Does circle priming improve smart infusion pump and electronic health record interoperability for chemotherapy in a pediatric hematology/oncology setting?

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this project was to assess the percentage of interoperability compliance within our pediatric hematology/oncology patient care areas for intravenous chemotherapy medications before and after the implementation of circle priming. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective quality improvement project at an inpatient pediatric hematology/oncology floor and outpatient pediatric infusion center before and after implementation of circle priming. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in percent interoperability compliance for the inpatient pediatric hematology/oncology floor from 4.1% prior to implementation of circle priming to 35.6% after (odds ratio 13.1 (95% CI, 3.96-43.1), p < 0.001), as well as for the outpatient pediatric infusion center from 18.5% to 47.3%, respectively (odds ratio 3.9 (95% CI, 2.7-5.9), p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of circle priming has significantly increased the percentage of interoperability compliance for intravenous chemotherapy medications in our pediatric hematology/oncology patient care areas.

Impact of a Pharmacist-Conducted Preoperative Beta-Lactam Allergy Assessment on Perioperative Cefazolin Prescribing.

Background: Cefazolin is guideline recommended for perioperative prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Despite its unique R1 side chain, cefazolin is often avoided in patients with beta-lactam allergy with concern for cross reactivity. Objectives: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who received cefazolin perioperatively. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients with a beta-lactam allergy clarified following the telephone interview and clinical outcomes including acute kidney injury, surgical site infection, Clostridioides difficile infection, and re-admission at 30 and 90 days. Methods: This single-center, quasi-experimental study evaluated a pilot program in which a pharmacist phoned patients > 18 years of age with a scheduled orthopedic surgery and a documented beta-lactam allergy to assess their allergy preoperatively. Recommendations to use cefazolin were based on an algorithm. Patients were divided into pre- and post-intervention cohorts. Results: A total of 832 patients were screened for inclusion with 135 and 66 patients included in the pre- and post-intervention cohorts. No significant difference was identified in the primary outcome. In the post-intervention cohort, 62% had a beta-lactam reaction updated in the electronic medical record. Those with a beta-lactam allergy delabeled or made less severe were numerically more likely to receive cefazolin than those with an unchanged reaction or a reaction made more severe (95.2% vs 68% vs 65%). There were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. Conclusion: A pharmacist-conducted preoperative beta-lactam allergy interview in adult patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery improved beta-lactam allergy documentation but, did not result in increased utilization of cefazolin.

Preparation/administration of push-dose versus continuous infusion epinephrine and phenylephrine: A simulation.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a common problem in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) and can increase risk for poor outcomes. Many EDs/ICUs utilize epinephrine and phenylephrine to treat hypotension and these medications are most often administered as a continuous infusion (CI). Push-dose (PD) is the administration of small medication doses as intermittent intravenous pushes (IVPs). There is limited information comparing the time required to prepare and administer PD versus CI and errors have been reported when preparing and administering these medications at bedside. This simulation study sought to estimate preparation and administration times and preparation and errors with PD and CI epinephrine and phenylephrine when prepared by an ED/ICU pharmacist. METHODS: This crossover simulation study took place in a simulation center at an academic medical center and utilized a multi-venous intravenous training arm kit equip with an 18-gauge intravenous line, an extension tubing set, and a luer-lock adapter. The primary outcome was total preparation and administration time in seconds. The secondary outcome was major preparation and administration errors, defined as errors causing a five-fold or greater overdose. RESULTS: In total, 16 pharmacists participated, including nine ED and seven ICU pharmacists. PD had faster total preparation and administration time and administration time, but not preparation time; PD showed an approximate 70 s decrease in total preparation and administration time versus CI. PD had more major preparation and administration errors and six PD preparations (18.8%, 6/32) had at least one major preparation and administration error. CI, on the other hand, had no major preparation and administration errors. DISCUSSION: This simulation found faster total preparation and administration time with PD versus CI epinephrine and phenylephrine, but also found that PD had more major preparation and administration errors. Dilutional errors during medication preparation were the cause of 83.3% (5/6) of our overdoses. CONCLUSION: This simulation study showed that ED/ICU pharmacists had faster median total preparation and administration times for PD epinephrine and phenylephrine versus CI, but PD also had more preparation and administration errors.

