Use of administrative healthcare claims to examine the effectiveness of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus fluoroquinolones in the treatment of community-acquired acute pyelonephritis in women.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolones in the treatment of community-acquired acute pyelonephritis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified a population-based cohort of non-pregnant women aged 18-65 years, initially treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or a fluoroquinolone for community-acquired pyelonephritis in an ambulatory care setting. Subjects were identified from a healthcare claims database in Manitoba, Canada for the period 15 February 1996 to 31 March 1999. Subsequent treatment failure, as evidenced by the provision of additional treatment up to 42 days post-diagnosis, was compared between the two treatments. RESULTS: A total of 1084 women met inclusion criteria: 653 (60.2%) treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and 431 (39.8%) treated with a fluoroquinolone. Treatment outcomes were affected by subject age. At age 20, treatment with a fluoroquinolone resulted in a reduced probability of treatment failure compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97). At age 60, there was no difference in the probability of treatment failure (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.82-3.16). No other subject characteristics impacted comparative effectiveness; however, several characteristics increased the odds of treatment failure irrespective of the initial antibiotic. These included: recent urinary tract infection (odds ratio, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.14-3.57), recent antibiotic use (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96;), and a treatment duration of less than 10 days (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.59-2.99). CONCLUSION: Younger subjects ( approximately 20 years) treated with fluoroquinolones were less likely to experience treatment failure than those treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Treatment durations of less than 10 days resulted in a higher probability of treatment failure regardless of the initial antibiotic.

Guidelines for nonemergency use of parenteral phenytoin products: proceedings of an expert panel consensus process. Panel on Nonemergency Use of Parenteral Phenytoin Products.

This document summarizes the proceedings of an expert panel consensus process addressing the nonemergency use of parenteral phenytoin products for management of seizures in pediatric and adult patients. The algorithm and consensus statements developed by the expert panel emphasize strategies for lowering the probability of adverse events associated with the use of parenteral phenytoin products. Specific patient characteristics are defined to guide administration and monitoring of parenteral phenytoin therapy. The algorithm provides a decision pathway for the selection of the product and the route of administration of phenytoin sodium or fosphenytoin sodium after it has been determined that a parenteral phenytoin product is appropriate. Key factors covered in the algorithm include a list of patient characteristics and considerations necessary to prevent parenteral phenytoin adverse effects during selection of administration route and recommendations for monitoring of parenteral phenytoin therapy once it has been initiated. Situations requiring rapid attainment of high phenytoin concentrations, such as in the management of acute seizures, are not addressed in these guidelines.

Cost comparison of unit dose and traditional drug distribution in a long-term-care facility.

Unit dose and traditional drug distribution systems were compared in a 352-bed long-term-care facility by analyzing nursing time, medication-error rate, medication costs, and waste. Time spent by nurses in preparing, administering, charting, and other tasks associated with medications was measured with a stop-watch on four different nursing units during six-week periods before and after the nursing home began using unit dose drug distribution. Medication-error rate before and after implementation of the unit dose system was determined by patient profile audits and medication inventories. Medication costs consisted of patient billing costs (acquisition cost plus fee) and cost of medications destroyed. The unit dose system required a projected 1507.2 hours less nursing time per year. Mean medication-error rates were 8.53% and 0.97% for the traditional and unit dose systems, respectively. Potential annual savings because of decreased medication waste with the unit dose system were $2238.72. The net increase in cost for the unit dose system was estimated at $615.05 per year, or approximately $1.75 per patient. The unit dose system appears safer and more time-efficient than the traditional system, although its costs are higher.