@article{DreischulteSanftenbergHennigsetal.2023,
  author    = {Dreischulte, Tobias and Sanftenberg, Linda and Hennigs, Philipp and Z{\"o}llinger, Isabel and Schwaiger, Rita and Floto, Caroline and Sebastiao, Maria and K{\"u}hlein, Thomas and Hindenburg, Dagmar and Gagyor, Ildik{\´o} and Wildgruber, Domenika and Hausen, Anita and Janke, Christian and H{\"o}lscher, Michael and Teupser, Daniel and Gensichen, Jochen},
  title     = {Detecting medication risks among people in need of care: performance of six instruments},
  series = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  number    = {3},
  issn      = {1660-4601},
  doi       = {10.3390/ijerph20032327},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-304921},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Introduction: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. Objectives: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. Methods: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. Results: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95\% CI, 87.2-94.9)\% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9\%)\%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5\%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6\% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7\%) and FORTA-A (62.8\%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1\%), and increased to 79.2\% when distinct items from STOPP were added. Conclusion: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KirstenOhmGehrdauetal.2022,
  author    = {Kirsten, Natalia and Ohm, Frenz and Gehrdau, Kathrin and Girbig, Gefion and Stephan, Brigitte and Ben-Anaya, Nesrine and Pinter, Andreas and Bechara, Falk G. and Presser, Dagmar and Zouboulis, Christos C. and Augustin, Matthias},
  title     = {Switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa results in losses of response — data from the German HS registry HSBest},
  series = {Life},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Life},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {2075-1729},
  doi       = {10.3390/life12101518},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288213},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Since 2021, adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 can be used alternatively to adalimumab originator (ADAO) in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Effectiveness and safety data remain scarce. We investigated the impact of switching from ADAO to ABP 501 on disease severity and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) in patients with HS. We analyzed clinical data on patients enrolled in the German HSBest registry. Evaluation outcomes were assessed at three time points (baseline of originator (t0), prior to switching to biosimilar (t1) and 12 to 14 weeks after switching (t2)) and included patient-reported AEs and disease severity using the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) score. In total, 94 patients were switched from ADAO to ABP 501. Overall, 33.3\% (n = 31/94) of the patients developed AEs and/or loss of response (LoR) within 12 to 14 weeks after switching. Of these, 61.3\% (n = 19/31) experienced LoR but no AEs, 22.6\% (n = 7/31) LoR combined with AEs and 16.1\% (n = 5/31) AEs only. Our study showed that switching HS patients from ADAO to ABP 501 does significantly affect treatment effectiveness. Switching patients who are on remission maintenance therapy should be viewed critically.},
  language  = {en}
}