Search

Background: Cefazolin is guideline recommended for perioperative prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Despite its unique R1 side chain, cefazolin is often avoided in patients with beta-lactam allergy with concern for cross reactivity. Objectives: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who received cefazolin perioperatively. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients with a beta-lactam allergy clarified following the telephone interview and clinical outcomes including acute kidney injury, surgical site infection, Clostridioides difficile infection, and re-admission at 30 and 90 days. Methods: This single-center, quasi-experimental study evaluated a pilot program in which a pharmacist phoned patients > 18 years of age with a scheduled orthopedic surgery and a documented beta-lactam allergy to assess their allergy preoperatively. Recommendations to use cefazolin were based on an algorithm. Patients were divided into pre- and post-intervention cohorts. Results: A total of 832 patients were screened for inclusion with 135 and 66 patients included in the pre- and post-intervention cohorts. No significant difference was identified in the primary outcome. In the post-intervention cohort, 62% had a beta-lactam reaction updated in the electronic medical record. Those with a beta-lactam allergy delabeled or made less severe were numerically more likely to receive cefazolin than those with an unchanged reaction or a reaction made more severe (95.2% vs 68% vs 65%). There were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. Conclusion: A pharmacist-conducted preoperative beta-lactam allergy interview in adult patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery improved beta-lactam allergy documentation but, did not result in increased utilization of cefazolin., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Wesley D. Kufel has received research grants from Merck and Co. and Melinta Therapeutics and served on the advisory board for Theratechnologies. Jeffrey M. Steele has served on the advisory board for Paratek Pharmaceuticals. All other authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Purpose: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability in the United States. Prompt secondary prevention decreases the risk for recurrence. Pharmacists have taken a more active role in poststroke care and are initiating prompt follow-up after hospital discharge. There are, however, limited descriptions providing insight on how to implement programs that address this need. The purpose of this article is to provide insights into the development of a pharmacist-driven transitions of care program for patients with stroke., Methods: This study was a single-center, retrospective assessment of patients contacted by a pharmacist. All data were analyzed descriptively. Our initial evaluation of the Pharmacists Act on Care Transitions in Stroke (PACT-Stroke) service was to quantify and categorize drug-related problems (DRPs), which included drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, dispensing, drug use process, patient-related problems, and other. Patients were included if they were adults who experienced an ischemic stroke. Exclusion criteria for this service included pediatric patients, patients with hemorrhagic strokes, patients with transient ischemic attacks, patients >89 years of age, pregnant patients, and patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility immediately after stroke., Findings: A total of 27 patients were included in this analysis, with a total of 30 DRPs identified. After pharmacist intervention, roughly 83% of these DRPs were resolved., Implications: Implementing secondary prevention measures for patients with stroke is crucial. A pharmacist-led transitions of care pilot program was implemented to address this high-risk patient population. This article serves as a framework for implementation at other institutions that aim to provide similar services and can potentially be applied to other high-risk groups., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECTIVE: To test the common hypothesis that pharmacists may use more caution and resources when processing pediatric versus geriatric medication orders in the hospital setting.
DESIGN: A 26-item electronic survey was distributed to a sample of participating academic medical-center pharmacy directors with the request to disseminate it to staff pharmacists. The survey was resent at two-week intervals on two occasions.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): To identify if pharmacists take more caution when processing geriatric or pediatric medication orders, to characterize the frequency pharmacists use drug information resources when processing these orders, and to assess the level of importance pharmacists place on guidelines for medication error prevention when processing medication orders.
RESULTS: A total of 173 out of 271 pharmacists completed the survey, resulting in a high final completion rate of 63.8%. Most were clinical, residencytrained pharmacists. A majority of respondents stated that they take more caution when verifying pediatric medication orders than they do for orders for older people (125 out of 172, or 72.7%). Pharmacists report they were 4.2 times more likely to refer to a drug information resource for ≥ 50% of pediatric orders versus geriatric orders (pediatric: 118 out of 171, or 69.0% vs. geriatric: 59 out of 172, or 34.3%; P < 0.001, or 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.156 [2.647-6.524]). Finally, pharmacists familiar with the guidelines for medication error prevention were 2.3 times more likely to state the pediatric guidelines were very important (pediatric: 51/171, or 29.8% vs. geriatric: 27/172, or 15.7%; P = 0.002, or 95% CI 2.28 [1.35-3.86]).
