Search

Background Empiric antimicrobial therapy for healthcare-acquired infections often includes vancomycin plus an anti-pseudomonal beta-lactam (AP-BL). These agents vary in risk for adverse events, including acute kidney injury (AKI) and Clostrioides difficile infection (CDI). Studies have only examined these risks separately; thus, our objective was to evaluate AKI and CDI risks simultaneously with AP-BL in the same patient cohort. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 789 200 Veterans Health Administration medical admissions from 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2016. The antimicrobials examined were vancomycin, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and meropenem. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to contrast risks for AKI and CDI across individual target antimicrobials and vancomycin combination therapies, including adjustment for known confounders. Results With respect to the base rate of AKI among patients who did not receive a target antibiotic (4.6%), the adjusted hazards ratios for piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem were 1.50 (95% CI: 1.43–1.54), 1.00 (.95–1.05), 0.92 (.83–1.01), respectively. Co-administration of vancomycin increased AKI rates (data not shown). Similarly, against the base rate of CDI (0.7%), these ratios were 1.21 (1.07–1.36), 1.89 (1.62–2.20), and 1.99 (1.55–2.56), respectively. Addition of vancomycin had minimal impact on CDI rates (data not shown). Conclusions Piperacillin/tazobactam increased AKI risk, which was exacerbated by concurrent vancomycin. Cefepime and meropenem increased CDI risk relative to piperacillin/tazobactam. Clinicians should consider the risks and benefits of AP-BL when selecting empiric regimens. Further well-designed studies evaluating the global risks of AP-BL and patient specific characteristics that can guide empiric selection are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To elucidate perspectives on opioids and opioid use from hospitalized veterans with comorbid chronic pain using qualitative methods. Design. This was an analysis of individual qualitative interviews. The semistructured interview guide was developed by a hospitalist with clinical expertise in pain treatment with guidance from a medical anthropologist. Interviews aimed to understand participants’ experiences of chronic pain. Setting. A Midwestern Veterans Health Administration inpatient hospital unit. Subjects. Nineteen inpatient veterans with a history of chronic pain or antecedent opioid use. Methods. Recently admitted veterans were screened for chronic pain diagnosis on admission and antecedent opioid use. Eligible veterans were approached to participate in an in-person interview during their hospitalization. Results. The following themes were identified in relation to opioid use: other patients as the problem (by misusing opioids resulting in broad limits to opioid access), empathy for providers (perceived to be working under prescribing constraints), and opioids as a last resort. Conclusions. Although participants were not specifically questioned about opioid medications, discussion of opioids was prevalent in discussions of chronic pain. Findings suggest the potential utility of engaging hospitalized veterans in conversations about opioids and alternative pain management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Concurrent use of sedatives, especially anxiolytics, and opioids is associated with increased risk of medication-related harms. To the extent that multiple prescribers are involved, approaches to influence patterns of coprescribing will differ from those to influence prescribing within a single drug class. Objectives. Describe the proportion of new opioid recipients with concurrent sedative medications at opioid initiation and determine whether these medications were prescribed by the same prescriber. Methods. We used national Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient pharmacy administration data to identify veterans who received a new opioid prescription between October 20, 2010, and September 1, 2011 (FY 2011), preceded by a 365-day opioid-free period. Concurrent sedative use was defined as a skeletal muscle relaxant, benzodiazepine, atypical antipsychotic, or hypnotic filled on the opioid start date or before and after the opioid start date with a gap of less than twice the day supply of the prior fill. Results. Concurrent sedative use at opioid initiation was 21.4% (112,408/526,499) in FY 2011. The proportion of concurrent recipients who received at least one concurrent sedative prescribed by a provider other than the opioid prescriber was 61.4% (69,002/112,408). The proportion of recipients who received a sedative concurrent with opioid initiation from the same prescriber varied across sedative class. Benzodiazepines and opioids were prescribed by the same provider in 41.1% (15,520/37,750) of concurrent users. Conclusion. One in five patients newly prescribed opioids also had a sedative prescription. Less than half of patients with concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions received these from the same provider. Efforts to reduce concurrent opioid and sedative prescribing will require addressing care coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]