Real-world evaluation of linezolid-associated serotonin toxicity with and without concurrent serotonergic agents.

BACKGROUND: The risk of linezolid-associated serotonin toxicity remains unclear. This study sought to evaluate the incidence of serotonin toxicity among hospitalized patients who received linezolid with or without concurrent serotonergic agents (SAs). Secondary outcomes were to assess the dose, agent selection and number of SAs. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years who received at least one dose of linezolid with or without SAs between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2021 was performed. Patients were excluded if they were aged <18 years, had linezolid ordered but not administered, were pregnant or were incarcerated. Up to five concurrent SAs were assessed, and dose category was classed as low, moderate or high (dose <33%, 33-66% or >66% of maximum daily dose, respectively). Serotonin toxicity was identified by searching patients' electronic medical records. If identified, the Sternbach criteria and Hunter criteria were applied. RESULTS: Of 2022 patients screened, 1743 were included in this study. Mean age, weight and linezolid duration were 58.5 years, 90.7 kg and 3.8 days, respectively. Approximately 67% (1168/1743) of patients received linezolid with at least one SA, and several patients received multiple SAs. Most patients (53.8%; 616/1144) received moderate- and/or high-dose SAs. Only two patients (0.11%) were identified as possible cases of serotonin toxicity based on the electronic medical record search. However, the incidence of serotonin toxicity was 0.06% (1/1743) based on the Sternbach criteria and 0% (0/1743) based on the Hunter criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Serotonin toxicity among hospitalized patients who received linezolid with or without SAs was exceedingly rare, even among those who received multiple and high-dose SAs.

Single-Dose Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Ertapenem Increases Compliance with Recommendations for Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective, Single-Center Analysis.

Background: Compliance with guideline recommendations for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) in colorectal surgery, particularly redosing, has been suboptimal at many institutions including ours. This study aimed to evaluate if single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem improves compliance with guideline recommendations for SAP versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. Methods: A retrospective, cohort study of the use of ertapenem compared with standard of care antibiotic agents was performed in adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at an academic medical center between January 2020 and February 2022. The primary outcome was compliance with guideline-recommended SAP for colorectal surgery. The secondary outcome was surgical site infections (SSIs) within 30 days after surgery. Results: A total of 135 patients were included in this study. Fifty-eight patients received single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem and 77 patients received multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis. Cefazolin plus metronidazole was the most common multiple-dose regimen (65 of 77). Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem increased overall SAP compliance (96.6% vs. 64.9%; p < 0.001) as well as compliance with antibiotic administration within the recommended time period before incision (96.6% vs. 84.4%; p = 0.022), compliance with intra-operative antibiotic redosing when warranted (100% vs. 83.1%; p < 0.001), and compliance with guideline-recommended dosing (100% vs. 92.2%; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection rates were not statistically different between the groups (12.1% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.248). Conclusions: Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem increased compliance with guideline-recommended SAP for elective colorectal surgeries. No statistically significant difference was observed in SSI rates regardless of the antibiotic regimen used.

Does a Positive Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screen Predict the Risk for MRSA Skin and Soft Tissue Infection?

BACKGROUND: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are often caused by gram-positive bacteria that colonize the skin. Given the overuse of antibiotics, SSTIs are increasingly caused by resistant bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Guidance on the utility of MRSA nasal screening for MRSA SSTI is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether MRSA nasal screening predicts the risk of MRSA SSTIs. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with an SSTI diagnosis that had MRSA nasal screening and wound cultures obtained within 48 hours of starting antibiotics. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using VassarStats. Pretest and posttest probabilities were estimated with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: A total of 884 patient encounters were reviewed between December 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021, and 300 patient encounters were included. The prevalence of MRSA SSTI was 18.3%. The MRSA nasal colonization had a sensitivity of 63.6%, specificity of 93.9%, positive predictive value of 70.0% (95% CI = 55.2%-81.7%), negative predictive value of 92.0% (95% CI = 87.7%-94.9%), positive likelihood ratio of 10.39 (95% CI = 6.12-17.65), negative likelihood ratio of 0.39 (95% CI = 0.27-0.55), positive posttest probability of 70.0%, and negative posttest probability of 8.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high positive likelihood ratio, a positive MRSA nasal screen was associated with a large increase in the probability of MRSA SSTI at our institution, and a negative MRSA nasal screen was associated with a small but potentially significant decrease in the probability of MRSA SSTI.

