5PSQ-126 Pharmaceutical intervention in intravitreal therapy

<h3>Background and Importance</h3> Intravitreal injection is a minimally invasive technique, not without risks and complications, of proven effectiveness in the treatment of numerous vitreoretinal diseases. Its use, thanks to new medications and indications, has become widespread in recent years. The role of the pharmacist in the review and validation of these treatments helps to improve the quality of care as well as patient safety by preventing potential medication errors. <h3>Aim and Objectives</h3> The aim of the study was to describe the pharmaceutical interventions associated with intravitreal therapy (IVT) in a secondary-level hospital. <h3>Material and Methods</h3> Observational, retrospective study. All patients who were prescribed a IVT (ranibizumab, aflibercept, bevacizumab, faricimab and dexamethasone) between October 2022 and September 2024 were included. The variables collected from the electronic prescription program were: number of total patients, number of patients with pharmaceutical interventions (PIs), diagnosis, number of PIs and type of PI. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 1136 patients were received IVT in the period of study. In 118 of them the hospital pharmacist performed some type of PIs, which represents a 10,4% degree of intervention. Of this population the most common diagnosis were: diabetic macular oedema (47/118; 39,8%), age-related macular degeneration (38/118; 32,2%), retinal vein occlusion (15/118; 12,7%), non-diabetic macular oedema (7/118; 5,9%), neovascular membrane (4/118; 3,4%), diabetic retinopathy (3/118; 2,5%), choroideal neovascularisation (2/118; 1,7%) and other ophthalmologic pathologies (2/118; 1,7%). In these 118 patients, the hospital pharmacist carried out 129 PIs before de IVT which included the following causes: wrong medication (49/129; 38,0%), wrong eye (27/129; 20,9%), lower frequency than scheduled (24/129; 18,6%), dose omission (9/129; 7,0%), change of medication due to not indicated medication (9/129; 7,0%), change of medication due to management reason (3/129; 2,3%), duplicate appointment (1/129; 0,8%), and other reasons (7/129; 5,4%). All interventions were accepted. <h3>Conclusion and Relevance</h3> This study demonstrates the multiple potential medication errors associated with IVT and provides useful information which supports the importance of the hospital pharmacist´s role in improving patient safety and healthcare quality. <h3>References and/or Acknowledgements</h3> <h3>Conflict of Interest</h3> No conflict of interest