Search

Study Objective: To compare rates of nephrotoxicity, time to nephrotoxicity onset, and clinical failure among patients who received continuous infusion (C-I) or intermittent infusion (I-I) vancomycin in an outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) program. Nephrotoxicity was defined as an increase in serum creatinine greater than 0.5 mg/dl or a 50% increase from baseline for two consecutive measurements while receiving vancomycin during OPAT. Clinical failure was defined as unplanned readmission, extension of therapy, or change in antibiotics., Design: Single-center propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study., Setting: OPAT clinic affiliated with two nearby hospitals., Patients: We identified 300 patients who received C-I or I-I vancomycin for at least 1 week in the OPAT program between October 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019. Propensity score matching based on age, sex, and infection was performed to minimize differences in patient characteristics between groups., Measurements and Main Results: After propensity score matching and exclusion criteria, 74 patients were included in each cohort. Continuous infusion vancomycin was associated with a 3.22-fold decrease in nephrotoxicity risk (C-I 6.8% [5/74 patients] vs I-I 18.9% [14/74 patients]; odds ratio 3.22, 95% confidence interval 1.10-9.46, p=0.027) and a significantly slower onset to nephrotoxicity compared with I-I (p=0.035). No statistically significant difference in clinical failure rates was observed between the C-I and I-I groups (13.5% [10/74 patients] vs 23.0% [17/74 patients], p=0.147)., Conclusion: In an OPAT setting, C-I vancomycin was associated with a lower risk of and slower onset to nephrotoxicity than I-I vancomycin; however, no statistically significant difference in clinical failure rates was observed with C-I versus I-I vancomycin., (© 2020 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Study Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the achievement of therapeutic pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK‐PD) exposure targets for beta‐lactam antibiotics using product information dosing or guideline‐based dosing for the treatment of serious infections. Design: In silico study. Data Source: ID‐ODSTM (Individually Designed Optimum Dosing Strategies). Patients and Intervention: None. Measurements and Main Results: In silico product information and guideline‐based dosing simulations for cefepime, ceftazidime, flucloxacillin, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam were performed using pharmacokinetic models from seriously ill patient populations. The median simulated concentration at 48 and 96 h was used to measure the probability of target attainment (PTA) to achieve predefined therapeutic and toxicity PK‐PD targets. A multiple linear regression model was constructed to identify the effect of guideline‐based dosing covariates on achieving pre‐defined therapeutic targets. In total, 480 dosing simulations were performed. The PTA percentage with guideline‐based dosing at 48 and 96 h was 80% and 68%, respectively, yielding significantly higher results when compared to product information dosing (48.45% and 49%, respectively), p < 0.001 at both time points. At 48 h, predefined toxicity thresholds were exceeded in 4.7% and 0% of simulations for guideline‐based and product information‐based dosing, respectively (p = 0.002). eGFR was significantly associated with the % PTA by guideline‐based dosing, with eGFR values of 20 and 50 ml/min both statistically significant in leading to an increase in PTA. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that achievement of PK‐PD exposures associated with an increased likelihood of effectiveness was more likely to occur with guideline‐based dosing; especially at 48 h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC., (© 2024 The Authors. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Study Objective: The preferred antibiotic salvage regimen for persistent methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (MRSAB) is unclear. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vancomycin plus ceftaroline for persistent MRSAB. The primary outcome was time to MRSAB clearance post‐ceftaroline initiation. Secondary outcomes included microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, 90‐day readmission for MRSAB, 90‐day all‐cause mortality, MRSAB‐related mortality, and incidence of antibiotic‐associated adverse effects. Design: Single‐center, retrospective cohort study between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Setting: State University of New York Upstate University Hospital, a 748‐bed tertiary care, academic medical center in Syracuse, NY. Patients Adult patients were included if they had blood cultures positive for MRSA ≥72 h, received vancomycin monotherapy initially, and received vancomycin plus ceftaroline for ≥24 h. Patients were excluded if they received other anti‐MRSA antibiotics, were pregnant, or were incarcerated. Of the 178 patients identified, 30 unique patients were evaluated. Measurements and Main Results: Patients were medically complex with a median Pitt bacteremia score of 3, 63.3% (19/30) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 66.7% (20/30) had infective endocarditis. Vancomycin‐associated acute kidney injury was observed in 10% (3/30) of patients, which resulted in dose adjustments. No patients experienced ceftaroline‐associated neutropenia or Clostridioides difficile infection, but 6.7% (2/30) developed a rash attributed to ceftaroline. Median time to MRSAB clearance post‐ceftaroline initiation was 2.6 days. Microbiologic cure occurred in nearly all patients 96.7% (29/30). Median hospital length of stay was 19.5 days, and 6.7% (2/30) of patients had 90‐day readmission for MRSAB. 