CONCLUSION: This survey reveals evidence for attitudinal differences in work practices for pharmacists working with medication orders relating to different age groups. Given the challenges involved in drug treatment for the older patient population, a similar level of caution, preparedness to refer to drug information, and to use guidelines should apply for both pediatric medication orders and those for older people, in order to provide safe and comprehensive care.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of area under the curve (AUC)-based vancomycin monitoring on pharmacist-initiated dose adjustments after transitioning from a trough-only to an AUC-based monitoring method at our institution., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients treated with vancomycin for complicated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection between November 2013 and December 2016 was conducted. The frequency of pharmacist-initiated dose adjustments was assessed for patients monitored via trough-only and AUC-based approaches for trough ranges: 10 to 14.9 mg/L and 15 to 20 mg/L., Results: Fifty patients were included: 36 in the trough-based monitoring and 14 in the AUC-based-monitoring group. The vancomycin dose was increased in 71.4% of patients when troughs were 10 to 14.9 mg/L when a trough-only approach was used and in only 25% of patients when using AUC estimation ( P = .048). In the AUC group, the dose was increased only when AUC/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) <400; unchanged regimens had an estimated AUC/MIC ≥400. The AUC-based monitoring did not significantly increase the frequency of dose reductions when trough concentrations were 15 to 20 mg/L (AUC: 33.3% vs trough: 4.6%; P = .107)., Conclusions: The AUC-based monitoring resulted in fewer patients with dose adjustments when trough levels were 10 to 14.9 mg/L. The AUC-based monitoring has the potential to reduce unnecessary vancomycin exposure and warrants further investigation.

Background: There is limited information describing pharmacist participation in prophylactic enoxaparin monitoring in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Objective: Our study sought to: 1) characterize pharmacist recommendations for enoxaparin monitoring in trauma patients admitted to the SICU, 2) describe the frequency that medical providers accept pharmacist recommendations for enoxaparin monitoring in trauma patients admitted to the SICU, and 3) illustrate the frequency that trauma patients admitted to our SICU service achieve anti-factor Xa trough concentrations (AFXa-TRs) of 0.11 - 0.20 IU/mL following pharmacist recommendation to adjust prophylactic enoxaparin dosing. Methods: Adult patients who had an AFXa-TR drawn after at least three consecutive prophylactic enoxaparin doses between June 1, 2017 and March 1, 2018 were identified through chart review and included in this study. Patients were excluded based on the following criteria: 1) age less than 18 years, 2) anti-factor Xa (AFXa) level not representative of a trough concentration, 3) AFXa-TR not representative of steady state concentration, and 4) non-trauma based prophylactic enoxaparin dosing. This study was exempt from IRB review. Results: The final analysis consisted of 42 patients. A pharmacist provided at least one recommendation in 97.6% (41/42) of trauma patients with enoxaparin monitoring during their SICU stay. In total, a pharmacist made 170 recommendations, mean of 4.2 (SD 1.8) recommendations per patient. Recommendations were: 1) obtain an AFXa-TR, n=90; 2) adjust enoxaparin dose based on AFXa-TR, n=58; and 3) maintain enoxaparin dose based on AFXa-TR, n=22. Medical providers accepted 89.4% (152/170) of pharmacist recommendations for enoxaparin monitoring. Dose adjustments were made in 33 patients following pharmacist recommendation; of these, 27 had a repeat AFXa-TR following at least one dose adjustment. Target AFXa-TRs were achieved in 19/27 patients, indicating 70.4% had recommended AFXa concentrations. Conclusions: Pharmacists provided recommendations for prophylactic enoxaparin monitoring and dose adjustment in trauma patients admitted to the SICU. Medical providers regularly accepted pharmacist recommendations and trauma patients commonly achieved target AFXa-TR following pharmacist recommendation for dose adjustment. Further research is required to identify the optimal enoxaparin dose for VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients.

