{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017164179104477612, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037313432835820895, 'mean_word_length': 5.478260869565218, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pharmaceutical intervention in the care of cystic fibrosis patients

In a prospective, randomised, cross‐over study including cystic fibrosis patients with indications for HIVAT (home intravenous antibiotic treatment) the prospect of pharmaceutical intervention was investigated. A comparison between the use of disposable infusion devices with antibiotics from the pharmacy and when the patients prepared the drugs themselves was performed. During a first treatment course the patients received either infusion devices during 5 days or reconstituted the drugs themselves during 5 days, or vice versa. During a second treatment course the order was the reversed. Eight patients were included, out of which six completed the original design as a cross‐over study, yielding a total of 550 doses of antibiotics. The patients preferred infusion devices from the pharmacy prepared according to GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) as opposed to reconstituting the antibiotics themselves. Points of view presented included no anxiety over the correct dosage of drugs and less disruption of family and social life. In a practical sense, portable devices are more expensive than the preparation of the drugs by the patients themselves. However, when comparing with in‐hospital treatment the direct costs for a hospital stay exceed that of the devices.