Search

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]

While current research efforts focus primarily on identifying patient level interventions that mitigate the direct impact of COVID-19, it is important to consider the collateral effects of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance. Early reports suggest high rates of antibiotic utilization in COVID-19 patients despite their lack of direct activity against viral pathogens. The ongoing pandemic is exacerbating known barriers to optimal antibiotic stewardship in the ED, representing an additional direct threat to patient safety and public health. There is an urgent need for research analyzing overall and COVID-19 specific antibiotic prescribing trends in the ED. Optimizing ED stewardship during COVID-19 will likely require a combination of traditional stewardship approaches (e.g. academic detailing, provider education, care pathways) and effective implementation of host response biomarkers and rapid COVID-19 diagnostics. Antibiotic stewardship interventions with demonstrated efficacy in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on ED prescribing should be widely disseminated and inform the ongoing pandemic response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the 2020 vancomycin consensus guideline published in the "American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy" (AJHP) on the implementation of area under the concentration (AUC)-based monitoring. Topics include guideline recommendation on AUC monitoring for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), multiple tasks asked to be performed by pharmacists, and evidence-based medicine as the greatest improvement to clinical medicine.

Background Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can reduce the incidence of hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) by limiting unnecessary exposure to high-risk antibiotics, including fluoroquinolones (FQ). However, restriction policies are challenging to implement and sustain. In a mixed methods study, we explored the barriers, facilitators and efficacy of an FQ restriction policy to reduce HO-CDIs among high-risk patients. Methods Our ASP instituted a pilot FQ restriction policy in our ICU and solid-organ transplant wards. We evaluated 24 months of pre- and post-intervention data, including: FQ and alternative agent use, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, mortality and HO-CDI. We conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with front-line providers, applying the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework to examine perceptions of FQ use, prescribing indications, perceived relationships between FQ use and HO-CDI, and barriers imposed by FQ restrictions. Time-series analysis was performed to evaluate FQ and HO-CDI data. Results FQ use decreased from an average of 111.6 days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient-days pre-intervention to 19.8 DOT/1,000 patient-days (P < 0.0001). Average readmission rate, LOS on pilot units, total antibiotic use, and use of cefepime decreased after FQ restriction. Conversely, use of ceftriaxone, aminoglycosides and piperacillin–tazobactam all increased. The average HO-CDI rate was significantly lower post-intervention, although time series analysis showed a post-intervention increase in the trend in infection rate compared with the pre-intervention trend. Qualitative analysis of interviews revealed β-lactam allergy and pending discharge were barriers to FQ restriction; a patient's history of CDI and pharmacist involvement in antimicrobial decision-making facilitated FQ restriction. Conclusion An FQ restriction policy significantly decreased FQ use without adversely affecting readmission rate, LOS or mortality. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators to FQ use optimization among front-line staff can inform future successful ASP interventions. Further investigation into the effect of FQ restriction on HO-CDI is needed. Disclosures Alexander Lepak, MD, Paratek Pharmaceuticals: Research Grant; Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals: Research Grant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The objective of this study was to implement a standardized process across health systems to determine the prevalence and clinical relevance of prescribing errors intercepted by pharmacists. Methods This prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted across 11 hospitals. Pharmacist-intercepted prescribing errors were collected during inpatient order verification over 6 consecutive weeks utilizing a standardized documentation process. The potential harm of each error was evaluated using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC-MERP) index with physician validation, and errors were stratified into those with potentially low, serious, or life-threatening harm. Endpoints included the median error rate per 1,000 patient days, error type, and potential harm with correlating cost avoidance. Results Pharmacists intervened on 7,187 errors, resulting in a mean error rate of 39 errors per 1,000 patient days. Among the errors, 46.6% (n = 3,349) were determined to have potentially serious consequences and 2.4% (n = 175) could have been life-threatening if not intercepted. This equates to $874,000 in avoided cost. The top 3 error types occurring with the highest frequency were "wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 2,298, 32.0%), "duplicate therapy" (n = 1,431, 19.9%), and "wrong timing" (n = 960, 13.4%). "Wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 49, 28%), "duplicate therapy" (n = 26, 14.9%), and "drug-disease interaction" (n = 24, 13.7%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potential for life-threatening harm. "Wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 1,028, 30.7%), "wrong timing" (n = 573, 17.1%), and "duplicate therapy" (n = 482, 14.4%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potentially serious harm. Conclusion Documentation of pharmacist intervention on prescribing errors via a standardized process creates a platform for multicenter analysis of prescribing error trends and an opportunity for development of system-wide solutions to reduce potential harm from prescribing errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]