Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Oncol Pharm Pract ; : 10781552241246119, 2024 Apr 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38656201

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) has risen in hematologic malignancy patients due to neutropenia. While posaconazole is recommended as the first-line antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients and voriconazole is an alternative, there is currently no direct comparison data available to assess their relative effectiveness. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed eligible patient charts from January 2017 to February 2019 to identify breakthrough IFD rates, drug adverse event frequency, and drug acquisition cost in AML/MDS patients. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients received 130 chemo cycles, with 50 (38%) cycles prescribed posaconazole and 80 (62%) prescribed voriconazole as primary IFD prophylaxis. The incidence rates of IFD in the posaconazole group were 8% (4 out of 50), of which two were probable and two were possible infections, while 6.26% (5 out of 80) of patients in the voriconazole group developed IFD, with four possible infections and one probable infection (p = 0.73). A higher percentage of patients in the voriconazole group discontinued prophylaxis due to adverse events, with six patients compared to two patients in the posaconazole group (p = 0.15). The drug acquisition cost of posaconazole is 5.62 times more expensive than voriconazole. CONCLUSION: The use of voriconazole instead of posaconazole for 130 chemo cycles would save $166,584.6. Posaconazole and voriconazole have comparable efficacy and safety in preventing IFD in AML and MDS patients receiving chemotherapy. However, posaconazole is more costly than voriconazole.

2.
Infect Drug Resist ; 15: 211-221, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35125877

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) to colistin-based regimen in the treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE). METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of inpatients who received either CAZ-AVI or intravenous colistin for treatment of infections due to CRE. The study was conducted in 5 tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Main study outcomes included in-hospital mortality, clinical cure at end of treatment, and acute kidney injury (AKI). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression model were conducted to assess the independent impact of CAZ-AVI on the clinical outcome. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were included in this study: 149 patients received CAZ-AVI and 81 patients received colistin-based regimen. Clinical cure (71% vs 52%; P = 0.004; OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.31-4.01) was significantly more common in patients who received CAZ-AVI. After adjusting the difference between the two groups, treatment with CAZ-AVI is independently associated with clinical cure (adjusted OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.91). In-hospital mortality (35% vs 44%; P = 0.156; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.39-1.16) was lower in patients who received CAZ-AVI but the difference was not significant. AKI (15% vs 33%; P = 0.002; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) was significantly less common in patients who received CAZ-AVI. CONCLUSION: CAZ-AVI is associated with higher rate of clinical cure and lower rate of AKI compared to colistin. Our findings support the preferential use of CAZ-AVI over colistin-based regimen for treating these infections.

3.
Pharmacy (Basel) ; 6(3)2018 Aug 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30103459

RESUMO

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is an oncologic emergency which should be treated immediately with empiric antibiotics. Different institutions observe different antibiograms and use different FN management guidelines. Our center implemented FN management guidelines for adult cancer patients in 2009. Hence, we decided to assess compliance with FN management guidelines and to describe the pattern of bacterial infections. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study on all adult cancer patients admitted with FN. Data were collected from electronic medical records between January and December 2014. Results: One hundred FN episodes met the study inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients was 41 ± 17 years; 52% (52 patients) were women. The most common diagnosis was lymphoma (33%). In terms of compliance to institutional FN guidelines, 55% of patients received guideline non-compliant treatment. The most common non-compliant treatment was incorrect amikacin dosing in 31% of patients, followed by incorrect vancomycin dosing in 20%, incorrect piperacillin/tazobactam dosing in 19%, inappropriate use of carbapenems in 18%, and non-compliant vancomycin use in 12% of patients. Bacterial isolates were only observed in 19% of the FN episodes. Among these 19 episodes of FN, Gram-negative pathogens were predominant and were identified in 74% of the episodes, followed by Gram-positive pathogens in 16% and polymicrobial pathogens in 10%. The mean time to defervescence was 2.21 ± 2 days. Conclusion: Our study concluded that there was a high percentage of non-compliance with our institutional FN management guidelines. We recommend following appropriate empiric antibiotic doses and indications as per institutional guidelines.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA