avoided by the intervention. The table below (Table 1) provides a description of the rating scale that was utilized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statistical analysis of the data<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SPSS version 20.0 software (IBM, USA) was used to analyzed the data. Mean values were considered for quantitative variables, percentages and frequencies for qualitative variables. The significance threshold for tests was 5%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results  and Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was an overall involvement of 88 patients. The sex ratio (M\/F) was 0.78. Singles accounted for 54.5% of the sample. Subjects aged \u226445 years were the most common at 87.6%. 93.2% were HIV-positive. (Table 2)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most common reason for hospitalization was fever (26%), followed by general deterioration of health (21.3%). Sepsis was the main infectious location (32.6%), followed by digestive location with 20.2%., Anti-infectives (75.1%) were the most prescribed medications. Antibiotics (56.5%) were the most commonly prescribed type of anti-infectives. Prescription analysis showed that rifampicin (9.14%) was the most commonly prescribed drug in combination with antibiotics, followed by Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (4.43%).  (Table 3a and 3b))<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beta-lactams (36.7%) were the most commonly prescribed class of antibiotics. Ceftriaxone (23.0%), gentamicin (8.8%), and cotrimoxazole (6.9%) were the most frequently administered molecules (Table 4)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The analysis of the main risk criteria showed that 61.9% of these criteria were related to drug interactions and 38.1% related to the patients’ clinico-biological data. Precautions for use (53.6%) represented the bulk of drug interactions, followed by inadvisable combinations (45.6%). The precautions for use were essentially the association of Ofloxacin and bivalent cations or didanosine (Antiretroviral). The inadvisable associations were essentially combinations of two nephrotoxic drugs (Lamivudine and Pyrimethamine) (Table 5)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Regarding the criteria related to clinico-biological data, the absence of information on renal clearance represented 36, 4% of cases followed by anemia with a Hb level <7.5g\/dl (18.2%) (Table 5). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pharmacotherapeutic problems were mainly drug interactions (61.9%), followed by the monitoring to be followed (19.3%). The proposal to monitor biological parameters of patients at risk (68.8%), was the main pharmaceutical intervention, followed by the proposal (21.3%) and among them, the proposal of substitution was the most important (14.8%) (Table 6). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All proposed pharmaceutical interventions were accepted by prescribers. IP1-rated pharmaceutical interventions (64.5%) were the most important, followed by PI2<\/sub> (31,8%) (Table 7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The nature of pharmaceutical interventions differed significantly according to the risk criteria associated with the use of antibiotics (p=0.001). Proposals for monitoring biological parameters were mainly related to clinical and biological data (Table 8).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 2: Distribution of patients by reason for consultation (Others : nausea,vomiting \u2026).<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 3: Location of the infectious focus<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 1: Rating Scale for Interventions Derived from Hatoum<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Rating<\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Clinical significance<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

PI0<\/sub><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

IP without direct clinical impact<\/p>\n

Intervention either for financial or informational purposes, or proposed after the event.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

IP1<\/sub><\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

IP with significant clinical impact Intervention that increases the effectiveness and\/or safety and\/or quality of life of the patient.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

PI2<\/sub><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

IP with very significant clinical impact<\/p>\n

Intervention that prevents organic dysfunction, avoids intense medical surveillance, or irreversible sequelae.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

PI3<\/sub><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

IP with vital clinical impact<\/p>\n

Intervention that prevents a potentially fatal accident<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 2: General characteristics of patients (n=88)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Characteristics<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 Sexe <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Female<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

49(56.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Male<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39(43.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Age (years)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u2264 45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

76(87.6)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

>45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12(10.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Mean [SD]  <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40.42 [12.4]\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jobs<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45(51.1)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43(48.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 Marital status.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Umarried<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48(54.6)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Married<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39(45.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Widowed<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(1.1)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

HIV serological status<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N\u00e9gative<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6(6.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Positve<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

82(93.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

 <\/td>\n\n

Total <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

88(100)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 3a: ATC Classification of Prescribed Medications <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Classification<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 Level 1 \/ <\/strong> International Nonproprietary Name<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

