Hospital Pharmacy最新文献

Antitumoral drugs (ADs) can induce drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs). Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) protocols represent an important option to mitigate recurrent DHRs thus allowing the safe administration of ADs at therapeutic doses. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the effectiveness of the RDD protocols performed at our institution. The "DESARCh" study was a retrospective, observational study that included consecutive patients who underwent RDD protocols from January 2011 to December 2022 at IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria in Negrar di Valpolicella, Verona, Italy. The RDD protocol consisted of a 5-step protocol with 5 different concentrations of the drugs at 1:1, 1:10, 1:100, 1:1,000 and 1:10,000 dilution given intravenously over a 1-hour infusion each, with concentrations increasing from the most diluted to the most concentrated form, preceded by a 30-min premedication regimen. A total of 66 RDD protocols were administered to 25 female patients with ovarian (64%; n = 16/25), breast (12%; n = 3/25), endometrium (8%; n = 2/25), cervix (8%; n = 2/25), uterine (4%; n = 1/25) and fallopian tubes (4%; n = 1/25) cancers. A known history of atopy/allergy was reported by 36% (n = 9/25) of patients. Patients received RDD protocols because of DHRs to carboplatin (n = 23/66, 34.85%), paclitaxel (n = 18/66, 27.27%), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (n = 3/66, 4.55%), and trastuzumab (n = 22/66, 33.33%). DHRs were mild-moderate, severe and life-threatening in 60.72%, 28.57% and 10.71% of cases, respectively. The success rate of RDD protocols, defined as the rate of complete administration of full target dose with no breakthrough reactions, was 81.82% (n = 54/66). Success rate was lower for carboplatin compared to other drugs (65.22% vs 90.7%; P = .017678). The RDD protocol used in our institution was found to be safe, with a meaningful success rate. However, further research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms of DHRs and to enhance effectiveness, particularly for patients experiencing DHRs to platinum compounds. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Verona and Rovigo (Italy) with approval number 15476 on 10/03/2023 and it was registered with the Register of Observational Studies of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) (available since 31 January 2023), with ID n. 109, on 28/02/2023 (https://www.aifa.gov.it/en/registro-studi-osservazionali).

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.

Purpose: While intravenous (IV) iron repletion is an effective tool to treat anemia and improve outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD), guideline laboratory definitions of iron deficiency differ, resulting in variability in screening and repletion strategies. This study sought to describe current practices surrounding identification and treatment of iron deficiency in CKD and then implement a pharmacist-led protocol to optimize care at a tertiary medical center. Methods: This single center, retrospective, pre- and post-protocol implementation study of adults with CKD admitted to the inpatient setting first analyzed historic practices for iron deficiency screening and treatment, followed by deployment of a pharmacist-driven protocol for iron deficiency screening and treatment. Iron deficiency was defined as transferrin saturation of ≤30% and ferritin of ≤500 ng/mL. Improvement in screening and repletion rates was analyzed. Results: Historic pre-protocol practices were reviewed in 7155 admissions of which 2559 (35.8%) included screening for iron deficiency. Over the 2 months intervention (post-protocol) period, 315 admissions were included. The average age of patients in the post-protocol cohort was 64.1 years, 53.7% were female, and 26.4% were dialysis dependent. Compared to pre-protocol, patients were 2.33 (95% CI 2.20-2.47) times more likely to be screened and deficient patients were 2.05 (95% CI 1.46-2.86) times more likely to be treated, with most receiving IV iron therapy (85.4%), in the post-protocol cohort. Patients were 3.58 times (95% CI 1.97-6.48) more likely to receive IV iron versus oral alone in the post-protocol cohort compared to pre-protocol. Conclusion: The frequency of patients with CKD screened and treated with iron increased after implementation of a pharmacist-driven protocol. This study underscores the need for a systematic approach to identification/treatment of iron deficiency in this population.