Accuracy of 4 Free Online Dosing Calculators in Predicting the Vancomycin Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve Calculated Using a 2-Point Pharmacokinetic Approach.

BACKGROUND: Free online adaptive vancomycin dosing calculators are available to estimate area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), but the accuracy of predicting vancomycin AUC using these calculators compared with using a 2-point pharmacokinetic approach has not been described. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of calculator-predicted AUC (cpAUC) using 4 free online calculators compared with reference AUC (rAUC), and to assess pharmacists' impressions of the ease of use. METHODS: Vancomycin AUC was estimated using (1) the reference method via the Sawchuk-Zaske method and linear-logarithmic trapezoidal rule using 2 steady-state postdistributional vancomycin serum concentrations and (2) 4 free online vancomycin dosing calculators including ClinCalc, VancoPK, TDMx, and DMC. Accuracy was calculated by dividing cpAUC by rAUC. Ease of cpAUC estimation was determined by using a 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: All 4 calculators had a median cpAUC accuracy ranging from 89% to 110%. Concordance between cpAUC and rAUC determinations of AUC <400 and > 600 mg·h/L occurred 63.3% to 71.4% and 74.5% to 78.6% of the time, respectively. Pharmacist investigators agreed that ClinCalc and VancoPK calculators were easiest to use. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: cpAUC accuracy varied among the 4 calculators, but all consistently identified patients with an rAUC <400 mg·h/L and an rAUC > 600 mg·h/L at comparable frequencies. All 4 calculators demonstrated some imprecision based on their wide 95% CIs and potential inaccuracies in predicting an rAUC <400 mg·h/L or an rAUC > 600 mg·h/L. Clin Calc and VancoPK were most user friendly based on our pharmacists' impressions.

Comparison of vancomycin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) using two-point pharmacokinetics versus two open-access online single-concentration vancomycin calculators.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Current vancomycin monitoring guidelines recommend the use of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC24 ) monitoring in patients with serious Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections by utilizing either a Bayesian approach or first-order analytic equations. Several open-access websites exist that allow estimation of vancomycin AUC24 with the use of a single steady-state concentration. It is uncertain how these open-access calculators perform against guideline-recommended methods. The objective was to compare AUC24 estimates from two online, open-access, single-concentration vancomycin calculators compared with the two-point pharmacokinetic (2PK) method. METHODS: AUC24 estimates were made using the 2PK reference method and the single-concentration vancomycin calculators, ClinCalc and VancoPK. The AUC24 estimates from the 2PK reference method were compared to the online calculators by assessing bias (median AUC24 difference) and precision (AUC24 difference ± 100 mg*h/L). Clinical precision was also assessed by characterizing the frequency that the 2PK reference method and the online calculators showed clinical disagreement based on the following AUC24 categories: (1) AUC24 < 400 mg*h/L; (2) AUC24 400-600 mg*h/L and (3) AUC24 > 600 mg*h/L. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 253 patients were included in the study. The AUC24 estimates from the ClinCalc and VancoPK single-concentration vancomycin calculators showed some bias and imprecision, though VancoPK appeared to have less. Clinical disagreement versus the 2PK reference method occurred in 31.2% and 19.4% of AUC24 estimates from the ClinCalc and VancoPK single-concentration vancomycin calculators, suggesting clinical imprecision. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The AUC24 estimates from single-concentration, online vancomycin calculators showed some bias and imprecision in comparison to the 2PK method. Institutions should validate these online, trough-only calculators relative to a 2PK method in their patient populations prior to adoption as standard-of-care.

