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.

Development of Diagnostic Quality Metrics for Prosthetic Joint Infection.

ABSTRACT: Although well-accepted clinical practice guidelines exist for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI), little is known about the quality of diagnosis for PJI. The identification of quality gaps in the diagnosis of PJI would facilitate the development of care structures and processes to shorten time to diagnosis and reduce the significant morbidity, mortality, and economic burden associated with this condition. Hence, we sought to develop valid clinical quality measures to improve the timeliness and accuracy of PJI diagnosis. We convened a nine-member multidisciplinary national panel of PJI experts including orthopedic surgeons, infectious disease specialists, an emergency medicine physician, and a patient previously treated for PJI to review, discuss, and rate the validity of proposed measures using a modification of the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. In total, 57 permutations of six proposed measures were rated. Populations considered to be at high enough risk for PJI that certain care processes should always be performed were identified by the panel. Among the proposed quality measures, the panel rated five as valid. These novel clinical quality measures could provide insight into care gaps in the diagnosis of PJI.

Real-World Adherence to Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring as a Cancer Care Quality Metric.

PURPOSE: Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients with advanced solid malignancies is an evidence-based practice and critical component of high-quality cancer care, but real-world adherence is poorly characterized. We sought to describe real-world adherence to PRO monitoring and its potential predictors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using deidentified electronic health record data from a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center, encompassing one academic and two community sites. Participants included individuals with lung cancer receiving systemic therapy from January 1 to December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was patient-level adherence, defined as the proportion of treatment visits during which a PRO questionnaire (spanning symptoms, functional status, and global quality-of-life domains) was completed within 30 days. Practice-level performance was calculated as unadjusted mean patient-level adherence. We modeled patient-level adherence using multivariable ordinary least squares regression and identified covariates associated with adherence using a significance threshold of P < .05. RESULTS: In 2019, there were 18,604 encounters for 1,105 patients with lung cancer (mean [standard deviation] age 65.8 [10.2] years; 621 [56.2%] female; 216 [19.6%] Black) receiving systemic therapy. The mean patient-level PRO adherence ranged from 27.2% to 70.0% across sites and was 49.4% overall. Advanced age (≥ 65 years) and Black or African American race were negatively associated with PRO adherence (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Across this real-world cohort of patients undergoing treatment for lung cancer, adherence to PRO monitoring lagged that achieved in seminal clinical trials, with potential age- and race-based disparities, demonstrating an implementation gap that could be addressed with standardized reporting of an adherence-based quality metric.

The NQF Scientific Methods Panel: Enhancing the Review and Endorsement Process for Performance Measures.

In the summer of 2017, the National Quality Forum (NQF) announced the formation of a Scientific Methods Panel (hereafter referred to as "the Panel") as part of a redesign of its endorsement process. NQF created the Panel in response to stakeholder request during a Kaizen improvement event held in May 2017. Given the Panel's role in the endorsement of performance measures used in national payment programs, the objective of this article is to describe the work of the Panel, and to describe its function in the larger context of the NQF measure endorsement process and in the measurement enterprise writ large. This article also serves as an introduction to a series of planned white papers being authored by the panel on specific technical issues in the area of health care performance measurement.

Alpha-Emitters and Targeted Alpha Therapy in Oncology: from Basic Science to Clinical Investigations.

Alpha-emitters are radionuclides that decay through the emission of high linear energy transfer α-particles and possess favorable pharmacologic profiles for cancer treatment. When coupled with monoclonal antibodies, peptides, small molecules, or nanoparticles, the excellent cytotoxic capability of α-particle emissions has generated a strong interest in exploring targeted α-therapy in the pre-clinical setting and more recently in clinical trials in oncology. Multiple obstacles have been overcome by researchers and clinicians to accelerate the development of targeted α-therapies, especially with the recent improvement in isotope production and purification, but also with the development of innovative strategies for optimized targeting. Numerous studies have demonstrated the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of the targeted α-therapy. Radium-223 (223Ra) dichloride (Xofigo®) is the first α-emitter to have received FDA approval for the treatment of prostate cancer with metastatic bone lesions. There is a significant increase in the number of clinical trials in oncology using several radionuclides such as Actinium-225 (225Ac), Bismuth-213 (213Bi), Lead-212 (212Pb), Astatine (211At) or Radium-223 (223Ra) assessing their safety and preliminary activity. This review will cover their therapeutic application as well as summarize the investigations that provide the foundation for further clinical development.