A: Digestive System and Metabolism<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Attapulgite<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.55)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Allopurinol<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.28)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Esomeprazole<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.28)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Multivitamin complexes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.28)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Levosulpiride<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(0.83)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Omeprazole<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.55)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Aluminum phosphate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5(1.39)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sucralfate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.55)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Tolbutamide<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.55)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sous-Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19(5.3)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 B : Blood\/Hematopoietic Organs<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Acenocoumarol<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(1.94)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Iron salt<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.55)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fluindione<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.55)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sub-Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11(3.0)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

C : Cardiovascular System<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Amiodarone<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Amiodarone<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.28)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Acetylsalicylic acid<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6(1.66)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Amlodipine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.28)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Furosemide<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8(2.22)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Hydrochlorothiazide<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.28)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

P\u00e9rindopril<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(0.83)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Rosuvastatin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.28)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sub-Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21(5.8)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 3b: ATC Classification of Prescribed Medications <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Classification<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Level 1 \/ <\/strong> International Nonproprietary Name<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

J: Anti-infectives<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Antibiotics<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

204(56.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Artesunate+Lumefantrine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Didanosine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fluconazole<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11(3.0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Itraconazole<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lamivudine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4(1.1)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Miconazole<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8(2.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Flucystosine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Rifampicine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33(9.1)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Tenofovir<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16(4.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Valganciclovir<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5(1.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sub -total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

286(75.1)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

N : System nerveux<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Acide valpro\u00efc<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(0.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bromocriptine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0,3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lop\u00e9ramide<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6(1,6)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Phenyto\u00efn<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(0.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ergotamine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Tramadol<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(0.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sub-total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17(4.7)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

H : Systemic Hormones<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Prednisone<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(1.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sous-total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(1.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

361(100)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 4: Distribution of Prescribed Antibiotics.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

International Nonproprietary Name <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Beta-lactams<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ceftriaxone<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

47(23.0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

75(367)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Amoxicilline\/ Clavulanic Acid<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13(6.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Imipenem<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13(6.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cefixime<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.50)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Penicillin G<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.50)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sulfonamides and antifolates<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sulfadiazine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10(4.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

41(20.1)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cotrimoxazole<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14(6.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pyrim\u00e9thamine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(3.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Aminosides<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gentamicin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18(8.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22(10.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Netromycin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(1.0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Amikacin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(1.0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Macrolides and related<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Clarithromycin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(1.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22(10,8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Spiramycin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.50)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Erythromycin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(1.0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Clindamycin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6(2.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Rovamycin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12(5.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Quinolones<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ofloxacin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12(5.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22(10.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pefloxacin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9(54.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ciprofloxacin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nitrofurane<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nitrofurantoin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(3.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11(5.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nifuroxazide<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4(2.0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Glycopeptides<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Vancomycin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8(3.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8(3.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Imidazol\u00e9s<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Metronidazole<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(1.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(1.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

204(100)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 5: Risk criteria <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Risk criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Description <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Drugs Interactions <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Contraindication<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ergotamine derivatives (Ergotamine and Erythromycin) The combination of macrolides with ergotamine leads to a risk of ergotism with necrosis of the extremities<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(0.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

125(61,9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Taken into Account<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Bromocriptine\/Rovamycin; increases serum bromocriptine levels resulting in increased antiparkinsonian activity<\/p>\n

Drug interaction Fluconazole and ofloxacin decreases plasma levels of ofloxacin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34(27,2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Discouraged association<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Combination of two nephrotoxic drugs (Lamivudine and Pyrimethamine),<\/p>\n

Combination of two nephrotoxic drugs valganciclovir and imipenem, Rifampcin and ofloxacin without biological monitoring (Hydrochlorothiazide\/Gentamicin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23(18,4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Employment precaution<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Association Ofloxacine et cations divalents (Ca2+ Zn2+ Fe2+) diminution de l’efficacit\u00e9 de la ciprofloxacine par pr\u00e9cipitation<\/p>\n

Association Ciprofloxacine et didanosine, diminution de l’efficacit\u00e9 de la ciprofloxacine par pr\u00e9cipitation<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

67(53,6)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Biological data<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Clr not requested<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Patients on nephrotoxic antibiotics (gentamicin, Vancomycin, Imipenem) without renal function monitoring<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28(36,4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

77(38,1)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cl <30 ml\/min<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Contraindication renal insufficiency and administration of Ceftazidime associated with gentamycin.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12(8,4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Clr [30-60] ml\/mn<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Contraindication renal insufficiency and administration of Imipenem, Vancomycin.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3(3,9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Hb < 7,5 g\/dl<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Contraindication: in a patient with anemia taking sulfonamides (cotrimoxazole, sulfadiazine…)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14(18,2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

INR not requested<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Patients on oral anticoagulants (acenocoumarol, Fluindione) and taking ceftriaxone without monitoring for hemostasis disorders<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8(10,4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ALT> 160 IU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Contraindication hepatic insufficiency and administration Metronidazole, rifampicin, nitrofurantoin,<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8(10,4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

PPN<750 cells\/mm3 <\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Contraindication neutropenia with sulfonamides (sulfadiazine, Cotrimoxazole)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(2,6)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Allergy to sulphonamides<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Patients with a history of allergy to sulphonamides with sulphonamides intake<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(1.,3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Allergy to penicillins<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Patients with a history of drug-induced toxidermia when taking penicillins<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1(1,3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total            <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

                    <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

202(100,0%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 6: Identified drug therapy problems and pharmaceutical interventions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Pharmacotherapeutic problems<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N(%)<\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Drug interactions<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

125(61.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Monitoring to be followed<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39(19.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Non-compliance with recommendations<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22(10.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Overdose<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9(4.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

indication without treatment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(3.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

202 (100)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pharmaceutical Interventions<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dosage adjustment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(3.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Addition<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11(5.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

56(27.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

stop<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(0.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Substitution<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30(14.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Optimization of administration<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13(6.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Proposed monitoring of biological<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

139(68.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

202(100)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 7: Acceptance rate and rating of pharmaceutical interventions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n\n

N(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Acceptance rate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n\n

202(100)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Rating of pharmaceutical interventions (PI)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

PI0<\/sub><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8(3.7)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

PI1<\/sub><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

130(64.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

PI2<\/sub><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62(31.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n\n

202(100)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

PI0<\/sub>: No direct clinical impact; PI1<\/sub>: Significant impact; PI2<\/sub>: Very significant impact.<\/p>\n\n\n

Table 8: Risk criteria and nature of pharmaceutical intervention<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Risk criteria<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Natures of interventions<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Drugs interactions <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Clinicobiological data<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dosage adjustements <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0(0.0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(9 .1)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7(3.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Proposal of therapeutic choices N(%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28(22.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15(18.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43(21.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Optimization of adminsitration modalities N(%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13(10.)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0(0)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13(6.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0. 001*<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Proposal of monitoring of biological parameters (N%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

84(67.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55(71.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

139(68.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Total <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