Prophylactic Enoxaparin in Critically Ill Trauma Patients: Evaluation of the Initial Dose.

Background: Trauma patients are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism given alterations in the coagulation cascade. Chemoprophylaxis with standard dosing of enoxaparin 30 mg subcutaneously twice daily has evolved to incorporate the use of anti-factor Xa (AFXa) trough level monitoring given concerns for decreased enoxaparin bioavailability in this patient population. Current available evidence suggests low rates of goal AFXa trough level achievement with standard enoxaparin dosing. Our study aims to identify the incidence of critically ill trauma patients that did not achieve goal AFXa trough levels and attempts to identify predictors that may influence the lack of achievement of goal levels. Methods: This was a retrospective, cohort analysis performed at a single academic medical center. Adult patients 18 years or older admitted to the surgical intensive care unit secondary to trauma who were initiated on standard prophylactic enoxaparin and had at least 1 AFXa trough level representative of steady state were included. Patient demographics and clinical data were collected, and descriptive statistics were utilized. All statistical tests were 2-tailed and a P < .05 was considered significant. Variables with a P < .10 on univariable analysis were included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: A majority of our patient population did not achieve goal AFXa trough levels while receiving standard doses of prophylactic enoxaparin (82.4% [108/131]). Sub-target AFXa levels were associated with higher creatinine clearance values. Positive predictors of obtaining target AFXa levels included automobile versus pedestrian mechanism of injury and requiring an enoxaparin dose escalation to at least 40 mg twice daily. Conclusions: Our study found low rates of achievement of goal AFXa trough levels in critically ill trauma patients receiving standard prophylactic enoxaparin dosing. Certain variables were identified as negative and positive predictors for achievement of goal AFXa trough levels, although the biologic plausibility of these predictors is questionable and requires further investigation.

Validation of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Risk Factors in Predicting MRSA Community-Acquired Pneumonia at an Academic Medical Center.

Background: The 2019 Infectious Diseases Society of America community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines recommend antimethicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) therapy in patients with CAP based on previously identified risk factors for MRSA with an emphasis on local epidemiology and institutional validation of risk. Thus, we sought to assess the ability of guideline-recognized risk factors to predict MRSA CAP at our institution. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to March 2020. Patients were included if they were >18 years old, diagnosed with CAP, and had a MRSA nasal screen and respiratory culture obtained on admission. Patients were excluded if CAP diagnosis was not met, respiratory cultures were not obtained within 48 hours of antibiotic initiation, or they had cystic fibrosis. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated using Vasser Stats 2019. Pre/post-test odds and pre/post-test probabilities were calculated using Excel 2019. Results: Of 705 screened patients, 221 were included. MRSA prevalence in CAP patients at our institution was 3.6%. History of MRSA isolated from a respiratory specimen had high specificity (98%), high positive LR of 20 (95% CI 5.3-74.8), and high post-test probability of 42.8%. Receipt of IV antibiotics during hospitalization within the past 90 days had a positive LR of 1.9 (95% CI 0.74-4.84). A positive MRSA nasal screen on admission had a positive LR of 6.9 (95% CI 4.0-12.1), negative LR 0.28 (95% CI 0.08-0.93), positive post-test probability of 20.7%, and negative post-test probability of 1.04%. Conclusion: Our study utilized institutional data to validate guideline recognized risk factors for MRSA CAP specifically at our institution. Risk factors including history of MRSA isolated from a respiratory specimen, and positive post-admission MRSA nasal screen were validated as significant risk factors; receipt of IV antibiotics during hospitalization within the past 90 days was not shown to be a risk factor for MRSA CAP based on our institutional data. Validated risk factors may help providers discern which patients with CAP at our institution would benefit most from empiric MRSA treatment.

Evaluation of ß-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring among US health systems with postgraduate year 2 infectious diseases pharmacy residency programs.

