Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate pharmacist prescribing of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to ensure this method of increasing access to treatment is safe and effective., Methods: This multicenter, retrospective observational study included patients receiving a prescription for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir by a physician, nurse practitioner (NP), physician assistant (PA), or pharmacist at an Indiana University (IU) Health West Central Region site over a 3-month period. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribed by a pharmacist (the pharmacist prescribed group) and those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribed by other providers (the physician/NP/PA prescribed group). Electronic health record (EHR) reviews were performed to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions based on the presence of risk factors and symptoms, day of symptom onset, and dosing. The primary endpoint was the overall appropriateness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions in the two study groups based on emergency use authorization inclusion and exclusion requirements. Secondary endpoints included appropriateness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir dosing and medically attended visits or mortality within 30 days. Statistical analysis of the endpoints occurred post hoc utilizing the Fisher's exact test., Results: A total of 259 patients were included in the pharmacist prescribed group and 265 patients in the physician/NP/PA prescribed group. Overall appropriate nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing occurred in 258 patients (99.6%) and 232 patients (87.5%) in the pharmacist and physician/NP/PA prescribed groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir dosing was appropriate in 256 patients (98.8%) and 240 patients (90.6%) in the pharmacist and physician/NP/PA prescribed groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). The 30-day rates of medically attended visits were similar between groups. No patients died within 30 days of treatment in either group., Conclusion: Pharmacist prescribing of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir may result in a higher likelihood of prescriptions meeting overall appropriateness criteria. Pharmacists represent an important healthcare professional resource to improve nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing and utilization., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, patients admitted to the hospital are commonly discharged on antibiotic therapy with prolonged courses of therapy, which contributes to excessive antibiotic exposure and adverse events. The purpose of this study was to evaluate total antibiotic duration of therapy at hospital discharge at Indiana University Health Arnett, White Memorial, and Frankfort hospitals., Methods: A multicenter, retrospective electronic health record review was conducted from 1 January to 30 June 2019. Patients were included if they were at least 18 years of age, began antibiotic therapy while admitted, and continued antibiotic therapy at hospital discharge for 1 of the following indications: skin/soft tissue infection (SSTI), urinary tract infection (UTI), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). The number of days of therapy (DOT) of each inpatient and outpatient antibiotic prescribed was collected to calculate the total DOT, which was utilized to determine the appropriateness of the duration of therapy., Results: Of the 547 patients included, 233 patients (42.6%) had CAP, 120 (21.9%) had UTI, 101 (18.5%) had SSTI, and 93 (17%) had AECOPD. The median duration of antibiotic therapy across all indications was 9 days (interquartile range [IQR], 7-11). Median duration for CAP was 9 days (IQR, 7-10), AECOPD was 7 days (IQR, 5-9), UTI was 8 days (IQR, 6-10), and SSTI was 12 days (IQR, 10-14)., Conclusions: Excess antimicrobial duration at hospital discharge represents an unmet need of antimicrobial stewardship programs., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

This study was conducted to assess the utility of the T2Candida panel across an academic health center and identify potential areas for diagnostic optimization. A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with a T2Candida panel and mycolytic/fungal (myco/f lytic) blood culture collected simultaneously during hospitalizations from February 2017 to March 2018. The primary outcome of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the panel compared to myco/f lytic blood culture. Secondary outcomes included Candida species isolated from culture or detected on the panel, source of infection, days of therapy (DOT) of antifungals in patients with discordant results, and overall antifungal DOT/1,000 patient days. A total of 433 paired T2Candida panel and myco/f lytic blood cultures were identified. The pretest likelihood of candidemia was 4.4%. The sensitivity and specificity were 64.7% and 95.6%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 40.7% and 98.5%, respectively. There were 16 patients with T2Candida panel positive and myco/f lytic blood culture negative results, while 6 patients had T2Candida panel negative and myco/f blood culture positive results. The overall antifungal DOT/1,000 patient days was improved after implementation of the T2Candida panel; however, the use of micafungin continued to decline after the panel was removed. We found that the T2Candida panel is a highly specific diagnostic tool; however, the sensitivity and positive predictive value may be lower than previously reported when employed in clinical practice. Clinicians should use this panel as an adjunct to blood cultures when making a definitive diagnosis of candidemia., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.)