Search

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]

Background: The 2019 Infectious Diseases Society of America community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines recommend antimethicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) therapy in patients with CAP based on previously identified risk factors for MRSA with an emphasis on local epidemiology and institutional validation of risk. Thus, we sought to assess the ability of guideline-recognized risk factors to predict MRSA CAP at our institution. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to March 2020. Patients were included if they were >18 years old, diagnosed with CAP, and had a MRSA nasal screen and respiratory culture obtained on admission. Patients were excluded if CAP diagnosis was not met, respiratory cultures were not obtained within 48 hours of antibiotic initiation, or they had cystic fibrosis. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated using Vasser Stats 2019. Pre/post-test odds and pre/post-test probabilities were calculated using Excel 2019. Results: Of 705 screened patients, 221 were included. MRSA prevalence in CAP patients at our institution was 3.6%. History of MRSA isolated from a respiratory specimen had high specificity (98%), high positive LR of 20 (95% CI 5.3–74.8), and high post-test probability of 42.8%. Receipt of IV antibiotics during hospitalization within the past 90 days had a positive LR of 1.9 (95% CI 0.74–4.84). A positive MRSA nasal screen on admission had a positive LR of 6.9 (95% CI 4.0–12.1), negative LR 0.28 (95% CI 0.08–0.93), positive post-test probability of 20.7%, and negative post-test probability of 1.04%. Conclusion: Our study utilized institutional data to validate guideline recognized risk factors for MRSA CAP specifically at our institution. Risk factors including history of MRSA isolated from a respiratory specimen, and positive post-admission MRSA nasal screen were validated as significant risk factors; receipt of IV antibiotics during hospitalization within the past 90 days was not shown to be a risk factor for MRSA CAP based on our institutional data. Validated risk factors may help providers discern which patients with CAP at our institution would benefit most from empiric MRSA treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents information on nesiritide, a recombinant form of human B-type natriuretic peptide approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of acute decompensated chronic heart failure. Safety and efficacy of nesiritide; Economic factors that must be considered in taking the drug;

Purpose While some guidelines recognize the need for β-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), there is still a paucity of data regarding the prevalence of and barriers to performing β-lactam TDM in the United States. We sought to estimate the prevalence of β-lactam TDM, describe monitoring practices, and identify actual and perceived barriers to implementation among health systems in the US. Methods A multicenter, cross-sectional, 40-item electronic survey was distributed to all postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) infectious diseases (ID) pharmacy residency program directors (RPDs) listed in the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists pharmacy residency directory. The primary outcome was the percentage of institutions with established β-lactam TDM. Secondary outcomes included assessing β-lactam TDM methods and identifying potential barriers to implementation. Results The survey was distributed to 126 PGY2 ID RPDs, with a response rate of 31.7% (40 of 126). Only 8% of respondents (3 of 39) performed β-lactam TDM. Patient populations, therapeutic targets, and frequency and timing of obtaining repeat β-lactam concentration measurements varied among institutions. The greatest barrier to implementation was lack of access to testing with a rapid turnaround time. Institutions were unlikely to implement β-lactam TDM within the next year but were significantly more inclined to do so within 5 years (P < 0.001). Conclusion β-lactam TDM was infrequently performed at the surveyed US health systems. Lack of access to serum concentration testing with rapid turnaround and lack of US-specific guidelines appear to be considerable barriers to implementing β-lactam TDM. Among institutions that have implemented β-lactam TDM, there is considerable variation in monitoring approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]