Nephrotoxicity of Vancomycin in Combination With Beta-Lactam Agents: Ceftolozane-Tazobactam vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin (VAN)-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) is increased when VAN is combined with certain beta-lactams (BLs) such as piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) but has not been evaluated with ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). Our aim was to investigate the AKI incidence of VAN in combination with C/T (VAN/C/T) compared with VAN in combination to TZP (VAN-TZP). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, observational, comparative study across the United States. The primary analysis was a composite outcome of AKI and risk, injury, failure, loss, end stage renal disease; Acute Kidney Injury Network; or VAN-induced nephrotoxicity according to the consensus guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to adjust for confounding variables and stratified Kaplan-Meir analysis to assess the time to nephrotoxicity between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We included VAN/C/T (n = 90) and VAN-TZP (n = 284) at an enrollment ratio of 3:1. The primary outcome occurred in 12.2% vs 25.0% in the VAN-C/T and VAN-TZP groups, respectively (P = .011). After adjusting for confounding variables, VAN-TZP was associated with increased odds of AKI compared with VAN-C/T; with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.308 (95% confidence interval, 1.560-6.993). Results of the stratified Kaplan-Meir analysis with log-rank time-to-nephrotoxicity analysis indicate that time to AKI was significantly shorter among patients who received VAN-TZP (P = .004). Cox proportional hazards analysis demonstrated that TZP was consistent with the primary analysis (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our results suggest that the AKI is not likely to be related to tazobactam but rather to piperacillin, which is a component in VAN-TZP but not in VAN-C/T.

A Call for Person-Centered Language and Consistent Terminology Regarding Cannabis Use.

The increased availability of medical and recreational cannabis has facilitated a need for a change in health care practices. The language surrounding substance use disorders (SUDs) needs to be destigmatized. The necessity for utilizing "person-first" or "person-centered language" is fundamental to ensure that there is consistency among health care personnel for treating patients with an SUD and providing quality patient care. There also lies an enhanced need to more clearly define recreational cannabis use on a state versus federal level, in the workplace, and within higher education.

Multicenter point prevalence evaluation of the utilization and safety of drug therapies for COVID-19 at the onset of the pandemic timeline in the United States.

KEY POINTS: In a multicenter point-prevalence study, we found that the rate of supportive care was high; among those receiving COVID-19 drug therapies, adverse reactions occurred in 12% of patients. PURPOSE: There are currently no FDA-approved medications for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). At the onset of the pandemic, off-label medication use was supported by limited or no clinical data. We sought to characterize experimental COVID-19 therapies and identify safety signals during this period. METHODS: We conducted a noninterventional, multicenter, point prevalence study of patients hospitalized with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. Clinical and treatment characteristics within a 24-hour window were evaluated in a random sample of up to 30 patients per site. The primary objective was to describe COVID-19-targeted therapies. The secondary objective was to describe adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: A total of 352 patients treated for COVID-19 at 15 US hospitals From April 18 to May 8, 2020, were included in the study. Most patients were treated at academic medical centers (53.4%) or community hospitals (42.6%). Sixty-seven patients (19%) were receiving drug therapy in addition to supportive care. Drug therapies used included hydroxychloroquine (69%), remdesivir (10%), and interleukin-6 antagonists (9%). Five patients (7.5%) were receiving combination therapy. The rate of use of COVID-19-directed drug therapy was higher in patients with vs patients without a history of asthma (14.9% vs 7%, P = 0.037) and in patients enrolled in clinical trials (26.9% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001). Among those receiving drug therapy, 8 patients (12%) experienced an ADR, and ADRs were recognized at a higher rate in patients enrolled in clinical trials (62.5% vs 22%; odds ratio, 5.9; P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: While we observed high rates of supportive care for patients with COVID-19, we also found that ADRs were common among patients receiving drug therapy, including those enrolled in clinical trials. Comprehensive systems are needed to identify and mitigate ADRs associated with experimental COVID-19 treatments.

Multicenter point-prevalence evaluation of the utilization and safety of drug therapies for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no FDA-approved medications for the treatment of COVID-19. At the onset of the pandemic, off-label medication use was supported by limited or no clinical data. We sought to characterize experimental COVID-19 therapies and identify safety signals during this period. METHODS: We conducted a non-interventional, multicenter, point prevalence study of patients hospitalized with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. Clinical and treatment characteristics within a 24-hour window were evaluated in a random sample of up to 30 patients per site. The primary objective was to describe COVID-19 targeted therapies. The secondary objective was to describe adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: A total of 352 patients from 15 US hospitals were included. Most patients were treated at academic medical centers (53.4%) or community hospitals (42.6%). Sixty-seven patients (19%) were receiving drug therapy in addition to supportive care. Drug therapies included hydroxychloroquine (69%), remdesivir (10%), and interleukin-6 inhibitors (9%). Five patients (7.5%) were receiving combination therapy. Patients with a history of asthma (14.9% vs. 7%, p=0.037) and those enrolled in clinical trials (26.9% vs. 3.2%, p<0.001) were more likely to receive therapy. Among those receiving COVID-19 therapy, eight patients (12%) experienced an ADR, and ADRs were more commonly recognized in patients enrolled in clinical trials (62.5% vs 22%, OR=5.9, p=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: While we observed high rates of supportive care for patients with COVID-19, we also found that ADRs were common among patients receiving drug therapy including in clinical trials. Comprehensive systems are needed to identify and mitigate ADRs associated with experimental COVID-19 therapies.

Improving time to optimal Staphylococcus aureus treatment using a penicillin-binding protein 2a assay.

The penicillin-binding protein 2a (PBP2a) assay is a quick, accurate and inexpensive test for determining methicillin susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. A pre-post-study design was conducted using a PBP2a assay with and without the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention to improve time to optimal therapy for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolates. Our results demonstrate significantly improved time to optimal therapy and support the use of a PBP2a assay as part of an programme for all healthcare facilities, especially those with limited resources.

A multi-center study of fidaxomicin use for Clostridium difficile infection.

PURPOSE: Fidaxomicin use in real-world clinical practice, especially for severe Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), is mainly based on single-center observational studies. The purpose of this pharmacoepidemiology study was to assess outcomes of patients given fidaxomicin based on episode number and use of concomitant antibiotics. METHODS: Fidaxomicin use over time across included hospitals in the United States was assessed using a large inpatient drug utilization database. A multicenter retrospective chart review was also conducted of hospitalized patients with CDI that received fidaxomicin between 2011 and 2013. Fidaxomicin utilization and clinical outcomes were stratified by use of fidaxomicin for first or second episode (early episodes) versus greater than or equal to episodes (later episodes). RESULTS: The overall fidaxomicin use rate was 2.16 % which increased from 0.22 % in the last two quarters of 2011 to 3.16 % in the first two quarters of 2013. A total of 102 hospitalized patients that received fidaxomicin from 11 hospitals were identified in the multicenter study. Sixty-nine patients received fidaxomicin for early (68 % with severe CDI) and 33 received for later episodes. The majority of patients received other CDI therapy including 61 patients (88 %) for early episodes and 27 (82 %) for later episodes. Concomitant non-CDI antibiotics were received by 48 patients (47 %). Rates of clinical outcomes were similar regardless of CDI episode. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a slow but steady increase in fidaxomicin utilization over time; most of which was combined with other systemic antibiotics. Antimicrobial stewardship teams should provide guidance on appropriate use of fidaxomicin to optimize therapy and assess the need to continue other antibiotics during CDI treatment.