125(100%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

77(100%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

202(100%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

General characteristics of patients<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out of 239 patient records analyzed, 88 (36.82%) presented risk criteria related to the use of antibiotics. In Zahar et al.’s study, out of 105 prescriptions, 35% were inadequate according to the criteria used 27<\/sup>. Asseray et al. found an inadequacy rate of 37% by not including reassessment criteria28<\/sup>. Gennai et al. calculated a compliance rate of 34% taking into account the choice of molecule and the mode of administration 29<\/sup>. Therefore, it appears that regardless of the evaluation criteria chosen, there are still non-conformities in the prescription of antibiotics in healthcare services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sepsis (32.6%) were the most encountered in our study. They are vastly different from the infectious locations of other studies. Indeed, Gennai et al. 29<\/sup> found 25.6% of urinary infections, while other studies revealed a predominance of infections in their urinary and pulmonary locations [30-33]. Sepsis indicates that infectious management is delayed in our contexts. HIV infections and their corollaries of opportunistic infections may explain the high prevalence of sepsis. However, in Abrogoua et al.’s study, pleuropulmonary pathologies and meningitis were the most frequent in a Pediatrics service 13<\/sup>. Their results are closer to the results of Gennai et al. 29<\/sup> by the quality of the described elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most prescribed pharmacotherapeutic class in combination with antibiotics is the class of anti-infectives (75.1%). This is due to the high prevalence of infectious diseases other than HIV (Tuberculosis, toxoplasmosis, etc.), but also due to the medical specification of this service, which only receives patients with infectious diseases. Indeed, studies on the distribution of drugs in several services other than infectious diseases showed mostly prescriptions of drugs from the cardiovascular, central nervous, and digestive systems 34,35<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most prescribed families of antibiotics were beta-lactams (36.7%), sulfonamides (20.1%), quinolones (10.8%), and macrolides (10.8%). Besides their efficacy on sensitive germs, beta-lactams are certainly the most prescribed because of their affordable cost and, above all, their relatively good tolerance. Integrating a pharmacist into a clinical unit could also reduce the cost of antibiotic therapy 36<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most frequently found pharmacotherapeutic classes corresponded to those identified in the literature as being the most involved in drug iatrogenesis 37,38<\/sup>. In several studies on the evaluation of antibiotic prescription, penicillins, associated or not with a beta-lactamase inhibitor, were the most prescribed, followed by fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins 38-42<\/sup>. The high frequency of the use of C3G, particularly ceftriaxone, is due to its therapeutic malleability and synergy with other antibiotics (aminoglycosides)43<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ceftriaxone is frequently used as an antibiotic because of its potent antimicrobial activity, broad range of effectiveness, and minimal risk of toxicity. It is prescribed to manage various bacterial infections such as pneumonia, bone infections, and abdominal infections. The results are similar to those of Abrogoua et al., who showed that the most prescribed antibiotics were ceftriaxone (49%) and gentamicin (38%) in children aged zero to two years in a Pediatrics service in C\u00f4te d’Ivoire 13<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The compliance of these prescriptions with national recommendations reflects the efforts of SMIT clinicians in the appropriate use of antibiotics. Lemtiri-Florek et al also reported a change in antibiotic prescribing habits in favor of narrow-spectrum antibiotics after pharmaceutical interventions 36<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data on risk criteria and\npharmacotherapeutic problems<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding clinical-biological criteria, the most common lack of information encountered was on renal function, with 36.4% of patients affected. Most of the patient-related risk criteria observed in our study were related to the absence of glomerular function control elements in medical records of patients taking potentially nephrotoxic drugs. Indeed, certain antibiotics (aminoglycosides and glycopeptides) are nephrotoxic, and monitoring of renal function is essential to avoid glomerular filtration rate impairment. According to Ryback et al, in a study showing the correlation between the use of nephrotoxic antibiotics and the occurrence of renal impairment, the risks increased with concurrent administration of either aminoglycosides or other nephrotoxic drugs, as well as in elderly subjects44<\/sup>. Significant links were observed between vancomycin concentration levels and the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, pharmacological therapeutic monitoring (PTM) of vancomycin and gentamicin is necessary to reduce this risk45<\/sup>. In our context, PTM is not routinely performed, which is why renal function monitoring must be closely followed in at-risk patients and used as an alternative for better patient