Antiretroviral Stewardship: Top 10 Questions Encountered by Stewardship Teams and Solutions to Optimize Therapy.

PURPOSE: Infectious disease pharmacists and physicians overseeing antimicrobial stewardship programs possess expertise and often advanced certification in management of antiretrovirals to treat HIV. Stewardship programs are responsible for managing facility formularies and must stay up to date with the latest antiretrovirals, including once daily formulations and depot injectables. Furthermore, stewardship program members need to understand drug-interactions, short-, and long-term toxicities of these regimens, including dyslipidemia and cardiovascular effects. Patients receiving chronic antiretroviral therapy may present to the acute care, ambulatory care, and long-term care settings. Like other antimicrobials, audit-and-feedback, drug monitoring, and dose-optimization are often required to prevent antiretroviral associated medication errors and minimize resistance. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted on antiretroviral stewardship, addressing common clinical questions encountered by stewardship teams and best practices to optimize antiretroviral therapy and reduce the risk for treatment interruptions, resistance, drug interactions, long term toxicities, and other adverse effects. FINDINGS: People living with HIV are often hospitalized and treated by medical teams without formal HIV training. For this reason, these patients are at greater risk for medication errors during hospitalization and between transitions of care. Many opportunities are present for antiretroviral stewardship to mitigate these errors. Frequent updates to simplify HIV regimen, maintain select patients on fixed-dose combination tablets, and strategies to minimize drug interactions make it difficult for even the seasoned clinician to keep up regularly. IMPLICATIONS: Despite the availability of free online HIV resources and progress made in HIV management, significant opportunities for antiretroviral stewardship remain. Implementing electronic order entry updates, formulary upgrades, and formal pharmacy renal dose adjustments to optimize antiretroviral therapy will help clinicians harness these opportunities. Dedicated time and expertise for antiretroviral stewardship as part of local antimicrobial stewardship programs are needed.

Antimicrobial Stewardship and Pandemic Preparedness: Harnessing Lessons Learned to Advance Our Mission.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) demonstrated poise and resilience in assisting with COVID-19 efforts across the globe, harnessing expertise in diagnostic stewardship, therapeutics, protocol development, and use of technology to rapidly expand their scope through strategic collaborations, dissemination of content expertise, and numerous contributions to the body of knowledge on COVID-19. Lessons learned from pandemic response should be used to advance the mission of ASPs and secure a "seat at the table" as health systems continue to expand and adapt to future public health crises.

Non-randomized evaluation of hospitalization after a prescription for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus molnupiravir in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare subsequent hospital admissions within 30 days for patients after receiving a prescription for either oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or oral molnupiravir. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 3207 high-risk, non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who received a prescription for molnupiravir (n = 209) or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 2998) at an academic medical centre in New York City from April to December 2022. Variables including age, vaccination status, high-risk conditions and demographic factors were pulled from the electronic medical record. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: All-cause 30 day hospitalization was not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (1.4% versus 1.9%, P value = 0.55). The association between COVID-related hospitalization and medication was also not significant (0.7%versus 0.5%, P value = 0.99). Patients who received molnupiravir were more likely to have more underlying high-risk conditions. After adjusting for potential confounders, the odds of all-cause hospitalizations were not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.4-3.3, P value = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide additional evidence to support molnupiravir as a suitable alternative when other COVID-19 antivirals cannot be given.

Expanding the scope and visibility of ambulatory stewardship programs with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutics.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can be expanded to the outpatient setting to serve as a first line of defense against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and to reduce the burden on emergency departments and acute-care hospitals. Given the numerous emergency use authorizations of monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals, ASPs possess the expertise and leadership to direct ambulatory COVID-19 initiatives and transform it into a predominantly outpatient illness. In this review, we summarize the critical role and benefits of an ASP-championed ambulatory COVID-19 therapeutics program.

Impact of early home psychotropic medication reinitiation on surrogate measures of intensive care unit delirium.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care unit (ICU) delirium is a major contributing factor to increased mortality, length of stay, and cost of care. Psychotropic medications may often require extensive tapering to prevent withdrawal symptoms; during ICU admission, home psychotropics are frequently held which may precipitate acute drug withdrawal and subsequent delirium. METHODS: This is a single-center, observational, retrospective chart review. The primary endpoint was the total number of new-start antipsychotics used to treat ICU delirium. Secondary endpoints included use of restraints, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 2334 charts were reviewed for inclusion; 55 patients were categorized into each group. There was no statistically significant difference in the requirement for new-start antipsychotics (P = 1.0), restraint use (P = .057), or ICU length of stay (P = .71). There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital length of stay (P = .048). DISCUSSION: Early reinitiation was associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay but was not associated with a decrease in the number of new-start antipsychotics, use of restraints, or ICU length of stay.

