Comparison of Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Regimens for Hospitalized, Non-severe Community-acquired Pneumonia: A Retrospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Consensus guidelines for hospitalized, non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommend empiric macrolide + ß-lactam or respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy in patients with no risk factors for resistant organisms. In patients with allergies or contraindications, doxycycline + ß-lactam is a recommended alternative. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in outcomes among guideline-recommended regimens in this population. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included patients ≥18 years of age with CAP who received respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy, empiric macrolide + ß-lactam, or doxycycline + ß-lactam. Major exclusion criteria included patients with immunocompromising conditions, requiring vasopressors or invasive mechanical ventilation within 48 hours of admission, and receiving less than 2 days of total antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical failure, 14- and 30-day hospital readmission, and hospital length of stay. Safety outcomes included incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infection and aortic aneurysm ruptures. FINDINGS: Of 4685 included patients, 1722 patients received empiric respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy, 159 received empiric doxycycline + ß-lactam, and 2804 received empiric macrolide + ß-lactam. Incidence of in-hospital mortality was not observed to be significantly different among empiric regimens (doxycycline + ß-lactam group: 1.9% vs macrolide + ß-lactam: 1.9% vs respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy: 1.5%, P = 0.588). No secondary outcomes were observed to differ significantly among groups. IMPLICATIONS: We observed no differences in clinical or safety outcomes among three guideline-recommended empiric CAP regimens. Empiric doxycycline + ß-lactam may be a safe empiric regimen for hospitalized CAP patients with non-severe CAP, although additional research is needed to corroborate these observations with larger samples.

Evaluation of an individual examination remediation policy in a professional pharmacy course.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining institutional remediation policies is required for pharmacy education accreditation, but specific policies and students' perceptions of remediation are not well described in the literature. The purpose of this research was to determine whether the individual examination remediation policy utilized in a biomedical literature evaluation course was a viable approach to ensuring positive student experiences and success. METHODS: This study utilized a pre-/post-quantitative survey design. An 11-item pre-remediation questionnaire was offered to all students enrolled in the course in 2022. A matched post-survey was administered to students eligible to remediate individual examinations. Survey items were assessed using a five-point Likert rating. Remediation examination grades were analyzed in aggregate. Descriptive statistics were utilized as appropriate. RESULTS: One hundred of the 108 (92.5%) enrolled students completed the pre-remediation survey. Students strongly agreed they would prefer to remediate individual examinations instead of taking one cumulative course remediation examination (median 5) and that remediating would improve their understanding of course material (median 5). Nineteen (44%) of 43 students eligible for individual examination remediation chose to remediate, and 16 (37%) responded to the post-remediation survey. Among those eligible, the most common reason for remediating was desire to receive a better score. Significantly more students improved their examination scores through remediation. CONCLUSIONS: Students in the course preferred to remediate individual examinations, but only 44% of students eligible to remediate chose to do so. Future studies with larger sample sizes and course outcome data are warranted to further explore examination remediation in professional pharmacy courses.

Impact of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Discontinuation Guidance in Mechanically Ventilated, Critically Ill Patients: A Pre-Post Cohort Study.

Purpose: Recent data highlight unclear efficacy and potential negative sequelae of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Minimizing SUP exposure has pertinent clinical and other implications. This study assessed medication use and clinical outcomes before and after implementation of a practice guideline promoting early discontinuation of SUP in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Methods: Retrospective, single-center, pre-post cohort study within a medical ICU at a large, academic medical center. Adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation and receiving SUP via a histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitor (PPI) were eligible for inclusion. The clinical practice guideline was implemented on January 1, 2020. The impact of implementation was assessed via percent of patient-days with inappropriate SUP. Incidence of clinically important GI bleed was the primary safety outcome. Results: A total of 137 pre-guideline and 112 post-guideline patients were included. Comorbidity burden was similar between groups. A higher prevalence of baseline vasopressor receipt (39% vs 67%, P < .01) and acute kidney injury (56% vs 69%, P = .04) was observed in post-guideline patients. Post-guideline patients experienced a significantly lower percentage of patient-days of inappropriate SUP (25% vs 50%, P < .01) as well as higher rates of SUP discontinuation before extubation (71% vs 12%, P < .01) and during ICU stay (93% vs 50%, P < .01). Post-guideline patients observed a significantly lower incidence of SUP at hospital discharge (4% vs 35%, P < .01). No differences in bleeding outcomes were observed, though post-guideline patients experienced longer durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay. Conclusions: Implementation of an early SUP discontinuation guideline was associated with significant improvements in SUP prescribing practices. Baseline differences between groups likely explain observed differences in clinical outcomes.