Influence of Change of Full-Time Equivalents on Post-prescription Review with Feedback Interventions in an Antimicrobial Stewardship.

Few studies have investigated the influence of more full-time equivalents (FTEs) of infectious disease (ID) pharmacists on the likelihood of a post-prescription review with feedback (PPRF) intervention. This study focused on this in community hospitals before and after the Japanese medical reimbursement system was revised to introduce antimicrobial stewardship (AS) fees. We collected data for two periods: before (April 2017 to March 2018) and after (April 2018 to March 2019) AS fee implementation. The efficacy of the PPRF by the ID pharmacist was assessed based on the usage of broad-spectrum antimicrobials in days of therapy (DOT) per 100 patient-days. Further, we generated the susceptibility rate for antimicrobial-resistant organisms. The number of PPRF drugs was 2336 (2596 cases) before AS fee implementation and 2136 (1912 cases) after implementation. The overall monthly FTE for AS for an ID pharmacist increased from [median (interquartile range; IQR)] 0.34 (0.33-0.36) to 0.63 (0.61-0.63) after AS fee implementation. The DOT of the broad-spectrum antibiotics decreased from 10.46 (9.61-12.48) to 8.68 (8.14-9.18). The DOT of carbapenems and quinolones decreased significantly from 4.11 (3.69-4.41) to 3.07 (2.79-3.22) and 0.96 (0.61-1.14) to 0.37 (0.19-0.46), respectively (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the rate of levofloxacin (LVFX)-susceptible Pseudomonas (P.) aeruginosa improved from 71.5 to 84.8% (p < 0.01). We observed that increasing the FTE of ID pharmacists influences the DOTs of broad-spectrum antibiotics; a higher FTE contributes to fewer DOTs. Further, the susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to meropenem and LVFX increased as the FTE increased.

Effectiveness of monoclonal antibody therapy for COVID-19 patients using a risk scoring system.

INTRODUCTION: Monoclonal antibody therapy has been reported to be highly effective for preventing hospitalisation and severe cases in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, since the drug is not readily available, it is important to rapidly and appropriately identify high-risk patients who can benefit most from therapy. Therefore, we designed a risk scoring system to identify at-risk COVID-19 patients in our region during the largest surge of COVID-19, from July to September 2021. METHODS: According to the risk scores, confirmed COVID-19 patients were introduced to receive REGN-CoV-2 to our hospital by regional health centre from 18th August (Term 3). The primary outcome was the comparison of the number of hospitalisation and severe condition with other periods, the 4th wave (Term 1) and the early part of the 5th wave (Term 2) in Japan. RESULTS: During Term 3, 115 patients were stratified with the scoring system and administered REGN-COV-2. The number of hospitalisation vs severe cases were 60 (5.2%) vs 14 (1.2%), 8 (1.5%) vs 3 (0.6%) and 21 (1.2%) vs 2 (0.1%), in term 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among those aged <60 years, compared with term 1, the relative risk of hospitalisation and severe condition were 0.25 (95% CI: 0.12-0.53) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01-0.80), respectively, in term 3. Drug adverse events were fever (3: 2.6%), headache (1: 0.9%) and neck rash (1: 0.9%), all events were resolved within 24 h wth no serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of monoclonal antibody therapy using a risk scoring system significantly reduced the number of hospitalisation and disease severity of COVID-19 without any serious adverse events and avoided regional medical collapse.

Efficacy of baloxavir marboxil on household transmission of influenza infection.

BACKGROUND: Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is a new anti-influenza virus agent that is comparable to oseltamivir phosphate (oseltamivir). Since the efficacy of baloxavir in preventing household transmission of influenza is not well established, we compared the secondary household influenza virus transmission rates between patients on baloxavir vs oseltamivir. METHODS: Between October 2018 and March 2019, we enrolled index patients (diagnosed with influenza and treated with baloxavir or oseltamivir) and household members. The secondary attack rate of household members was compared between index patients treated with baloxavir vs oseltamivir. Risk factors of household transmission were determined using multivariate logistic analyses. RESULTS: In total, 169 index patients with influenza type A were enrolled. The median age was 27.0 (interquartile range; 11-57) years. The number of index patients treated with baloxavir and oseltamivir was 49 and 120, respectively. The secondary attack rate was 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-15.6) in the baloxavir group and 13.5% (95% CI: 9.8-17.9) in the oseltamivir group. In the multivariate analysis, independent risk factors were 0-6 years of age (odds ratio [OR] 2.78, 95% CI: 1.33-5.82, p < 0.01) and not being on baloxavir treatment. (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.30-1.32, p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: The household secondary attack rate of influenza was comparable in patients treated with baloxavir vs oseltamivir. Therefore, baloxavir can be used as an alternative therapy to oseltamivir in reducing household transmission of influenza. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Patients in this study were retrospectively registered. https://www.tosei.or.jp/clinical/pdf/2_influenza.pdf.

Efficacy of prolonged tapered and pulsed vancomycin regimen on recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in the Japanese setting: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: According to the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridioides difficile, oral vancomycin is to be used in vancomycin tapered and pulsed regimen (VCM-TP) for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). However, data on the efficacy of VCM-TP in Japanese patients with recurrent CDI are scarce. To address this gap, we investigated the efficacy of VCM-TP and performed a case-controlled study to assess the risk factors associated with treatment failure in these patients. FINDINGS: We conducted this study on all patients who were administered VCM-TP for recurrent episodes of CDI between January 2008 and December 2018 at Tosei General Hospital. All patients had documented follow-ups within 90 days after completion of the VCM-TP. Data were obtained for comparative analysis of treatment success or failure. Thirty-six patients were eligible for this study, and treatment success was documented in 23 patients (63.9%) following VCM-TP treatment. Treatment success was documented in 22 of 30 (73.3%) patients who received the recommended therapy according to the Clinical Practice Guidelines. The frequency of patients treated with the recommended therapy was higher in the treatment success group (95.7%) than in the treatment failure group (61.5%) (OR: 13.75, 95% CI: 1.39-136.39, p = 0.016). Vancomycin-resistant enterococci culture tests were performed in 20 patients (55.6%), and all results were negative. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that VCM-TP is a good therapeutic option for recurrent CDI in Japanese patients. Furthermore, administration of the recommended VCM-TP is important for achieving a high rate of treatment success. Hence, antimicrobial stewardship teams should support the implementation of recommended VCM-TPs.