Association of the predicted free blood concentration of teicoplanin with the development of renal dysfunction.

PURPOSE: In clinical practice, teicoplanin (TEIC) is typically administered at a trough concentration of 15-40 µg/mL. TEIC has a protein binding rate of approximately 90%, and its concentration rarely exceeds 40 µg/ml. Nevertheless, an increase in the free blood trough concentration may result in renal dysfunction. However, the relationship between the free blood trough concentration and the occurrence of renal dysfunction remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the impact of the predicted free blood concentration on the development of renal dysfunction. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent TEIC and had at least one trough concentration measurement. The association between the frequency of renal dysfunction occurrence and the predicted free blood concentration was evaluated using the following equation: free TEIC concentration = total TEIC concentration/(1 + 1.78 × serum albumin level). RESULTS: Of the 170 patients included in this study, 18% (31/170) developed renal dysfunction. The predicted free trough concentration was significantly higher in the renal dysfunction onset group than in the nononset group. However, the total trough concentration was not significantly associated with the development of renal dysfunction. The odds ratio for developing renal dysfunction was 4.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-10.5; P < 0.001) when the predicted free trough concentration was > 4.0 µg/mL. CONCLUSION: Elevated free trough concentrations of TEIC were associated with an increased risk of renal dysfunction. Controlling the increase in the predicted free blood concentration may effectively prevent the development of renal dysfunction.

A retrospective study comparing interventions by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists in outpatient chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The differences in the clinical pharmacy services (CPS) provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists have not been sufficiently explained. AIM: This study aimed to demonstrate the differences in direct CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for patients and physicians, and to assess the potential impact of these services on medical costs. METHODS: We retrospectively examined CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for outpatients who underwent chemotherapy between January and December 2016. RESULTS: In total, 1177 and 1050 CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists, respectively, were investigated. The rates of interventions performed by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for physicians-determined treatment were 18.5% and 11.3%, respectively (p < .001). The rates of oncology and non-oncology pharmacist interventions accepted by physicians were 84.6 and 78.8%, respectively (p = .12). Level 4 and Level 5 interventions accounted for 64.6% of all oncology pharmacist interventions and 53.0% of all non-oncology pharmacist interventions (p = .03). The rates of improvement in symptoms from adverse drug reactions among patients resulting from interventions by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists were 89.4 and 72.1%, respectively (p = .02). Conservative assessments of medical cost impact showed that a single intervention by an oncology and by a non-oncology pharmacist saved ¥6355 and ¥3604, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggested that CPS by oncology pharmacists enable safer and more effective therapy for patients with cancer and indirectly contribute to reducing health care fees.