METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients admitted between June and August 2021 in general COVID-19 wards, treated with methylprednisolone. Clinical outcomes evaluated include in-hospital mortality, thirty-day mortality, clinical efficacy (C-reactive protein (CRP), total white blood cells (TWBC) and oxygen requirement) as well as the safety of methylprednisolone.
RESULTS: Of 278 patients, 1(0.4%) received weight-based dosing of 1 mg/kg/day, 101(36.3%) received weight-based dosing of 2 mg/kg/day, 130(46.8%) received fixed dosing methylprednisolone 250 mg/day and 46(16.5%) received fixed dosing methylprednisolone 500 mg/day. There was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality rates following different methylprednisolone doses whereby in-hospital mortality occurred in 22.5% (n = 23) of patients with 1 or 2 mg/kg/day methylprednisolone, 32.3% (n = 42) with 250 mg/day and 39.1% (n = 18) with 500 mg/day (p = 0.023). On the other hand, no significant difference in thirty-day mortality, clinical efficacy and safety was observed between different dosing regimens (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The use of methylprednisolone weight-based dosing in hospitalised COVID-19 patients should be considered due to the positive outcome associated with lower in-hospital mortality.
AIM: Our aim is to develop and validate a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool (PAST) to guide medical ward pharmacists in our local hospitals to effectively prioritise patient care.
METHOD: This study involved 2 major phases; (1) development of PAST through literature review and group discussion, (2) validation of PAST using a three-round Delphi survey. Twenty-four experts were invited by email to participate in the Delphi survey. In each round, experts were required to rate the relevance and completeness of PAST criteria and were given chance for open feedback. The 75% consensus benchmark was set and criteria with achieved consensus were retained in PAST. Experts' suggestions were considered and added into PAST for rating. After each round, experts were provided with anonymised feedback and results from the previous round.
RESULTS: Three Delphi rounds resulted in the final tool (rearranged as mnemonic 'STORIMAP'). STORIMAP consists of 8 main criteria with 29 subcomponents. Marks are allocated for each criteria in STORIMAP which can be combined to a total of 15 marks. Patient acuity level is determined based on the final score and clerking priority is assigned accordingly.
CONCLUSION: STORIMAP potentially serves as a useful tool to guide medical ward pharmacists to prioritise patients effectively, hence establishing acuity-based pharmaceutical care.