Search

An area‐under‐the‐curve (AUC24)‐based approach is recommended to guide vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), yet trough concentrations are still commonly used despite associated risks. A definitive toxicity target is lacking, which is important for hematology patients who have a higher risk of nephrotoxicity. The aims were to (1) assess the impact of trough‐based TDM on acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence, (2) establish a vancomycin nephrotoxicity threshold, and (3) evaluate the proportion of hematology patients achieving vancomycin therapeutic targets. Retrospective data was collected from 100 adult patients with a hematological malignancy or aplastic anemia who received vancomycin between April 2020 and January 2021. AKI occurrence was determined based on serum creatinine concentrations, and individual pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using a Bayesian approach. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the ability of pharmacokinetic indices to predict AKI occurrence. The proportion of patients who achieved target vancomycin exposure was evaluated based on an AUC24/MIC ≥400 and the determined toxicity threshold. The incidence of AKI was 37%. ROC curve analysis indicated a maximum AUC24 of 644 mg.h/L over the treatment period was an important predictor of AKI. By Day 4 of treatment, 29% of treatment courses had supratherapeutic vancomycin exposure, with only 62% of courses achieving AUC24 targets. The identified toxicity threshold supports an AUC24 target range of 400–650 mg.h/L, assuming an MIC of 1 mg/L, to optimize vancomycin efficacy and minimize toxicity. This study highlights high rates of AKI in this population and emphasizes the importance of transitioning from trough‐based TDM to an AUC‐based approach to improve clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines support area-under-the-curve (AUC) monitoring for vancomycin dosing which may lower overall doses and reduce acute kidney injury (AKI). Objective: The aim of this study was to compare incidence of AKI across 3 vancomycin dosing modalities: AUC-targeted Bayesian pharmacokinetic software, AUC-targeted empiric dosing nomogram, and trough-guided dosing using clinical pharmacists' judgment. Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients with a pharmacy dosing consult who received ≥1 dose of vancomycin and ≥1 serum vancomycin level documented between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Patients with baseline serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dL, weight ≥100 kg, receiving renal replacement therapy, AKI prior to vancomycin therapy, or vancomycin ordered only for surgical prophylaxis were excluded. The primary analysis was incidence of AKI adjusted for baseline serum creatinine, age, and intensive care unit admission. A secondary outcome was adjusted incidence of an abnormal trough value (<10 or >20 μg/mL). Results: The study included 3459 encounters. Incidence of AKI was 21% for Bayesian software (n = 659), 22% for the nomogram (n = 303), and 32% for trough-guided dosing (n = 2497). Compared with trough-guided dosing, incidence of AKI was lower in the Bayesian (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.89) and the nomogram (adjusted OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.95) groups. Compared with trough-guided dosing, abnormal trough values were less common in the Bayesian group (adjusted OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69-0.98). Conclusion and Relevance: Study results suggest that use of AUC-guided Bayesian software reduces the incidence of AKI and abnormal trough values compared with trough-guided dosing. [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]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy / Journal Canadien de la Pharmacie Hospitalière is the property of Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Dose‐prediction software is recommended to enable area under the curve over 24 h (AUC24)‐guided dosing of the antibiotic vancomycin. However, uncertainty remains about how best to implement software in the clinic. We describe the activity, over 18 months, of a consultative therapeutic drug monitoring Advisory Service (the Service) for vancomycin that used dose‐prediction software alongside clinical expertise, identifying factors that influence attainment of therapeutic targets. Of the 408 vancomycin dose reports provided for 182 courses of therapy, most (57%) recommended a dose change. The majority (82.8%, 193/233) of recommended dose adjustments were accepted by treating teams. A dose report was not published for 125 courses of therapy, with reasons including patient in intensive care unit or service error. An estimated 26.6 h of staff time was allocated to Service activities each month. Publication of a dose report facilitated attainment of therapeutic targets (P =.002). Software integration could improve Service outcomes, avoiding errors and reducing staff workload. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most recent consensus guidelines for dosing and monitoring vancomycin recommended the use of area‐under‐the‐curve with Bayesian estimation for therapeutic monitoring. As this is a modern concept in the practice of clinical pharmacy, the main objective of this review is to introduce the fundamentals of Bayesian estimation and its mathematical application as it relates to vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring. In addition, we aim to identify pharmacokinetic (PK) software programs that incorporate Bayesian estimation for vancomycin dosing and to describe the PK models utilized in those software programs for the adult population. Twelve software programs that utilize Bayesian estimation were identified, which included: Adult and Pediatric Kinetics, Best Dose, ClinCalc, DoseMeRx, ID‐ODS, InsightRx, MwPharm++, NextDose, PrecisePK, TDMx, Tucuxi, and VancoCalc. The software programs varied in the population PK models used as the Bayesian a priori. With the presence of various vancomycin Bayesian software programs, it is important to choose those that utilize PK models reflective of the specific patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What Is Known and Objective: Current vancomycin monitoring guidelines recommend the use of area under the concentration‐time curve (AUC24) monitoring in patients with serious Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections by utilizing either a Bayesian approach or first‐order analytic equations. Several open‐access websites exist that allow estimation of vancomycin AUC24 with the use of a single steady‐state concentration. It is uncertain how these open‐access calculators perform against guideline‐recommended methods. The objective was to compare AUC24 estimates from two online, open‐access, single‐concentration vancomycin calculators compared with the two‐point pharmacokinetic (2PK) method. Methods: AUC24 estimates were made using the 2PK reference method and the single‐concentration vancomycin calculators, ClinCalc and VancoPK. The AUC24 estimates from the 2PK reference method were compared to the online calculators by assessing bias (median AUC24 difference) and precision (AUC24 difference ± 100 mg*h/L). Clinical precision was also assessed by characterizing the frequency that the 2PK reference method and the online calculators showed clinical disagreement based on the following AUC24 categories: (1) AUC24 < 400 mg*h/L; (2) AUC24 400–600 mg*h/L and (3) AUC24 > 600 mg*h/L. Results and Discussion: A total of 253 patients were included in the study. The AUC24 estimates from the ClinCalc and VancoPK single‐concentration vancomycin calculators showed some bias and imprecision, though VancoPK appeared to have less. Clinical disagreement versus the 2PK reference method occurred in 31.2% and 19.4% of AUC24 estimates from the ClinCalc and VancoPK single‐concentration vancomycin calculators, suggesting clinical imprecision. What Is New and Conclusion: The AUC24 estimates from single‐concentration, online vancomycin calculators showed some bias and imprecision in comparison to the 2PK method. Institutions should validate these online, trough‐only calculators relative to a 2PK method in their patient populations prior to adoption as standard‐of‐care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several guidelines advise to monitor therapeutic LMWH therapy with peak anti-Xa concentrations in renal insufficiency with subsequent dose adjustments. A better understanding of the clinical association between peak anti-Xa concentrations and clinical outcomes is mandatory, because misunderstanding this association could lead to erroneous, and potentially even harmful, LMWH dose adjustments We reviewed the evidence of the widely applied therapeutic window for anti-Xa peak concentrations and report on the evidence for pharmacokinetic dose reduction in renal insufficiency, limitations of peak and trough anti-Xa concentration monitoring. The added value of peak anti-Xa monitoring in patients with renal insufficiency, receiving a dose reduced for pharmacokinetic changes, is not supported by data. Enoxaparin and nadroparin should be adjusted to 50–65% and 75–85% of the original dose for patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCL) of <30 ml/min and 30–60 ml/min, respectively. Tinzaparin should be adjusted to around 50% of the original dose for patients with a CrCL of <30 ml/min. In case anti-Xa monitoring is applied, trough concentration anti-Xa monitoring is preferred over peak monitoring, aiming at a maximum concentration of 0.4 IU/mL for once-daily dosed tinzaparin and 0.5 IU/mL for twice-daily dosed enoxaparin and nadroparin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New guidance recommends area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) instead of trough-based monitoring for vancomycin therapy. While this transition has demonstrated improved safety and efficacy in large, tertiary centers, this has not been assessed in the primary hospital setting. Objective: The primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AUC/MIC monitoring in inpatient veterans treated with intravenous vancomycin for ≥72 hours compared to a historical cohort of trough-based monitoring. Methods: This was a retrospective, quasi-experimental study over 2 five-month study periods. Efficacy was evaluated by comparing clinical failure rates as defined by a persistent fever, clinical deterioration, or escalation of gram-positive therapy. Safety was determined by the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) defined by an acute increase in serum creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dL over 48 hours. Results: 25 patients met the criteria in the before group and 19 in the after group. Efficacy was equivalent between groups; no patients exhibited clinical failure of vancomycin therapy. In the before group, 2 patients (8%) met defined criteria for AKI, while none in the after group experienced AKI (P = 0.21). Total vancomycin exposure was similar between groups (P = 0.56). Conclusion: AUC-based monitoring was equally efficacious as trough-based monitoring with similarly low rates of AKI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy / Journal Canadien de la Pharmacie Hospitalière is the property of Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background Correct dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) practices are essential when aiming for optimal vancomycin treatment. Objective To assess target attainment after initial dosing and dose adjustments, and to determine compliance to dosing and TDM guidelines. Setting Tertiary care university hospital in Belgium. Method A chart review was performed in 150 patients, ranging from preterm infants to adults, treated intravenously with vancomycin. Patient characteristics, dosing and TDM data were compared to evidence-based hospital guidelines. Main outcome measures Target attainment of vancomycin after initial dosing and dose adjustments. Results Subtherapeutic concentrations were measured in 68% of adults, in 76% of children and in 52% of neonates after treatment initiation. Multiple dose adaptations (median 2, Q1 1–Q3 2) were required for target attainment, whilst more than 20% of children and neonates never reached targeted concentrations. Regarding compliance to the hospital guideline, some points of improvement were identified: omitted dose adjustment in adults with decreased renal function (53%), delayed