Quality assessment of fluconazole capsules and oral suspensions compounded by pharmacies located in the United States.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate pharmaceutical characteristics (strength or concentration, accuracy, and precision), physical properties, and bacterial contamination of fluconazole compounded products. SAMPLE Fluconazole compounded products (30- and 240-mg capsules; 30- and 100-mg/mL oral suspensions) from 4 US veterinary compounding pharmacies. PROCEDURES Fluconazole compounded products were ordered 3 times from each of 4 pharmacies at 7- or 10-day intervals. Generic fluconazole products (50- and 200-mg tablets; 10- and 40-mg/mL oral suspensions) served as references. Compounded products were evaluated at the time of receipt; suspensions also were evaluated 3 months later and at beyond-use dates. Evaluations included assessments of strength (concentration), accuracy, precision, physical properties, and bacterial contamination. Acceptable accuracy was defined as within ± 10% of the labeled strength (concentration) and acceptable precision as within ± 10%. Fluconazole was quantified by use of high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS Physical characteristics of compounded products differed among pharmacies. Aerobic bacterial cultures yielded negative results. Capsules (30 and 240 mg) had acceptable accuracy (median, 96.3%; range, 87.3% to 135.2%) and precision (mean ± SD, 7.4 ± 6.0%). Suspensions (30 and 100 mg/mL) had poor accuracy (median, 73.8%; range, 53.9% to 95.2%) and precision (mean ± SD, 15.0 ± 6.9%). Accuracy and precision were significantly better for capsules than for suspensions. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Fluconazole compounded products, particularly suspensions, differed in pharmaceutical and physical qualities. Studies to evaluate the impact of inconsistent quality on bioavailability or clinical efficacy of compounded fluconazole products are indicated, and each study should include data on the quality of the compounded product evaluated.

Early planned institution of biventricular mechanical circulatory support results in improved outcomes compared with delayed conversion of a left ventricular assist device to a biventricular assist device.

OBJECTIVE: It is generally accepted that patients who require biventricular assist device support have poorer outcomes than those requiring isolated left ventricular assist device support. However, it is unknown how the timing of biventricular assist device insertion affects outcomes. We hypothesized that planned biventricular assist device insertion improves survival compared with delayed conversion of left ventricular assist device support to biventricular assist device support. METHODS: We reviewed and compared outcomes of 266 patients undergoing left ventricular assist device or biventricular assist device placement at the University of Pennsylvania from April 1995 to June 2007. We subdivided patients receiving biventricular assist devices into planned biventricular assist device (P-BiVAD) and delayed biventricular assist device (D-BiVAD) groups based on the timing of right ventricular assist device insertion. We defined the D-BiVAD group as any failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support. RESULTS: Of 266 patients who received left ventricular assist devices, 99 (37%) required biventricular assist device support. We compared preoperative characteristics, successful bridging to transplantation, survival to hospital discharge, and Kaplan-Meier 1-year survival between the P-BiVAD (n = 71) and D-BiVAD (n = 28) groups. Preoperative comparison showed that patients who ultimately require biventricular support have similar preoperative status. Left ventricular assist device (n = 167) outcomes in all categories exceeded both P-BiVAD and D-BiVAD group outcomes. Furthermore, patients in the P-BiVAD group had superior survival to discharge than patients in the D-BiVAD group (51% vs 29%, P < .05). One-year and long-term Kaplan-Meier survival distribution confirmed this finding. There was also a trend toward improved bridging to transplantation in the P-BiVAD (n = 55) versus D-BiVAD (n = 22) groups (65% vs 45%, P = .10). CONCLUSION: When patients at high risk for failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support are identified, proceeding directly to biventricular assist device implantation is advised because early institution of biventricular support results in dramatic improvement in survival.