Hospital Pharmacy最新文献

Cryptosporidiosis is an infectious disease caused by the Cryptosporidium parasite, primarily affecting the gastrointestinal tract of both humans and animals. Transmission occurs via fecal-oral route, mainly through ingestion of water or food contaminated with oocysts, the parasite's infectious form. Immunocompromised individuals are particularly susceptible to severe and prolonged symptoms. Current treatment strategies involve supportive measures and antiparasitic medications such as nitazoxanide and paromomycin, although patients with predisposing factors have an elevated risk of recurrence. There is currently no evidence supporting the use of paromomycin via nasogastric tube. Therefore, we present our experience with the use of an extemporaneous paromomycin solution and its clinical impact.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Background: Utilization of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure is suboptimal during the hospitalization and after discharge. An inpatient heart failure order set may be a convenient and useful intervention to improve heart failure therapy in the inpatient setting. Methods: This is a retrospective study that assessed the use of an inpatient heart failure order set on pharmacologic therapy in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure from May to August 2022. Patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction less than 50% were included in the analysis. The co-primary endpoints were maintenance or optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy during the hospitalization. Results: Maintenance of guideline-directed medical therapy was significantly greater when providers used the heart failure order set (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.03-5.33, P = .041). Optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy was also statistically greater with use of the order set (OR 11.31, 95% CI 4.37-29.31, P < .001). Conclusions: An inpatient heart failure order set may be an effective strategy to improve heart failure pharmacotherapy in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure.

Purpose. To determine if implementation of an enhanced clinical pharmacy service (ECPS) at a community hospital could improve patient experience as measured by medication-related Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores. Methods. A cohort study of 260 patients at a community hospital was conducted. Patients in the intervention group received additional pharmacy services from the standard of care (SOC) group, including daily medication counseling, pharmacist-driven medication administration, discharge medication reconciliation and education, consistent offers to enroll in a bedside medication delivery program (BMDP), and a telephone call following discharge. The primary outcome of patient experience was assessed through patients' responses to a care transitions HCAHPS survey question regarding understanding of the purpose of taking medications following discharge. Results. Among patients in the ECPS cohort, 75.8% had a top-box response to the care transitions HCAHPS question, compared to 63.3% of patients in the SOC cohort (OR = 1.81; 95% CI [0.61-5.37]). Top-box responses increased for all assessed HCAHPS questions but were not statistically significant. The HCAHPS survey response rate was 29.3% in the SOC cohort and 29.9% in the ECPS cohort. Conclusion. Following an ECPS intervention, patient experience as determined by HCAHPS scores increased, but the results did not reach statistical significance. Further, larger studies are needed on this topic.

Purpose: The optimal anticoagulation regimen for atrial fibrillation (AF) in critically ill patients is challenging as these patients may be at an increased risk for bleeding and clotting despite an absence or presence of anticoagulation. The purpose of this study was to compare bleeding and thrombotic rates in critically-ill adults with pre-existing AF receiving therapeutic anticoagulation versus chemical or mechanical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Methods: A retrospective, observational study was conducted. The primary outcome identified rate of International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis bleeding, and secondarily assessed all venous or arterial thromboembolic events. To determine risk-factors associated with bleeding and to account for differences in baseline characteristics, a multivariable logistic regression model was used. Results: A total of 199 patients were included, 100 receiving therapeutic anticoagulation and 99 receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation compared to chemical or mechanical prophylaxis had a median (IQR) CHA₂DS₂VASc score of 4 (3-5) versus 4 (2-5) (P = .5499) and HAS-BLED score of 3 (3-4) versus 3 (2-4) (P = .0013); respectively. There was almost a threefold adjusted increased risk of bleeding in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation compared to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.7 [95% CI 1.1-9.9]; P = .0349). One stroke occurred in a patient receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, and none occurred in patients in the prophylaxis group (P = 1.000). Conclusion: Use of therapeutic anticoagulation in critically ill patients with pre-existing AF may increase bleed rates without protecting against stroke development.

Background: Doravirine (DOR) is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) approved for use in combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in treatment-naive patients. Doravirine-based regimens are an option for patients with limited alternatives due to drug-drug interactions, toxicities, or resistance. A paucity of data exists for use of two-drug DOR-based regimens in treatment-experienced individuals. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of two treatment-experienced HIV-1 infected patients switched to two-drug doravirine-based regimens. Baseline HIV-RNA and CD4 cell count were measured at the time of switch to the DOR-based regimen. HIV-RNA and CD4 cell count were measured again more than a month after initiating therapy to determine efficacy of the DOR-based regimens. Results: Patient 1 was transitioned to once daily DOR and darunavir with cobicistat (DRV/c). The baseline HIV-RNA was 370,070 copies/mL and CD4 cell count was 196 cells/mm³. After 2 years of treatment, the viral load was less than 30 copies/mL and the CD4 cell count was 239 cells/mm³. Patient 2 was transitioned to once daily DOR and dolutegravir (DTG). The baseline HIV-RNA was <30 copies/mL and CD4 cell count was 229 cells/mm³. After 11 months of therapy, the patient's HIV viral load remained <30 copies/mL and the CD4 cell count was stable at 236 cells/mm³. Conclusions: Two-drug cART including DOR appears to be an acceptable option for patients who may be limited to alternative ART regimens due to drug-drug interactions, resistance mutations, or toxicities. Additional evidence from case reports or clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of DOR as part of a two-drug cART regimen.

Beta-blockers are recommended in the first 24 hours after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) except in those at risk of cardiogenic shock. This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess if early beta-blocker use was associated with cardiogenic shock development in STEMI patients. Cardiogenic shock was assessed in adult patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with guideline defined risk factors for shock (age above 70 years, systolic blood pressure below 120 mmHg, and heart rate above 120 bpm or below 60 bpm) who did or did not receive a beta-blocker within 24 hours of PCI. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between cardiogenic shock development and early beta-blocker administration. A total of 216 patients were included, 85 with early beta-blocker administration and 131 without. Patients who received an early beta-blocker versus those who did not had a median (interquartile range) age of 63 (52-71) versus 66 (54-76; P = .2260) and peak troponin of 58.3 (15.0-132.4) ng/mL versus 51.6 (16.6-139.5; P = .9884). Cardiogenic shock occurred in 4.7% (n = 4) patients with early beta-blocker use versus 12.2% (n = 16; P = .0909) without. After backward stepwise logistic regression, early beta-blocker use was not associated with cardiogenic shock (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] 0.334, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.106-1.047; P = .0599), but those with a peak troponin over 56 ng/mL had an over three-fold increased risk of developing cardiogenic shock (aOR 3.434, 95% CI 1.191-9.902; P = .0224) regardless of beta blocker administration. Early beta-blocker administration in STEMI patients may not be associated with shock development.