management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The interpretation of all risk criteria allowed us to establish a correlation with pharmacotherapeutic problems. Drug interactions can be pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic, in addition to physicochemical interactions, and are responsible for the majority of drug-related adverse effects. Mechanisms take into account enzymatic metabolic activities and transporters enzymes 46,47<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changes in drug concentration in bodily fluids and tissues are linked to pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Antacids, proton pump inhibitors, and histamine H2 antagonists can impact the absorption of drugs that dissolve based on pH levels, including certain oral cephalosporins. Moreover, in the gastrointestinal tract, antacids (such as calcium carbonate or magnesium oxide) can form complexes with antibacterial agents like tetracyclines or fluoroquinolones, obstructing their absorption.48-51<\/sup>. Optimization of administration modalities such as spacing of doses is necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bioavailability of certain oral cephalosporin prodrugs, such as cefpodoxime proxetil, cefuroxime axetil, and ceftidorone pivoxil, is decreased. when co-administered with H2 blockers 48-51<\/sup>. It has also been shown that concomitant use of antacids reduces exposure to cefaclor, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, and cefditoren by 20% to 40% [48-51To avoid this interaction, it is advisable to separate the administration of these oral cephalosporins by at least 2 hours if it is not possible to avoid their simultaneous use with antacids or H2 blockers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Macrolide interactions involve the CYP 450 enzyme complex. Their administration (erythromycin) with motility inhibitors can cause pseudomembranous colitis. The oral bioavailability of fluoroquinolones can be significantly reduced by cations48-51<\/sup>. Aminoglycoside treatment is commonly linked to significant adverse effects such as nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and neuromuscular blockade. Due to these toxicities, drug interactions involving these agents typically pose an additive or synergistic risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several studies have reported an increased risk of nephrotoxicity in patients when aminoglycosides are co-administered with amphotericin B, cisplatin, cyclosporine, vancomycin, or indomethacin (in newborns with persistent ductus arteriosus) 52<\/sup>. The mechanism behind this is believed to be direct or additive injury to the renal tubule. To avoid such adverse effects, patients undergoing aminoglycoside treatment should have their renal function closely monitored, and the dosage should be adjusted based on body weight, estimated creatinine clearance, or serum drug concentrations. Furthermore, caution must be exercised when combining aminoglycosides with known nephrotoxic drugs or avoided altogether 53,57<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vancomycin is classified as a glycopeptide antibacterial agent. A significant drug interaction associated with vancomycin is the increased risk of nephrotoxicity when administered concomitantly with aminoglycoside antibiotics56<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The liver is primarily responsible for the metabolism of sulfamethoxazole. Interactions between sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim are due to various mechanisms such as inhibition of hepatic metabolism, reduction of renal tubular secretion, displacement of protein-binding sites, and additive pharmacodynamic activity53,56<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pharmacotherapeutic problems (PP) were mostly drug interactions (61.9%). The frequency of drug interactions varies from study to study. Thus, Poudel et al [58] found that 4.7% of hospitalized patients had a clinically significant interaction. The high prevalence of drug interactions in our study is due to polymedication resulting from polymorbidity in the service or a high prevalence of HIV infection59<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Type of pharmaceutical interventions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surveillance of biological parameters (68.8%) was the main proposed pharmaceutical intervention, followed by therapeutic choices (21.3%), particularly substitutions (14.8%). Lemtiri-Florek et al found that substitutions were more important in an internal medicine service 36<\/sup>. Gaillard et al reported that 50% of IPs concerned substitutions, 24% optimization of administration modalities, 11% dosage adaptation, and 4% therapeutic monitoring 60<\/sup>. Pharmaceutical interventions vary from study to study and from service to service [60]. They depend on the clinicobiological profile of patients and the specificity of clinical services 60<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acceptance rate and rating of pharmaceutical interventions (PI)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In our case, the acceptance rate of IPs was 100%. In the literature, acceptance rates vary from 50% to 98% [61]. Other authors found lower acceptance rates (40.9%) when suggestions for treatment optimization were written [60]. In scientific literature, isolated suggestions that were not accepted by doctors were related to a different evaluation of the clinical situation by the doctor or a lack of willingness to modify treatments for