PURPOSE: While some guidelines recognize the need for ß-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), there is still a paucity of data regarding the prevalence of and barriers to performing ß-lactam TDM in the United States. We sought to estimate the prevalence of ß-lactam TDM, describe monitoring practices, and identify actual and perceived barriers to implementation among health systems in the US. METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional, 40-item electronic survey was distributed to all postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) infectious diseases (ID) pharmacy residency program directors (RPDs) listed in the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists pharmacy residency directory. The primary outcome was the percentage of institutions with established ß-lactam TDM. Secondary outcomes included assessing ß-lactam TDM methods and identifying potential barriers to implementation. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 126 PGY2 ID RPDs, with a response rate of 31.7% (40 of 126). Only 8% of respondents (3 of 39) performed ß-lactam TDM. Patient populations, therapeutic targets, and frequency and timing of obtaining repeat ß-lactam concentration measurements varied among institutions. The greatest barrier to implementation was lack of access to testing with a rapid turnaround time. Institutions were unlikely to implement ß-lactam TDM within the next year but were significantly more inclined to do so within 5 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ß-lactam TDM was infrequently performed at the surveyed US health systems. Lack of access to serum concentration testing with rapid turnaround and lack of US-specific guidelines appear to be considerable barriers to implementing ß-lactam TDM. Among institutions that have implemented ß-lactam TDM, there is considerable variation in monitoring approaches.

Andexanet alfa effectiveness and safety versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in intracranial hemorrhage while on apixaban or rivaroxaban: A single-center, retrospective, matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information directly comparing andexanet alfa (AA) versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) on apixaban or rivaroxaban. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of AA versus 4F-PCC in ICH on apixaban or rivaroxaban. METHODS: This retrospective, matched, cohort analysis was conducted at a single healthcare system. Patients were matched based on baseline ICH volume. The primary outcome was good or excellent ICH hemostasis, which was defined as a 35% or less increase in ICH volume within 24 h following AA or 4F-PCC administration. The secondary outcome was thrombotic events within 14 days following AA or 4F-PCC administration. RESULTS: In total, 26 AA and 26 4F-PCC patients were included in this matched cohort analysis. Both groups had comparable rates of good or excellent ICH hemostasis (AA: 92.3% vs. 4F-PCC: 88.5%, p = 1.000). Thrombotic events within 14-days were not significantly different (AA: 26.9% vs. 4F-PCC: 11.5%, p = 0.159). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This study found no significant differences in good or excellent ICH hemostasis within 24-h or new thrombotic events within 14-days in a cohort given AA or 4F-PCC for ICH while on apixaban or rivaroxaban. However, this single-center analysis is underpowered due to sample size constraints, therefore further high-quality research comparing AA safety and effectiveness versus 4F-PCC is needed.

Pharmacists Act on Care Transitions in Stroke (PACT-Stroke): A Systems Approach.

PURPOSE: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability in the United States. Prompt secondary prevention decreases the risk for recurrence. Pharmacists have taken a more active role in poststroke care and are initiating prompt follow-up after hospital discharge. There are, however, limited descriptions providing insight on how to implement programs that address this need. The purpose of this article is to provide insights into the development of a pharmacist-driven transitions of care program for patients with stroke. METHODS: This study was a single-center, retrospective assessment of patients contacted by a pharmacist. All data were analyzed descriptively. Our initial evaluation of the Pharmacists Act on Care Transitions in Stroke (PACT-Stroke) service was to quantify and categorize drug-related problems (DRPs), which included drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, dispensing, drug use process, patient-related problems, and other. Patients were included if they were adults who experienced an ischemic stroke. Exclusion criteria for this service included pediatric patients, patients with hemorrhagic strokes, patients with transient ischemic attacks, patients >89 years of age, pregnant patients, and patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility immediately after stroke. FINDINGS: A total of 27 patients were included in this analysis, with a total of 30 DRPs identified. After pharmacist intervention, roughly 83% of these DRPs were resolved. IMPLICATIONS: Implementing secondary prevention measures for patients with stroke is crucial. A pharmacist-led transitions of care pilot program was implemented to address this high-risk patient population. This article serves as a framework for implementation at other institutions that aim to provide similar services and can potentially be applied to other high-risk groups.