90‐day all‐cause mortality and MRSAB‐related mortality occurred in 26.7% (8/30) and 13.3% (4/30) of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Vancomycin plus ceftaroline may represent an effective and well‐tolerated salvage regimen option for persistent MRSAB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Outcomes following andexanet alfa reversal of factor Xa inhibitors in patients requiring urgent or emergent invasive procedures are lacking. This study aimed to describe efficacy and safety outcomes following andexanet alfa administration within 24 h of an invasive procedure. Methods: This single‐center, observational, retrospective study included patients who received andexanet alfa within 24 h of an invasive or surgical procedure. The primary outcome was hemostatic efficacy graded as excellent, good, or poor using similar definitions to the ANNEXA‐4 criteria. Secondary outcomes included hospital discharge disposition, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, 30‐day mortality, 30‐day thromboischemic event rates, and serum coagulation assay changes pre‐ and postreversal. Results: Forty‐four patients met inclusion criteria; of these, 27 (62.8%) received apixaban and 16 (37.2%) were treated with rivaroxaban prior to admission. The indications for reversal were categorized as intracranial (n = 20 [45.5%]) or extracranial (n = 24 [54.5%]) sites. Majority of patients required emergent operative procedures (18 [40.9%]), followed by invasive device placement (10 [22.7%]) or arterial embolization (9 [20.5%]). Thirty‐eight (86.4%) patients were able to be adequately graded for hemostatic efficacy. Overall, 30 (78.9%) patients achieved excellent or good hemostasis within 24 h after periprocedural administration of andexanet alfa (19 [82.6%] apixaban vs. 11 [78.6%] rivaroxaban; 12 [80.0%] intracranial events vs. 18 [78.3%] extracranial events). Discharge disposition was most often to a short‐ or long‐term care facilities (27 [61.4%]). Thirty‐day mortality and thromboischemic complications occurred in 15 (34.1%) and 12 (27.3%) patients, respectively. Prothrombin time and antifactor Xa assay results were significantly decreased after andexanet alfa administration (p < 0.05) while thromboelastogram assay values (reaction time, kinetic time, and activated clotting time) showed nonsignificant changes pre‐ versus postreversal. Conclusion: Andexanet alfa may be used for urgent or emergent reversal of apixaban and rivaroxaban peri‐procedurally with promising hemostatic outcomes. Further prospective, comparative clinical research is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: The optimal pharmacodynamic parameter for the prediction of efficacy of vancomycin is the area under the concentration–time curve (AUC), and current published data indicate that dosing based on vancomycin trough concentrations is an inaccurate substitute. In this study, our objective was to compare the achievement of therapeutic target attainment after switching from a trough‐based to an AUC‐based dosing strategy as a part of our institution's vancomycin‐per‐pharmacy protocol. Design: Prospective observational quality assurance study. Setting: Academic medical center. Patients: A total of 296 hospitalized adults who received vancomycin and monitoring under our institution's vancomycin‐per‐pharmacy protocol were included in the analysis. The preimplementation retrospective comparison group consisted of 179 patients in whom vancomycin was initiated using a trough‐based dosing strategy between November 22, 2017, and January 22, 2018. The postimplementation group included 117 patients in whom vancomycin was initiated using an AUC‐based dosing strategy using two‐point sampling between June 19, 2018, and July 19, 2018, after hospital‐wide implementation of this protocol on June 19, 2018. Measurements and Main Results: AUC values were calculated from two vancomycin concentrations (peak and trough). The primary outcome was achievement of therapeutic AUC values (400–800 mg·hr/L) in the postimplementation group or therapeutic trough level values (10–20 mg/L) in the preimplementation group. Only 98 (55%) of 179 initial trough values were therapeutic in the preimplementation group (trough‐only dosing method) versus 86 (73.5%) of 117 initial AUC values in the postimplementation group (AUC‐based dosing method) (p=0.0014). A lower proportion of supratherapeutic AUC values was observed in the postimplementation group compared with supratherapeutic trough concentrations in the preimplementation group (1.7% vs 18%, p<0.0001). Overall, 62% of patients with initially therapeutic AUC values had subsequent trough value increases of 25% or greater, occurring at a median of 6 days of vancomycin therapy. Nephrotoxicity occurred in 11% of patients in the preimplementation versus 9.4% in the postimplementation group (p=0.70). Conclusion: Compared with a trough concentration–based dosing strategy, AUC‐based dosing using two‐point sampling improved therapeutic target attainment. Implementation is feasible at any hospital that performs vancomycin peak concentration testing and is a workable alternative to using Bayesian software for estimating AUC. This approach should also be directly compared with AUC‐based dosing using Bayesian software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]