chronic diseases 60,61<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interventions were rated primarily PI1 in 64.5% of cases. PI2s were found in order of 31.8%. These results have a similar profile to those found in the study by Jenn et al, which showed that 63.3% of interventions had a significant impact (PI1) and 22.8% had a very significant impact (PI2)62<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have thus provided relevant pharmaceutical contributions to doctors. This once again shows that the association of pharmaceutical and medical skills is necessary for the proper care of patients. Thus, the presence of a pharmacist in the care unit increases the number of PIs as well as their acceptance rate36<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis of different pharmaceutical interventions based on risk criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The analysis\nbetween risk criteria and pharmaceutical interventions shows a significant\ndifference (p=0.001). According to Lemtiri-Florek [36], the presence of a\npharmacist in an infectious disease team, communication between a pharmacist\nand an infectiologist, and increased time dedicated to pharmaceutical\nvalidation of antibiotic prescriptions lead to more comprehensive monitoring of\nanti-infectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study allowed\nus to evaluate the risk criteria and prescription of antibiotics within an\ninfectious and tropical disease department. The analysis of the main risk\ncriteria showed that 61.9% of these criteria were related to drug interactions\nand 38.1% to patients’ clinical and biological data. Precautions for use\n(53.6%) represented the majority of drug interactions, followed by discouraged\ncombinations (45.6%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pharmaceutical interventions on antibiotic prescriptions based on risk criteria will certainly contribute to improving patient care. In conclusion, collaboration between clinical pharmacists and infectiologists leads to multidisciplinary discussions and improved relevance of pharmaceutical interventions around priority areas in order to promote appropriate use of antibiotics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acknowledgement <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Special thanks to all the patients of the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Department of the Treichville University Hospital, Abidjan, for whom the data in the database were used in the article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors\ndeclare no conflict of interest<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Sahu S, Mishra S. Most drug-related problems in hospitals are caused by anti-infectives]. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2016;8(4):320-321<\/li>
  2. Mendelson M, Katz I, Rhee J. Antimicrobial resistance: a global health challenge. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(10):e355-e361.<\/li>
  3. Cosgrove SE. Antimicrobial stewardship programs: a review of the evidence. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25(4):717-733.<\/li>
  4. Laxminarayan R, McAdams AS, Klein EY. The cost of antibiotic resistance: effect of resistance among Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on length of hospital stay. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(12):1399-1406<\/li>
  5. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. 2015. Disponible sur: https:\/\/www.who.int\/publications\/ i\/item\/9789241509763.<\/li>
  6. Sabuncu E., David J., Bern\u00e8de-Bauduin C. et al. Significant reduction of antibiotic use in the community after a nationwide campaign in France, 2002-2007. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6(6):e1000084.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  7. Villeneuve J, Pepin J. L’audit pharmaceutique pour la pr\u00e9vention des erreurs m\u00e9dicamenteuses. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2003;56(3):153-7. PMID: 12948444.<\/li>
  8. McLeod M, Ahmed Z, Barber N, Franklin BD. A national survey of clinical pharmacy services in UK emergency departments. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011 Apr;33(2):364-70. <\/li>
  9. Barnes H, Maier CB, Altares Sarik D, Germack HD, Stevens KR. Nurse Practitioner Care Model Reduces Medication-Related Hospitalizations in Frail Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 May;67(5):913-919<\/li>
  10. Howick J, Moscrop A, Mebius A, et al. Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J R Soc Med. 2018 Jan;111(1):240-252.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  11. Souza JP, Cecatti JG, Faundes A, et al. Maternal near miss and maternal death in the World Health Organization’s 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health. Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Mar;88(3):113-9.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  12. O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 8;(3):CD001431.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  13. Abrogoua DP, Kouame KE, Koffi NB, et al. Interventions pharmaceutiques sur les prescriptions d\u2019antibiotiques en consultations externes de p\u00e9diatrie d\u2019un centre hospitalier universitaire de C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire. Ann Pharm Fr. 2015 Jul;73(4):305-311<\/li>