Hospital Discharge: An Opportune Time for Antimicrobial Stewardship.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of antimicrobials prescribed in the outpatient setting are unnecessary and up to 50% are inappropriate. Despite this, antimicrobial stewardship (AS) efforts mostly focus on the inpatient setting, and limited data describe AS interventions at hospital discharge. Acknowledging the potential value of discharge AS, we used our existing resources to review discharge oral antimicrobial prescriptions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this retrospective, single-center study was to evaluate the impact of an AS program on discharge oral antimicrobial prescriptions. METHODS: Discharge oral antimicrobial prescriptions sent to our hospital-operated outpatient pharmacy, reviewed by an infectious diseases (ID) pharmacist, and recorded into our data collection tool from September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, were evaluated retrospectively. The primary outcome was to identify the frequency a drug-related problem (DRP) was identified by an ID pharmacist. Secondary outcomes included DRP characterization, percentage of prescriptions with interventions, intervention acceptance rate, and reduction in antimicrobial days dispensed at discharge when interventions to limit treatment duration were accepted. RESULTS: Of the 803 discharge oral antimicrobial prescriptions reviewed, at least 1 DRP was identified in 43.1% (346/803). The most frequently identified DRPs pertained to treatment duration, drug selection, and dose selection. At least 1 intervention was recommended in 42.8% (344/803) of prescriptions. In total, 438 interventions were made and the acceptance rate was 75.6% (331/438). The most common types of interventions included recommendations for a different duration, a different dose or frequency, and antimicrobial discontinuation. When interventions to reduce treatment duration were accepted, the median (interquartile range) number of antimicrobial days decreased from 8 (5-10) days to 4 (0-5.5) days (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: An ID pharmacist's review of discharge oral antimicrobial prescriptions sent to our hospital-operated outpatient pharmacy resulted in identification of DRPs and subsequent interventions in a substantial number of prescriptions.

Use of an argatroban systemic infusion and purge solution in a patient with a percutaneous ventricular assist device with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

PURPOSE: Thrombocytopenia can occur when using an Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD), and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is often suspected. Data on heparin- and anticoagulant-free purge solutions in these devices are limited. Previous case reports have described argatroban-based purge solutions, both with and without systemic argatroban, at varying concentrations in patients with known or suspected HIT. SUMMARY: A 33-year-old male was transferred to our institution and emergently initiated on life support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), an Impella pVAD, and continuous venovenous hemofiltration to receive an urgent aortic valve replacement. Over the next several days, the patient's platelet count declined with a nadir of 17 × 103/µL on hospital day 13. The patient's 4T score for probability of HIT was calculated as 4. All heparin products were discontinued on hospital day 15, and the patient was initiated on systemic infusion with argatroban 1,000 µg/mL at a rate of 0.2 µg/kg/min with a purge solution of argatroban 0.05 mg/mL. The systemic infusion remained at a rate of 0.2 µg/kg/min, and the total argatroban dose was, on average, less than 0.25 µg/kg/min. On hospital day 21, the patient was transferred to another institution. CONCLUSION: Systemic infusion and a purge solution with argatroban were used in a patient with an Impella pVAD with multisystem organ dysfunction and suspected HIT. The patient achieved therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin times without adjustment of the systemic argatroban infusion and did not experience bleeding or thrombosis. Further studies concerning the safety and effectiveness of argatroban-based purge solutions in patients with pVADs are needed.

Chemical and Physical Stability of an Admixture Containing Cefepime and Vancomycin in Lactated Ringer Solution.