sampling (16% in adults, 31% in children) and redundant sampling (34% of all samples in adults, 12% in children, 13% in neonates). Conclusion Target attainment for vancomycin with current dosing regimens and TDM is poor in all age groups. Besides, human factors should not be ignored when aiming for optimal treatment. This study reflects an ongoing challenge in clinical practice and highlights the need for optimization of vancomycin dosing strategies and improvement of awareness of all health care professionals involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy / Journal Canadien de la Pharmacie Hospitalière is the property of Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Vancomycin is commonly prescribed to hospitalized patients. Decades of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic research culminated in recommendations to monitor the ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to the minimum inhibitory concentration in order to optimize vancomycin exposure and minimize toxicity in the revised 2020 guidelines. These guideline recommendations are based on limited data without high-quality evidence and limitations in strength. Despite considerable effort placed on vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), clinicians should recognize that the majority of vancomycin use is empiric. Most patients prescribed empiric vancomycin do not require it beyond a few days. For these patients, AUC determinations during the initial days of vancomycin exposure are futile. This added workload may detract from high-level patient care activities. Loading doses likely achieve AUC targets, so AUC monitoring after a loading dose is largely unnecessary for broad application. The excessive vancomycin TDM for decades has been propagated with limitations in evidence, and it should raise caution on contemporary vancomycin TDM recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Therapeutic drug monitoring guided by the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC-guided TDM) is recommended for vancomycin. However, validated efficient software remains elusive to popularize AUC-guided TDM in Japan. The aim of this study was to validate a newly developed web application, PAT, for AUC estimation. Methods: PAT was developed on the R ver. 3.6.2 platform for use with mobile phones and personal computers. AUC estimated by PAT (AUCPAT) was evaluated against the reference AUC (AUCREF) calculated with the log-linear trapezoidal rule using eight measured concentrations, or against AUC (AUCBM-P) calculated using an evaluated available software with clinical data. Results: Investigating the best sampling points with limited sampling, PAT produced the least bias using two concentrations at 1 h and 11 h after the end of infusion (slope 1.18, intercept −15.57, median AUCPAT/AUCREF 0.93 [range 0.81–1.24]), where only one estimation (6%) was out of the predetermined acceptable range of 0.8–1.2. Employment of only a trough concentration was more biased (AUCPAT/AUCREF range 0.73–1.30 for 11 h, AUCPAT/AUCREF range 0.62–1.40 for 23 h). In comparison with the evaluated software, AUCPAT was not biased against the AUCBM-P (slope 1.04, intercept −15.80, median AUCPAT/AUCBM-P 1.00 [range 0.86–1.10]). Conclusions: The new application using two concentrations was appropriately validated and might be efficient in popularizing the AUC-guided TDM of vancomycin. [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]

Due to the inconsistent correlation of vancomycin trough concentrations with 24-hour area under the curve (AUC) and a desire to reduce rates of vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury, an institutional guideline was implemented by the Antimicrobial Stewardship Team in September 2017 to monitor vancomycin using AUC. Three stages were utilized to organize the process: preparation, implementation, and evaluation. The preparation stage was used to present literature to key stakeholders, and pharmacy meetings focused on the development of a dosing and monitoring guideline. Along with institution-wide education, the implementation stage included information technology development and support. The evaluation stage was comprised of quality improvement and clinical research. Future plans include dissemination of the results and analyses. Numerous lessons were learned due to barriers experienced during the process, but the transition was successful. [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]

Background: A vancomycin target of area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC:MIC) ratio ≥400 is recommended for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. Objective: To evaluate vancomycin total daily dose (TDD) achieving trough targets versus a calculated strategy achieving AUC targets based on body mass index (BMI). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed within a large hospital network. Patients with MRSA bacteremia were eligible if they received vancomycin with a steady-state trough (15-20 mg/L). Cockcroft-Gault was used to estimate creatinine clearance, calculating vancomycin clearance and AUC. Patients were stratified by BMI (less than/greater than 30 kg/m2). The primary outcome was vancomycin TDD for the trough-based strategy compared with an AUC-dosing strategy. Results: A total of 119 patients were included, including 51 (42.9%) and 68 (57.1%) patients with high- and low-BMI, respectively. The TDD for trough-based dosing (2390.76 ± 1224.59 mg) differed significantly from AUC-based dosing (1985.07 ± 616.18 mg) across the cohort (P = 0.0014). For patients with high BMI, there was a significant difference (P < 0.0001) in TDD between trough (2637.25 ± 1327.89 mg) versus AUC (1918.71 ± 625.89 mg) strategies. No difference in TDD between dosing strategies was observed among low-BMI patients. Across all patients, 46 (38.7%) experienced acute kidney injury (AKI); high-BMI patients experienced higher rates of AKI compared with low-BMI patients (54.9 vs 26.5%; P = 0.002). Conclusions and Relevance: An AUC-based dosing strategy may reduce vancomycin TDD required for MRSA bacteremia compared with trough-based dosing, particularly for patients with higher BMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]