  14. Shehab N, Patel PR, Srinivasan A, Budnitz DS. Emergency department visits for antibiotic-associated adverse events. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(6):735-743.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  15. Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP). ISMP List of High-Alert Medications in Community\/Ambulatory Healthcare. 2018. Disponible sur : https:\/\/www.ismp.org\/sites\/default\/files\/attachments\/2018-01\/highAlerts2018-Ambulatory-FINAL.pdf<\/li>
  16. Conort O, Juste M. Classification des interventions pharmaceutiques : un outil pour la pratique. Le Pharmacien Hospitalier et Clinicien. 2011;46(2):70-74. <\/li>
  17. Vidal ; Dictionnaire Vidal. OVP. Paris : Vidal, 2014.<\/li>
  18. Dorosz P. Guide pratique des m\u00e9dicaments. Paris : Maloine, 2013.<\/li>
  19. Thesaurus des interactions m\u00e9dicamenteuses. Mise \u00e0 jour d\u00e9cembre 2012. Agence national de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 du m\u00e9dicament et des produits de sant\u00e9. http:\/\/www.ansmm.sante.fr consult\u00e9 le 05 Janvier 2016<\/li>
  20. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2021. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology; 2020.<\/li>
  21. Bourgeois E, Beuscart JB, Reynaud P, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to optimize the pharmaceutical analysis of prescriptions targeted at high-risk drugs. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(5):753-761<\/li>
  22. Droz-Perroteau C, Trivalle C, Ducrocq X, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a pharmacist-led medication assessment tool in primary care in France: the ETAP-2 cluster randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract. 2018;35(6):728-734.<\/li>
  23. Blix HS, Viktil KK, Reikvam A, Moger TA, Hjemaas BJ, Pretsch P, et al. The majority of hospitalised patients have drug-related problems: results from a prospective study in general hospitals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004;60:651\u20138.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  24. Dooley MJ, Allen KM, Doecke CJ, Galbraith KJ, Taylor GR, Bright J, et al. A prospective multicentre study of pharmacist initiated changes to drug therapy and patient management in acute care government funded hospitals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004;57: 513\u201321
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  25. Guignon AM, Grain F, Allenet B et al. Evaluation de l\u2019impact clinique des opinions pharmaceutiques dans un service de m\u00e9decine sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9e. J Pharm Clin 2001; 20:118\u201323.<\/li>
  26. Bayliff CD, Einarson TR. Physician assessment of pharmacists\u2019 interventions: a method of estimating cost avoidance and determining quality assurance. Can J Hosp Pharm 1990;43(4):167-71<\/li>
  27. Zahar JR, Lanternier F, Mechai F, et al. Compliance with recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery patients in France: a multicenter study focused on the importance of the class of antibiotic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(6):2710-2716.<\/li>
  28. Asseray N, Ballereau F, Trombert-Paviot B, et al. Evaluation of the appropriateness of prescriptions of antibiotics in community hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(2):362-369.<\/li>
  29. Gennai S, Baldoni M, Pascual A, et al. Evaluation of the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions in the community in Italy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(1):53-56. <\/li>
  30. Noguchi N, Emoto T, Matsumura Y, et al. Evaluation of the clinical characteristics and prognosis of bacteremia caused by Escherichia coli with high-level fluoroquinolone resistance. Infection. 2014;42(1):101-109. <\/li>
  31. Daneman N, Sarwar S, Fowler RA, et al. Risk factors and outcomes associated with treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in hospitalized patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):398-406. <\/li>
  32. Ferreira AC, Almeida SM, Correia M, et al. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance among intensive care units patients in Portugal: a snapshot of the current situation. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019;19:184-190. <\/li>
  33. Gaur AH, Liu T, Knapp KM, et al. Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in children in outpatient settings. Pediatrics. 2018;141(2):e20170610. <\/li>
  34. M. Morante, C. Matoses-Chirivella,  F. J. R. Lucena, J. M. del Moral et al Actuaci\u00f3n farmac\u00e9utica en el control de la duraci\u00f3n del tratamiento con antimicrobianos en el \u00e1mbito hospitalario ; Rev Esp Quimoter 2014 ; 27(3) : 159-169<\/li>
  35. Koenig SM, Truwit JD. Ventilator-associated pneumonia: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006;19(4):637-657.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  36. Lemtiri-Florek J, S\u00e9gard M.A, Descamps A., Delvall\u00e9e M., Dubus M-H, Luyssaert B.et al. Bon usage des anti-infectieux : \u00e9volution des interventions pharmaceutiques en deux ans au Centre hospitalier de Seclin  J Pharm Clin, 2013. 32 (1) : 31-42<\/li>
  37. Guignard B, Bonnabry P; Perrier A, Dayer P, Desmeules J.; Samer CF.  Drugs-related problems identification in general interanl medicine: The impact and role of the clinical pharmacist and pharmacology European journal of internal medecine July 2015 volume 26 issue 6. Pages 399-406
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  38. Rybak MJ, Abate BJ, Kang SL et al. Prospective evaluation of the effect of an aminoglycoside dosing regimen on rates of observed nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity.Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999; 43:1549-55
    CrossRef<\/li>
