Outcome of preoperative cefazolin use for infection prophylaxis in patients with self-reported penicillin allergy.

BACKGROUND: Cephalosporins are the preferred antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections. Most studies give a rate of combined IgE and non-IgE penicillin allergy yet it is recommended that cephalosporins be avoided in patients having the former but can be used in those with the latter. Some studies use penicillin allergy while others penicillin family allergy rates. The primary goal of this study was to determine the rates of IgE and non-IgE allergy as well as cross reactions to both penicillin and the penicillin family. Secondary goals were to determine the surgical services giving preoperative cefazolin and the types of self reported reactions that patients' had to penicillin prompting their allergy status. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery at a University Health Sciences Centre were retrospectively studied. The hospital electronic medical record was used for data collection. RESULTS: 8.9% of our patients reported non-IgE reactions to penicillin with a cross reactivity rate of 0.9% with cefazolin. 4.0% of our patients reported IgE reactions to penicillin with a cross reactivity rate of 4.0% with cefazolin. 10.5% of our patients reported non-IgE reactions to the penicillin family with a cross reactivity rate of 0.8% with cefazolin. 4.3% of our patients reported IgE reactions to the penicillin family with a cross reactivity rate of 4.0% with cefazolin. CONCLUSIONS: Our rate of combined IgE and non-IgE reactions for both penicillin and penicillin family allergy was within the range reported in the literature. Our rate of cross reactivity between cefazolin and combined IgE and non-IgE allergy both to penicillin and the penicillin family were lower than reported in the old literature but within the range of the newer literature. We found a lower rate of allergic reaction to a cephalosporin than reported in the literature. We documented a wide range of IgE and non-IgE reactions. We also demonstrated that cefazolin is frequently the preferred antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections by many surgical services and that de-labelling patients with penicillin allergy is unnecessary.

A descriptive cost-analysis of MYX.1/MCRN003, a phase 2 clinical trial evaluating high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multiple myeloma is increasing and there is a need to evaluate escalating therapy costs (Canadian Cancer Statistics A, 2020). The MYX.1 phase II trial showed that high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (wKCD) is efficacious in relapsed and refractory disease. We conducted a descriptive cost analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system, using trial data. METHODS: The primary outcome was the mean total cost per patient. Resource utilization data were collected from all 75 trial patients over a trial time horizon. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars (2020). RESULTS: The cost of treatment was calculated from the time of patient (pt) enrollment until the second data lock. The mean total cost was $203 336.08/pt (range $17 891.27-$505 583.55) Canadian dollars (CAD, where 1 CAD = 0.67 Euro (EUR)) and $14 081.45/pt per cycle. The median number of cycles was 15. The predominant cost driver was the cost of chemotherapy accounting for an average of $179 332.78/pt or $12 419.17/pt per cycle. Carfilzomib acquisition accounted for the majority of chemotherapy costs - $162 471.65/pt or $11 251.50/pt per cycle. Fifty-six percent (56%) of patients had at least one hospitalization during the trial period with an average cost of $12 657.86 per hospitalization. Three patients developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) with an average cost of $18 863.32/pt including the cost of hospitalizations and therapeutic plasma exchange. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose wKCD is an active triplet regimen for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) associated with reduced total cost compared with twice-weekly carfilzomib-based regimens.

A Prospective Economic Analysis of Early Outcome Data From the Alliance A041202/ CCTG CLC.2 Randomized Phase III Trial Of Bendamustine-Rituximab Compared With Ibrutinib-Based Regimens in Untreated Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: The Alliance A041202/CCTG CLC.2 trial demonstrated superior progression-free survival with ibrutinib-based therapy compared to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis of Canadian patients to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with these therapies. METHODS: Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months. Health state utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D instrument with Canadian tariffs applied to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were applied to resource utilization data (expressed in 2019 US dollars). We examined costs and QALYs associated ibrutinib, ibrutinib with rituximab (IR), and BR therapy. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled; two patients were excluded from the analysis. On-protocol costs (associated with protocol-specified resource use) were higher for patients receiving ibrutinib (mean $189,335; P < 0.0001) and IR (mean $219,908; P < 0.0001) compared to BR (mean $51,345), driven by higher acquisition costs for ibrutinib. Total mean costs (over 2-years) were $192,615 with ibrutinib, $223,761 with IR, and $55,413 with BR (P < 0.0001 for ibrutinib vs. BR and P < 0.0001 for IR vs. BR). QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR; therefore, a formal cost-utility analysis was not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Direct medical costs are higher for patients receiving ibrutinib-based therapies compared to chemoimmunotherapy in frontline chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with the cost of ibrutinib representing a key driver.

Evaluation of a Diabetic Ketoacidosis Order Set in Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes at a Tertiary Academic Medical Centre: A Retrospective Chart Audit.

OBJECTIVE: To assess safety and efficacy compared to a historical cohort. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) be treated with a standardized protocol. We created a multifaceted order set to promote best-practice management of DKA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of admissions to internal medicine for DKA in adults during a 4.5-year period; 2.25 years before and after order-set initiation. Groups were compared using independent samples t tests and Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test (categorical data). The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous data not normally distributed. RESULTS: The order-set cohort consisted of 47 admissions, 72.3% with type 1 and 27.7% with type 2 diabetes. The historical cohort consisted of 59 admissions, 69.5% with type 1 and 30.5% with type 2 diabetes. There were no significant differences in initial laboratory values between patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in both cohorts. The median length of hospital stay approached significance in the order-set cohort: 3.53 days (2.5 to 5.1); in the historical cohort, the median length of stay was 4.6 days (2.44 to 8.99) (p=0.102). CONCLUSION: A standardized DKA order set was as effective and safe in type 1 and type 2 diabetes as individual physician management in an academic care setting. Further study is needed to assess its value in community hospital settings with less expertise and fewer diabetes specialty services.

The Lifestyle History: A Neglected But Essential Component of the Medical History.

There is increased recognition that lifestyle factors, including nutrition, physical activity, emotional well-being and stress management, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and sleep habits, are major determinants of health. There is a need to teach practicing physicians, medical trainees, and other health care providers how to perform a "lifestyle history." This article proposes 13 screening questions physicians should consider exploring with patients. It provides the rationale and scientific evidence supporting each question and includes key lifestyle counseling points for clinicians to consider.