Premedication with montelukast and rupatadine decreased rituximab infusion time, rate, severity of reactions and use of rescue medications.

Rituximab-associated infusion reactions (IRs) are significant burdens on oncology patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. We evaluated whether montelukast and rupatadine improve rituximab delivery, decrease frequency/severity of IRs and the number of medications used to control IRs. Using a nonrandomized clinical study design, we assessed adult rituximab naïve patients with B-cell lymphoid malignancies from January 2017 to July 2019. Prior to the first rituximab infusion patients received one of the premedication regimens: (i) standard premedications, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and acetaminophen ("SP" group); (ii) SP + montelukast ("M" group); (iii) SP + rupatadine ("R" group); (iv) SP + rupatadine + montelukast Schedule 1 ("M + R Schedule 1" group); (v) SP + rupatadine + montelukast Schedule 2 ("M + R Schedule 2" group). A total of 223 patients with a median age of 69 years were assessed. Demographics and treatment groups were comparable among all five groups. Mean rituximab infusion time was 290 min in the SP group versus 273, 261, 243 and 236 min in the M, R, M + R Schedule 1 and M + R Schedule 2 groups, respectively. The incidence of rituximab IRs was 75% in the SP group versus 44, 41, 22 and 22% in the M, R, M + R Schedule 1 and M + R Schedule 2 groups, respectively. The median reaction grade was 2 in the SP group and 0 in all other groups. The median number of rescue medications was 3 in the SP group and 0 in all other groups. In conclusion, montelukast and rupatadine significantly improved rituximab delivery, decreased the rate and severity of IRs and reduced the need for rescue medications.

Transition from a dedicated to a non-dedicated, ward-based pharmacist antimicrobial stewardship programme model in a non-academic hospital and its impact on length of stay of patients admitted with pneumonia: a prospective observational study.

Pharmacists play an integral role in antimicrobial stewardship (AS). Some AS programmes employ dedicated pharmacists, sometimes with infectious diseases (ID) training, while others employ ward-based pharmacists. The role and impact of both are under investigation. This study compares the length of stay (LOS) of patients admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) after the implementation of an AS programme initially led by a dedicated ID-trained pharmacist, and then transitioned to a ward-based pharmacist. Starting 1 April 2013, all adult patients admitted with CAP were prospectively reviewed by the AS programme. The control period (phase 0) lasted 3 months. Thereafter, AS was implemented in each of four medicine wards at 2-month intervals in a staggered fashion. During this period (phase 1), an ID-trained pharmacist and physician performed daily prospective audit and feedback. After 24 months, ward-based pharmacists assumed this AS role (phase 2). Over the 36-month study period, 1125 patients with CAP were entered into the AS database, with 518 and 247 patients receiving an AS audit and feedback in phases 1 and 2, respectively. The acceptance rate for AS recommendations was similar for phases 1 and 2, each exceeding 82%. After accounting for secular trends, the overall reduction in LOS was 19.4% (95% CI 1.4% to 40.5%). There was no difference in LOS between phases 1 and 2. This study demonstrated that an AS audit and feedback intervention reduced the median LOS in patients with CAP by approximately 0.5 days regardless of pharmacist model. However, fewer patients were exposed to the AS intervention in phase 2, suggesting dedicated AS pharmacists may be necessary to realise the full benefits of AS.