Background: Many Postgraduate Year One (PGY1) Pharmacy residencies provide research training however, details of this training are not well described. Publication rates have been utilized to assess residency research learning experiences. Higher publication rates have been reported by programs that have implemented a structured research learning experience. Objective: The primary objective was to identify differences in the research learning experiences for American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) accredited PGY1 Pharmacy residencies with reported resident publication rates of ≥20% vs <20%. Methods: This survey was distributed to PGY1 Pharmacy residency program directors (RPDs). Seven sections were analyzed to identify research learning experience differences between programs with reported publication rates of ≥20% vs <20%: (1) program characteristics/research outcomes; (2) involved individuals; (3) requirements; (4) learning experience structure; (5) educational methods; (6) formal education; (7) barriers/RPD perceptions. Variables with P < 0.05 on logistic regression were considered statistically significant. Results: The survey response rate was 31.3% (308/984). Significant positive predictors for reported publication rates of ≥20% were: involved individuals: research director/coordinator, individuals trained in statistics, non-pharmacy medical staff; requirements: Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative training, research seminars/training courses, research manuscript; learning experience structure: research committee; educational methods: didactic residency-led lectures/courses, formal workshops, self-taught online modules; and formal education: manuscript preparation. Conclusion: This study suggests there are differences in the research learning experiences at PGY1 Pharmacy residencies with reported resident publications rates of ≥20% vs <20%. We encourage PGY1 Pharmacy residency programs to consider implementing elements associated with reported resident publication rates of ≥20%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this commentary is to provide recent pharmacy school graduates and student pharmacists completing APPEs the essential background for correct vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in the inpatient setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beta‐lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can improve precision dosing and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, but has not been implemented widely in the United States. Mayo Clinic recently implemented a beta‐lactam TDM program. This single‐center experience forms the basis of the manuscript which outlines practical considerations involved with beta‐lactam TDM implementation, including the pharmacist's role as a leader. Our implementation effort focused on three primary domains. First, we aimed to ensure a supportive organizational infrastructure. Early leadership engagement by the pharmacist‐led core team facilitated advocacy for the clinical need, allocation of resources, and assay development. Second, core clinical workflows were developed that addressed the preferred patient population for use, desirable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, and the preferred sampling strategy. Clinical tools to guide pharmacists in interpreting the results (e.g., pharmacokinetics calculator) and documenting decisions were developed. Third, stakeholders were offered repeated exposure to evidence and expertise to facilitate understanding and application of the new practice. This act of 'individual internalization' seems to be uniquely important to beta‐lactam TDM implementation compared with the implementation of other antimicrobial TDM programs. Educational strategies and supportive materials that were developed were focused on providing substantive and varied information tailored to the stakeholders' role in the process. For pharmacists, this included both clinical and operational considerations. A continuous improvement plan to support management of the process was instituted to address necessary updates and changes that inevitably emerged. In summary, the described approach to implementation of a pharmacist‐led beta‐lactam TDM program could be used as a roadmap to aid other institutions that aim to develop such a program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Free online adaptive vancomycin dosing calculators are available to estimate area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), but the accuracy of predicting vancomycin AUC using these calculators compared with using a 2-point pharmacokinetic approach has not been described. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of calculator-predicted AUC (cpAUC) using 4 free online calculators compared with reference AUC (rAUC), and to assess pharmacists' impressions of the ease of use. Methods: Vancomycin AUC was estimated using (1) the reference method via the Sawchuk-Zaske method and linear-logarithmic trapezoidal rule using 2 steady-state postdistributional vancomycin serum concentrations and (2) 4 free online vancomycin dosing calculators including ClinCalc, VancoPK, TDMx, and DMC. Accuracy was calculated by dividing cpAUC by rAUC. Ease of cpAUC estimation was determined by using a 10-point Likert scale. Results: All 4 calculators had a median cpAUC accuracy ranging from 89% to 110%. Concordance between cpAUC and rAUC determinations of AUC <400 and > 600 mg·h/L occurred 63.3% to 71.4% and 74.5% to 78.6% of the time, respectively. Pharmacist investigators agreed that ClinCalc and VancoPK calculators were easiest to use. Conclusion and Relevance: cpAUC accuracy varied among the 4 calculators, but all consistently identified patients with an rAUC <400 mg·h/L and an rAUC > 600 mg·h/L at comparable frequencies. All 4 calculators demonstrated some imprecision based on their wide 95% CIs and potential inaccuracies in predicting an rAUC <400 mg·h/L or an rAUC > 600 mg·h/L. Clin Calc and VancoPK were most user friendly based on our pharmacists' impressions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Appropriate prescribing of anti-infectives is a public health challenge. In our hospital, clinical microbiologists (clinical microbiology mobile unit, UMMc) and clinical pharmacists (clinical pharmacy, PHAc) carry out interventions on anti-infective prescriptions to improve practices. Our main objective was to evaluate the acceptance of UMMc and PHAc interventions