Background and importance The activity of pharmacy services increased during the first wave of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. An example of this was the activity carried out during the validation of inpatient treatments.

Aim and objectives To evaluate pharmaceutical interventions carried out in a second level hospital during the pandemic and compare them with those in the same period of the previous year.

Material and methods This was a retrospective study. All pharmaceutical interventions between March and May 2020 (pandemic period: P) and those between March and May 2019 (pre-pandemic period: pre-P) were reviewed. Data collected were: number of interventions, hospital stay, intervention rate (number of interventions × 1000 hospital stays), therapeutic group involved and type of intervention. Data analysis: Stata V.15.1. The χ² Mantel–Haenszel test was used to compare intervention rates and the χ² Pearson to compare proportions.

Results The number of interventions was 690 versus 115, and the number of hospital stays was 27 415 versus 27 062 for the P and pre-P periods, respectively. The intervention rate (P vs pre-P) was 25.2×1000 stays versus 4.2×1000 stays (χ² Mantel–Haenszel, p<0.0001). Therapeutic groups involved (P vs pre-P, respectively) were: P01-antiparasitics/hydroxychloroquine (40% vs 0%), J-01-antibiotics and J05-antivirals (17% vs 19%), N05-antipsychotics (7% vs 6%), B01-anticoagulants antiaggregants (6% vs 15%), N-02 analgesics (5% vs 21%) and other groups (25% vs 39%). Statistically significant differences were found between both distributions (χ² Pearson, p<0,001).

Type of interventions (P vs pre-P, respectively): drug interaction monitoring (40% vs 11%), stop treatment (26% vs 17%), dosage change (26% vs 60%) and other interventions (8% vs 12%). Both distributions (P and pre-P) were compared, and there were statistically significant differences between them (χ² Pearson, p<0,001).

Conclusion and relevance During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, activity related to the validation of inpatients treatments increased significantly in our centre. The acceptance rate of interventions was not collected but it should be considered for future studies. The therapeutic groups involved in the pharmaceutical interventions differed between the P and pre-P periods. In the P period, those related to antiparasitic drugs (which includes hydroxychloroquine) increased significantly. Types of interventions were also different between both periods. In the P period, the interventions related to drug interactions and excessive durations of treatments were the most frequent. Both types were interventions related to the safety of treatments during the pandemic.

Conflict of interest No conflict of interest