  39. Daneman N, Sarwar S, Fowler RA, et al. Risk factors and outcomes associated with treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in hospitalized patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):398-406. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamainternmed.2018.6557<\/li>
  40. Ferreira AC, Almeida SM, Correia M, et al. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance among intensive care units patients in Portugal: a snapshot of the current situation. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019;19:184-190.<\/li>
  41. Gaur AH, Liu T, Knapp KM, et al. Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in children in outpatient settings. Pediatrics. 2018;141(2):e20170610.<\/li>
  42. Koenig SM, Truwit JD. Ventilator-associated pneumonia: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006;19(4):637-657.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  43. Bouchillon SK, Johnson BM, Hoban DJ, et al. Determining incidence of extended spectrum \u03b2-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 38 centres from 17 countries: the PEARLS study 2001-2002. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;24(2):119-124.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  44. Rybak MJ, Abate BJ, Kang SL, et al. Prospective evaluation of the e\ufb00ect of an aminoglycoside dosing regimen on rates of observed nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(7):1549\u201355.
     CrossRef<\/a><\/li>
  45. Rodvold KA, Erdman SM, Pryka RD. Vancomycin. In: Schumacher GE, editor. Therapeutic drug monitoring. Norwalk (CT): Appleton & Lange; 1995. p. 587\u2013632.<\/li>
  46. Higgins R, Krockow EM, Oliver S, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;4(4):CD003543. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/14651858.CD003543.pub5<\/li>
  47. Patel N, Harrington A, Dihmis WC. Antibiotic drug interactions and the clinical implications. Pharmacy (Basel). 2019;7(2):48<\/li>
  48. Yoon H, Jeon MH, Park HJ, Kim YH, Kim MH, Lee SH. Assessment of potential drug-drug interactions among elderly patients with infectious diseases at a tertiary care hospital in Korea. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):383. <\/li>
  49. Higgins R, Krockow EM, Oliver S, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;4(4):CD003543.<\/li>
  50. Patel N, Harrington A, Dihmis WC. Antibiotic drug interactions and the clinical implications. Pharmacy (Basel). 2019;7(2):48.<\/li>
  51. Ghalyanchi Langeroudi A, Asadi S, Miri M, Shafiee S, Kouchek M, Pirmohammad M. Drug-drug interactions in hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics. Iran J Pharm Res. 2017;16(1):317-323.<\/li>
  52. Iannuccelli M, Sportiello L, Capuano A, Radice S, Russo E, Rossi F. Antibiotic drug interactions: a review. J Chemother. 2013;25(1):6-20.<\/li>
  53. Fgaier H, Alqahtani S, Aljohani M, et al. Aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity: a review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2019;11(4):304-307.<\/li>
  54. Kumar VS, Naidu MU, Satyanarayana SV, Viswanath RK. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of aminoglycosides with other drugs: a review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;66(3):231-238. <\/li>
  55. Sowmya M, Swathi R, Jyothi B, Nagabhushanam MV, Madhusudan Rao Y. Drug-drug interactions and nephrotoxicity in intensive care unit patients: a prospective observational study. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2021;10(1):91-97.<\/li>
  56. Reed MD, Stern RC, O’Riordan MA, Blumer JL. Risk of nephrotoxicity from co-administration of aminoglycosides and vancomycin. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33(11):1132-1137. <\/li>
  57. Penzak SR. Mechanisms of drug interactions II: transport proteins. In: Piscitelli SC, Rodvold KA, editors. Drug interactions in infectious diseases. 2nd edition. Totowa (NJ): Humana Press; 2005. p. 41\u201382.
    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>
  58. Poudel A, et al. Prevalence and nature of potential medication safety events in Nepal: a pilot study. Drug Saf. 2014;37(11):939-950. <\/li>
  59. Rozenfeld Y, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of potential drug\u2013drug interactions in chronic patients of an internal medicine ward in Israel. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(6):677-681. <\/li>
  60. Gaillard T, et al. Analysis of clinical pharmacist interventions in an intensive care unit. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sci Pract. 2018;25(2):66-70. <\/li>
  61. Zillich A. J., Sutherland T. J., Kumbera R. M., Carter L. C., Snyder J. L.Evaluation of pharmacist care in the management of cardiovascular disease risk factors: impact on lipid levels. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2005 Dec;39(12):2073-8.<\/li>
  62. Jenn M, Leong C, Walkom E. Clinical and economic impact of clinical pharmacists’ interventions on a general medical service. J Pharm Pract Res. 2002;32(2):114-118<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Most medication-related problems in hospitals are caused by anti-infectives […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[109],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol16no3"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51836","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51836"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51836\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52536,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51836\/revisions\/52536"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}