Purpose: To evaluate the chemical and physical stability of an admixture containing cefepime and vancomycin in a single volume of lactated Ringer solution at refrigerated temperatures. Methods: Cefepime 2000 mg and vancomycin 1000 mg were, respectively, reconstituted with 10 and 20 mL of sterile water for injection (SWFI) per manufacturer instructions. This resulted in cefepime and vancomycin concentrations of 200 and 50 mg/mL, respectively. The resulting cefepime and vancomycin solutions at 10 and 20 mL, respectively, were drawn up and injected into 1000 mL lactated Ringer solution. Aliquot samples were obtained on days 0 to 9, visually inspected for gross incompatibility, and then stored at -80°C. Samples were thawed on the day of the analysis and run through ultraperformance liquid chromatography. Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) on each day was compared with baseline AUC values. Chemical stability was defined as an AUC more than 93% of the baseline value. Results: No evidence of gross physical incompatibility was observed by visual inspection. Cefepime and vancomycin replicants were more than 94.5% and 98% of baseline AUC values. Therefore, all sample replicants were found to be more than 93% of their baseline AUC value. Conclusion: An admixture containing cefepime 2000 mg and vancomycin 1000 mg in 1000 mL lactated Ringer solution appears to be chemically and physically stable at refrigerated temperatures for up to 9 days.

Trust your gut: Effect of a pharmacist-driven pilot project to decrease alvimopan use past gastrointestinal recovery in postsurgical patients.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Alvimopan is a peripherally acting opioid receptor antagonist indicated to accelerate gastrointestinal (GI) recovery following surgery, but its benefits past GI recovery are unknown and evidence suggests that it may increase risk for myocardial infarction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a pilot alvimopan stewardship program aimed at intervening to discontinue alvimopan use following GI recovery. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study examining the first 5 months of the alvimopan stewardship pilot program. During this initial period, a pharmacy resident assessed whether each patient met criteria for GI recovery, defined as solid food toleration and first bowel movement or flatus. If a patient met the criteria for GI recovery, the resident intervened and recommended that the primary team discontinue alvimopan. Primary outcomes were the percentage of patients with alvimopan continued past GI recovery and the percentage of patients for whom alvimopan ordered past GI recovery was discontinued following intervention by stewardship. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of accepted recommendations to discontinue alvimopan following GI recovery and the number of alvimopan doses ordered following GI recovery. RESULTS: In total, 73 patients were included in the study analysis, all of whom underwent abdominal and/or urologic surgery. Alvimopan was ordered to be administered in 35.6% (26/73) of patients after GI recovery. The stewardship program intervened and recommended discontinuation on 50% (13/26) of the alvimopan doses ordered past GI recovery. Recommendations were accepted by the primary team for 92.3% (12/13) of the patients. A total of 51 doses of alvimopan were ordered for administration past GI recovery, with an average of 2 doses per patient. CONCLUSION: A pilot pharmacy-driven alvimopan stewardship program was able to identify and intervene on alvimopan orders continued past GI recovery. Interventions decreasing alvimopan use past GI recovery could be of benefit by minimizing potential risk and decreasing potential costs without a negative impact on patient outcomes.

A single-center cost analysis assessing a change in vasopressin formulation.

PURPOSE: Cost savings achieved at an academic medical center by reformulating the institution's standard vasopressin infusions to reduce waste are described. SUMMARY: After a retrospective review of vasopressin utilization over a 4-month period revealed that only approximately 40% of dispensed vasopressin units were actually administered to patients, pharmacy leaders determined that the institution's standard vasopressin concentration for continuous infusions (100 units in 100 mL of sodium chloride 0.9% injection) was resulting in substantial waste, as many infusion preparations were not needed within the 18- to 24-hour expiration window. A concentration of 20 units/100 mL was adopted as the new standard formulation for vasopressin continuous infusions, with use of alternative concentrations allowed on a restricted basis. A pre-post study to assess the impact of the formulation change indicated a 38.7% decrease in vasopressin utilization (from 21,900 to 8,480 units) relative to utilization in a retrospective sample of patients who received vasopressin infusions prior to the formulation change. This reduced utilization equated to a cost decrease of $55,656.20 (as calculated on the basis of 2017 cost estimates) or $77,214.23 (as calculated on the basis of 2019 cost estimates) for the time period collected. It was estimated that the new formulations could yield annual cost savings ranging from $222,625 to $308,857. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first description of cost savings following a change in formulation of vasopressin for continuous infusions. Other institutions could consider employing a similar approach in addition to the previously reported cost-saving interventions, such as lower vasopressin starting doses and vasopressin restriction policies.