on anti-infective prescriptions by quantifying the rate of prescription change 24 h after intervention. The secondary objective was to characterize the type of intervention and associate the rate of change for each. All prescriptions are computerized, and interventions traced via DxCare® software, which feeds a local data warehouse (HEGP-CDW). This descriptive, retrospective, single-center, uncontrolled study was conducted from January 2015 to December 2018. The data were extracted over this period from the data warehouse and analyzed using R software. UMMc interventions were accepted 72.2% of the time and PHA interventions 87.3%. The types of interventions found were mostly dose adjustments (61.1% for the UMMc and 54.2% for the PHAc) and proposals to change or stop a drug. Interventions have an impact on anti-infective prescriptions and are generally followed by clinicians. For the category "discontinuation of a molecule", almost half of the advice from the UMMc was refused. The collaboration between the UMMc and PHAc should be reinforced to improve acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptance rate of pharmacist recommendations in an interdisciplinary team for patients interviewed by the pharmacist versus those assessed by chart review. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Interdisciplinary consultative team in an outpatient setting as part of a large academic health system provided care for "high utilizer" patients. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five patients at moderate to high risk of hospitalization who completed their first appointment with the team between March 1, 2019, and December 30, 2019. Most patients were 65 years of age or older and all had Medicare insurance. INTERVENTIONS: A pharmacist completed a chart review for all patients. A cohort of patients were also interviewed. Recommendations were recorded in the electronic medical record, discussed with the team, and forwarded to the patient's primary care provider. RESULTS: A total of 253 recommendations were made by pharmacists, with a significantly higher acceptance rate for patients who completed an interview with the pharmacist (40.7% vs. 28.4%; P = 0.046). Patientspecific factors resulting in higher acceptance rates in the interview group included age younger than 65 years (P = 0.013), 10 to 19 medications (P = 0.004), and mental health diagnosis (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The addition of an interview to chart review allowed pharmacists to make recommendations that were more likely to be accepted and therefore more clinically impactful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence suggests the standard vancomycin trough goal of 15 to 20 mg/L for serious Staphylococcus aureus infections is associated with acute kidney injury, whereas appropriate monitoring of 24-hour area under the curve (AUC) may decrease nephrotoxicity. As a result, institutions have transitioned to AUC monitoring, the predictive pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameter of vancomycin to improve safety outcomes. However, this method may require increased pharmacist time and effort. Pharmacist perception of the practice change is largely unknown and warrants investigation. Methods: An electronic survey was disseminated via e-mail to pharmacists 5 months post-AUC implementation. Items of interest were focused on pharmacist perception, including quantity of patients monitored using AUC, justification of the practice change, differences in efficacy and safety, and changes in monitoring time requirements. Results: The pharmacist survey was distributed to 196 pharmacists and 84 responded (43% response rate). Eighty-one pharmacists had monitored patients using AUC methods. Sixty-nine percent of these respondents perceived the change to result in increased or slightly increased patient safety, 27% described no difference, and 4% stated safety was decreased or slightly decreased. Forty-two percent perceived the transition to result in increased or slightly increased efficacy, while 48% noted no difference and 10% responded that efficacy was decreased or slightly decreased. Pharmacists stated the creation of an institutional calculator decreased the time required to calculate AUC. Conclusion: After the change to AUC monitoring, pharmacists perceived improvements in safety outcomes while efficacy was at least similar if not increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Critically ill patients and their pharmacokinetics present complexities often not considered by consensus guidelines from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Prior surveys have suggested discordance between certain guideline recommendations and reported infectious disease pharmacist practice. Vancomycin dosing practices, including institutional considerations, have not previously been well described in the critically ill patient population. Objectives: To evaluate critical care pharmacists' self-reported vancomycin practices in comparison to the 2009 guideline recommendations and other best practices identified by the study investigators. Methods: An online survey developed by the Research and Scholarship Committee of the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology (CPP) Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) was sent to pharmacist members of the SCCM CPP Section practicing in adult intensive care units in the spring of 2017. This survey queried pharmacists' self-reported practices regarding vancomycin dosing and monitoring in critically ill adults. Results: Three-hundred and sixty-four responses were received for an estimated response rate of 26%. Critical care pharmacists self-reported largely following the 2009 vancomycin dosing and monitoring guidelines. The largest deviations in guideline recommendation compliance involve consistent use of a loading dose, dosing weight in obese patients, and quality improvement efforts related to systematically monitoring vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity. Variation exists regarding pharmacist protocols and other practices of vancomycin use in critically ill patients. Conclusion: Among critical care pharmacists, reported vancomycin practices are largely consistent with the 2009 guideline recommendations. Variations in vancomycin dosing and monitoring protocols are identified, and rationale for guideline non-adherence with loading doses elucidated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]