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.

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.