Search

Pharmacists are key partners in antimicrobial stewardship efforts, yet their degree of education on and attitudes toward this topic during training are not well documented. An electronic survey measuring knowledge and attitudes regarding antimicrobial use and resistance was administered to graduating pharmacy students at 12 US schools of pharmacy. Of 1445 pharmacy students, 579 (40%) completed the survey. The vast majority (94%) believed that strong knowledge of antimicrobials was important for their pharmacy careers, and 89% desired more education on appropriate antimicrobial use. Most students (84%) considered their pharmacy education regarding antimicrobials useful or very useful, but there was significant variability on perceptions of preparation for most antimicrobial stewardship activities according to the students' school. The mean number of correct answers on a section of 11 knowledge questions was 5.8 (standard deviation 2.0; P value for score between schools

Background and Purpose: Vancomycin is one of the most common clinical antibiotics, yet acute kidney injury is a major limiting factor. Common combinations of antibiotics with vancomycin have been reported to worsen and improve vancomycin‐induced kidney injury. We aimed to study the impact of flucloxacillin and imipenem–cilastatin on kidney injury when combined with vancomycin in our translational rat model. Experimental Approach: Male Sprague–Dawley rats received allometrically scaled (1) vancomycin, (2) flucloxacillin, (3) vancomycin + flucloxacillin, (4) vancomycin + imipenem–cilastatin or (5) saline for 4 days. Kidney injury was evaluated via drug accumulation and urinary biomarkers including urinary output, kidney injury molecule‐1 (KIM‐1), clusterin and osteopontin. Relationships between vancomycin accumulation in the kidney and urinary kidney injury biomarkers were explored. Key Results: Urinary output increased every study day for vancomycin + flucloxacillin, but after the first dose only in the vancomycin group. In the vancomycin + flucloxacillin group, urinary KIM‐1 increased on all days compared with vancomycin. In the vancomycin + imipenem–cilastatin group, urinary KIM‐1 was decreased on Days 1 and 2 compared with vancomycin. Similar trends were observed for clusterin. More vancomycin accumulated in the kidney with vancomycin + flucloxacillin compared with vancomycin and vancomycin + imipenem–cilastatin. The accumulation of vancomycin in the kidney tissue correlated with increasing urinary KIM‐1. Conclusions and Implications: Vancomycin + flucloxacillin caused more kidney injury compared with vancomycin alone and vancomycin + imipenem–cilastatin in a translational rat model. The combination of vancomycin + imipenem–cilastatin was nephroprotective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: In critically ill patients, adequacy of early antibiotic exposure has been incompletely evaluated. This study characterized factors associated with inadequate cefepime exposure in the first 24 h of critical illness. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Academic Medical Center. Patients Critically ill adults treated with cefepime. Patients with acute kidney injury or treated with kidney replacement therapy or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were excluded. Intervention: None. Measurements A nonlinear mixed‐effects pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed to estimate cefepime concentrations for each patient over time. The percentage of time the free drug concentration exceeded 8 mg/L during the first 24 h of therapy was calculated (%ƒT>8; appropriate for the susceptible breakpoint for Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Factors predictive of low %ƒT>8 were explored with multivariable regression. Main Results In the 100 included patients, a one‐compartment PK model was developed with first‐order elimination with covariates for weight and estimated glomerular filtration rate based on creatinine and cystatin C (eGFRSCr‐CysC). The median (interquartile range) %ƒT>8 for cefepime in the first 24 h of therapy based on this model was 85% (66%, 100%). Less than 100% ƒT>8 during first 24 h of therapy occurred in 70 (70%) individuals. Lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (p = 0.032) and higher eGFRSCr‐CysC (p < 0.001) predicted a lower %ƒT>8. Central nervous system infection source was protective (i.e., associated with a higher %ƒT>8; p = 0.008). Conclusions: During early critical illness, cefepime concentrations were inadequate in a significant proportion of patients. Antimicrobial optimization is needed to improve the precision of pharmacotherapy in the critically ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate and describe the variability in cefepime exposures among 'real-world', critically ill patients by using population pharmacokinetic modelling and simulations, and with translation of these findings to visualizations. Methods A cohort of adult medical ICU patients who received cefepime with therapeutic drug monitoring was studied. Two compartment models were developed to estimate cefepime clearance (Model 1) and simulate cefepime exposures among 1000 patients, each with identical creatinine clearance of 60 mL/min and receiving a regimen of cefepime 1 gram IV over 30 minutes, every 8 hours (Model 2). Variability in the relationship between cefepime clearance and creatinine clearance (CrCL) was visualized, and a random, representative sample of 10 simulated patients was utilized to illustrate variability in cefepime exposures. Results A total of 75 adult medical ICU patients (52% female) and 98 serum cefepime samples were included in the study. Population parameter estimates for cefepime displayed a wide range of variation in Model 1 (CV: 45% to 95%), with low bias at the individual level at 0.226 mg/L but high bias in the population model 10.6 mg/L. Model 2 displayed similar fits, demonstrating that correcting for individual patient creatinine clearance slightly improves the bias of the population model (bias = 4.31 mg/L). Among 10 simulated patients that a clinician would deem similar from a dosing perspective (i.e. equivalent creatinine clearance), maximum concentrations after three simulated doses varied more than 8-fold from 41.2 to 339 mg/L at the 5th and 95th percentiles, and clearance profiles were highly different. Conclusion Creatinine clearance estimates alone are inadequate for predicting cefepime exposures. Wide variations in cefepime exposure exist among ICU patients, even for those with similar kidney function estimates. Current population adjustment schemes based solely on creatinine clearance will result in unintended high and low exposures leading to safety and efficacy concerns, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intravenous β‐lactam antibiotics remain a cornerstone in the management of bacterial infections due to their broad spectrum of activity and excellent tolerability. β‐lactams are well established to display time‐dependent bactericidal activity, where reductions in bacterial burden are directly associated with the time that free drug concentrations remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the pathogen during the dosing interval. In an effort to take advantage of these bactericidal characteristics, prolonged (extended and continuous) infusions (PI) can be applied during the administration of intravenous β‐lactams to increase time above the MIC. PI dosing regimens have been implemented worldwide, but implementation is inconsistent. We report consensus therapeutic recommendations for the use of β‐lactam PI developed by an expert international panel with representation from clinical pharmacy and medicine. This consensus guideline provides recommendations regarding pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, therapeutic drug monitoring considerations, and the use of PI β‐lactam therapy in the following patient populations: severely ill and nonseverely ill adult patients, pediatric patients, and obese patients. These recommendations provide the first consensus guidance for the use of β‐lactam therapy administered as PIs and have been reviewed and endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC), the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF), the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]