Search

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) after liver transplant (LT) is common, but no studies have been conducted in Australia. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of patients who developed an SSI post‐LT in Australia's largest LT unit. Methods: This was a single‐center retrospective cohort study. We included all LT recipients who were aged 18 years or more and received their transplant between March 1, 2018 and April 1, 2023. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of LT recipients who developed an SSI within 30 days of transplantation. Results: There were 404 LTs performed during the study period, and 375 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 8% (n = 31/375) developed an SSI and were classified as superficial (3%, n = 12/375) or deep/organ space (5%, n = 19/375). The most common antibiotics used for prophylaxis were amoxicillin/clavulanate (75%, n = 281/375), followed by piperacillin/tazobactam (17%, n = 62/375). Independent risk factors associated with the development of SSI were Roux‐en‐Y hepaticojejunostomy (aOR 3.16, 95% CI 1.17–8.28, p =.02), operative time (per 60‐min increment) (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02–1.48), and re‐operation (aOR 4.16, 95% CI 1.81–9.58, p <.01). Type of antibiotic received perioperatively was not significantly associated with SSI. Conclusion: SSI occurred in 8% of LT recipients and was predominantly related to operation‐related factors rather than patient‐ or antibiotic‐related factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimodal analgesia regimens are recommended for the postoperative period after hip and knee replacement surgeries. However, there are no data on practice patterns for analgesic use in the immediate postoperative period after hip and knee replacements in Australia. Objectives: To describe analgesic prescribing patterns in the inpatient postoperative phase for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. Methods: Retrospective study of electronic medical record data from two major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We identified analgesic medication prescriptions for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent hip or knee replacement surgery in 2019. We extracted data on pain medications prescribed while in the ward up until discharge. These were grouped into distinct categories based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification. We described the frequency (%) of pain medications used by category and computed the average oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD) during hospitalisation. Results: We identified 1282 surgeries in 1225 patients. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 69 (11.8) years; most (57.1%) were female. Over 99% of patients were prescribed opioid analgesics and paracetamol during their hospital stay. Most patients (61.4%) were managed with paracetamol and opioids only. The most common prescribed opioid was oxycodone (87.3% of patients). Only 19% of patients were prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs). The median (IQR) average daily OMEDD was 50.2 mg (30.3–77.9). Conclusion: We identified high use of opioids analgesics as the main strategies for pain control after hip and knee replacement in hospital. Other analgesics were much less frequently used, such as NSAIDs, and always in combination with opioids and paracetamol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical outcomes of antimicrobial drug therapy vary between patients. As such, personalised medication management, considering both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, is a growing concept of interest in the field of infectious diseases. Therapeutic drug monitoring is used to adjust and individualise drug regimens until predefined pharmacokinetic exposure targets are achieved. Minimum inhibitory concentration (drug susceptibility) is the best available pharmacodynamic parameter but is associated with many limitations. Identification of other pharmacodynamic parameters is necessary. Repurposing diagnostic biomarkers as pharmacodynamic parameters to evaluate treatment response is attractive. When combined with therapeutic drug monitoring, it could facilitate making more informed dosing decisions. We believe the approach has potential and justifies further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National Personal Health Records (PHRs) have been proposed to improve the transfer of medication-related information during transition of care. Objective: To evaluate the concordance between the medications captured in the Australian national PHR, My Health Record (MyHR), and the pharmacist obtained best possible medication history (BPMH) for patients upon hospital admission. Method: This prospective observational study used a convenience sample of hospital patients. For newly admitted patients, the investigating pharmacist obtained a BPMH and then compared it to the medication list captured in MyHR. Upon comparison, the medications were categorised into either complete match, partial match or mismatch. Medications with a complete or partial match were grouped together. Medications with deviations were then assessed for risk based on their potential consequence, and reported descriptively. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the factors associated with a drug being mismatched. Results: A total of 82 patients were recruited, with a cumulative total of 1,207 medications documented. Of the 1,207 medications, 714 (59.2%) medications were documented as a complete/partial match. The remaining 493 (40.8%) medications were mismatched. Of the 493 mismatched medications, 442 (89.7%) were deemed low-risk deviations and 51 (10.3%) were deemed high-risk. A medication was more likely to be mismatched, rather than completely/partially matched, if it was a regular non-prescription medication, or “when-required” prescription medication, or “when required” non-prescription medication, or if it was administered parenterally. Conclusion: National PHRs may be a secondary source to either confirm a patient’s medication history or be used as a starting point for a BPMH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: COVID-19 treatment guidelines recommend baricitinib or tocilizumab for the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We compared the effectiveness of baricitinib vs. tocilizumab on mortality and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Design: Multicenter, retrospective, propensity-weighted cohort study using a target trial emulation approach., Setting: The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), which is the largest electronic health records data on COVID-19 in the United States. The setting included 75 hospitals., Patients: Adults who were hospitalized for COVID-19., Interventions: Newly initiated on baricitinib or tocilizumab., Measurements and Main Results: Our primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We used propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) to control bias and confounding while comparing treatments. Among 10,661 individuals included in the study, 6,229 (58.4%) received baricitinib and 4,432 (41.6%) tocilizumab. Overall, the mean age of the cohort was 60.0 ± 15.1 years, 6429 (60.3%) were male, and 19.2% received invasive mechanical ventilation. After IPTW adjustment, baricitinib use was associated with lower 28-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) and hospital (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94) mortality compared with tocilizumab. Baricitinib was also associated with shorter hospital length of stay (incident rate ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.94) and lower rates of hospital-acquired infections (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99), although no difference in ICU length of stay was noted between the two groups., Conclusions: In this large, diverse cohort of U.S. hospitalized adults with COVID-19, baricitinib was associated with significantly lower 28-day mortality, hospital mortality, shorter hospital length of stay, and less hospital-acquired infections compared with tocilizumab., Competing Interests: Dr. Higgins is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (GNT2008447). Dr. Mehta is supported by the National Institute on Aging (1K01AG070329). The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)