Objective: Japan has resumed its health technology assessment to decide how to reduce high-cost drug prices. While drug price rules in Japan are comprehensive, they do not necessarily capture differences in product characteristics. This study examined the drug price revision strategy in Japan using migraine treatment with triptans as an example. Cost data from fiscal years (FY) 2018, 2020, and 2022 were utilized. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of healthcare payers, focusing on Japanese patients aged over 18 years experiencing migraines. The study employed a base-case model with probabilities derived from a network meta-analysis. Direct costs included medical and drug costs. Effectiveness was assessed using the European Quality of Life 5-dimensions-3-level questionnaire. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the level of uncertainty. Results: In FY2018, sumatriptan and eletriptan were cost-effective; however, the other triptans were dominated by sumatriptan. In FY2020, sumatriptan and eletriptan were cost-effective, and rizatriptan was extended-dominated; nevertheless, the other triptans were dominated by sumatriptan. In FY2022, naratriptan and eletriptan were cost-effective; however, the other triptans were dominated by naratriptan. The hierarchy of triptan strategies varied in each fiscal year. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the drug price revision strategy in Japan. The variations could be problematic because in Japan, formulary management of triptans, for example, those for migraine, may face revaluation every other year. Discussions regarding this issue will be further explored in the future.

Purpose: Cefepime is an antibiotic associated with cefepime induced neurotoxicity (CIN), particularly in those with reduced renal function, or in cases of inappropriate medication dosing. This report describes a case of CIN associated with a change in infusion duration from 180 to30 minutes, which to the best of our knowledge has not been previously reported in the literature. Summary: A 73-year old male was treated with extended infusion cefepime over 180 minutes while hospitalized with recurrent pneumonia. On discharge, cefepime was continued as outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) administered over 30 minutes. The patient began to experience symptoms of neurotoxicity after 1 day of receiving OPAT, which subsequently led to a readmission as neurological symptoms worsened. Cefepime was discontinued and symptoms resolved within 48 hours. Renal function was stable throughout treatment and no other causes for neurotoxicity were noted. Conclusion: This is a unique case of CIN secondary to shortened infusion time, which is clinically relevant, particularly during transitions of care. Further investigation, including more widespread use of therapeutic drug monitoring will be beneficial to further elucidate the relationship between infusion time and CIN development.

Purpose: Vancomycin is recommended as first-line treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia, dosed by area-under-the-curve (AUC) with an assumed minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 1 mcg/mL via broth microdilution. The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of AUC-based and trough-based dosing in MRSA bacteremia with an MIC > 1 mcg/mL via Etest. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort that compared vancomycin dosed by AUC or trough between January 1, 2017 and September 1, 2022. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure defined as peristent bacteremia ≥ 7 days, inpatient mortality within 90 days, or microbiologic relapse or readmission within 30 days. Secondary outcomes compared nephrotoxicity, hospital and ICU length of stay, MIC differences, and difference in exposure measured by AUC. Results: Twenty-four patients in each group met inclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, there was no statistical difference in treatment failure between trough and AUC groups, respectively [10 (41.7%) vs 10 (41.7%), P = 1.000]. There was no statistical difference in secondary outcomes, with incidence of nephrotoxicity [3 (12.5%) trough vs 2 (8.33%) AUC, P = 1.000] and median AUC exposure over treatment course [502.9 mcg.h/mL (454.1-599.9) vs 474 mcg.h/mL (435.3-533), P = .312] similar between groups. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in treatment failure for vancomycin by AUC or trough with an Etest MIC > 1 mcg/mL. Overall exposure to vancomycin and incidence of nephrotoxicty were numerically higher in the trough group, suggesting that dosing by AUC may limit exposure without impact on treatment failure.

Purpose: The implementation of an automated, pharmacist-driven, scoring system within the EMR has been shown to improve patient care in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia by increasing the adherence to disease specific quality-of-care measures. However, there are a lack of studies evaluating the incorporation of blood culture review into standard, non-antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist workflow. Our institution implemented an automated, pharmacist-driven, antimicrobial scoring system in the electronic medical record (EMR) on August 6, 2019. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, quasi-experimental study of hospitalized, non-critically ill adult (18-89 years of age) patients with bacteremia between July 6, 2018 and July 5, 2019 (pre-implementation group) and September 6, 2019 and September 5, 2020 (post-implementation group). The primary outcome was time to directed antibiotic therapy in patients with positive blood cultures. Secondary outcomes included hospital length-of-stay, days of therapy (DOT) while inpatient, time to effective therapy, 30-day all-cause mortality, and rates of Clostridioides difficile infections documented within 3 months of positive culture results. Results: Implementation of the antimicrobial scoring system did not result in a significant change in time to directed antibiotic therapy (32.5 hours vs 37.4 hours; P = .757). There was also no difference found for time to effective antibiotic therapy (-12.6 hours vs -14.2 hours; P =.905) and no difference found for all other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The implementation of the antimicrobial scoring system did not lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better define a patient population that may benefit from this system.