Boceprevir: a protease inhibitor for the treatment of hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Boceprevir is a protease inhibitor indicated for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin for treatment-naive patients and those who previously failed to improve with interferon and ribavirin treatment. OBJECTIVE: This article provides an overview of the mechanism of action, pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of boceprevir. METHODS: Relevant information was identified through a search of PubMed (1990-July 2012), EMBASE (1990-July 2012), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-July 2012), and Google Scholar using the key words boceprevir, SCH 503034, non-structural protein 3 (NS3) serine protease inhibitor, and direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA). Additional information was obtained from the US Food and Drug Administration's Web site, review of the reference lists of identified articles, and posters and abstracts from scientific meetings. RESULTS: Clinical efficacy of boceprevir was assessed in 2 Phase III trials, Serine Protease Inhibitor Therapy-2 (SPRINT-2) for treatment-naive patients and Retreatment with HCV Serine Protease Inhibitor Boceprevir and PegIntron/Rebetol 2 (RESPOND-2) for treatment-experienced patients. In SPRINT-2, patients were randomized to receive peginterferon + ribavirin (PR) or peginterferon + ribavirin + boceprevir (PRB); duration of boceprevir therapy varied from 24, 32, to 44 weeks on the basis of HCV RNA results. The primary endpoint was achievement of sustained virologic response (SVR; lower limit of detection, 9.3 IU/mL). The addition of boceprevir was shown to be superior, with overall SVR rates ranging from 63% to 66% compared with 38% with PR (P < 0.001). Results of SVR in SPRINT-2 were also reorganized to monitor SVRs in black and non-black patients. Treatment-experienced patients were assessed in RESPOND-2; however, null responders were excluded. Patients were again randomized to PR or PRB; duration of boceprevir therapy varied from 32 to 44 weeks on the basis of HCV RNA results. SVR was significantly higher in patients receiving boceprevir (59%-66% vs 21% with PR; P < 0.001). This benefit was seen in both previous nonresponders (SVR, 40%-52% vs 7% with PR), as well as previous relapsers (SVR, 69%-75% vs 29% with PR). Importantly, SVR could be attained with a shortened course of therapy in almost one half of all treated patients in SPRINT-2 (44%) and RESPOND-2 (46%). CONCLUSIONS: Boceprevir was well tolerated in clinical trials and a welcomed addition to our HCV armamentarium.

Renal toxicity of long-term therapy with tenofovir in HIV-infected patients.

Data are sparse on long-term renal toxicity of tenofovir as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and progression to advanced stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The objective of the study is to determine the incidence of renal impairment associated with the use of tenofovir in HIV-infected patients, using abacavir as a control. In a single tertiary care center, all HIV-infected patients with baseline CKD stage 0 or 1 (CKD-1), who were started on either tenofovir or abacavir from 1998 to 2008 and had at least 1 follow-up eGFR measure on therapy, were included in this retrospective analysis. Progression to CKD stages 2 to 5 was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Progression to CKD-2 and CKD-3 occurred more frequently in patients who received tenofovir than those receiving abacavir (CKD-2, 2-year actuarial frequency, 48.8% vs 23.7%; P < .001, log rank; CKD-3, 5.8% vs 0.0%; P = .028). Only 1 patient in the tenofovir group progressed to CKD-4 and none to CKD-5. Treatment with tenofovir was the only independent factor associated with progression to CKD-2 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-3.18; P < .001) and to CKD-3 (HR, 4.91; 95% CI, 1.02-23.7; P = .048). In HIV-infected patients, long-term therapy with tenofovir is associated with mild-to-moderate nephrotoxicity which is significantly higher than in abacavir-treated patients.

Ceftaroline fosamil: a cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Ceftaroline is a cephalosporin with expanded gram-positive activity recently approved for clinical uses by the US Food and Drug Administration. OBJECTIVE: This article provides an overview of the in vitro and in vivo activities, mechanism of action, pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of ceftaroline. METHODS: Relevant information was identified through a search of PubMed (1990-April 2011), EMBASE (1990-April 2011), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2011), and Google Scholar using the key words ceftaroline, PPI-0903, PPI-0903M, T-91825, and TAK-599. A review of the reference lists of identified articles, a search of the US Food and Drug Administration Web site, and posters and abstracts from scientific meetings yielded additional publications. RESULTS: In vitro, ceftaroline exhibits activity against most aerobic gram-positive isolates, common aerobic gram-negative respiratory pathogens, and some gram-positive anaerobes. The MIC range for most Staphylococcus aureus isolates, including vancomycin-resistant strains was between ≤0.008 and 4 µg/mL. In Phase III studies (CANVAS 1 and CANVAS 2), ceftaroline was found to be noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections, with a clinical cure rate of 91.6% among clinically evaluable patients (ceftaroline versus vancomycin + aztreonam: difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -4.2 to 2.0; P = NS). Ceftaroline's efficacy has also been assessed for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in 2 Phase III studies (FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2) and was equivalent to ceftriaxone, with cure rates of 84.3% and 77.7%, respectively, among clinically evaluable patients in the combined analysis (ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone: difference, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.6 to 11.8). The recommended dosage for patients 18 years and older is 600 mg IV every 12 hours. Dosage adjustment is necessary in patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance ≤50 mL/min). The pharmacokinetic properties of ceftaroline in patients with hepatic impairments are currently unavailable. Ceftaroline appeared to be well tolerated generally. The most frequently (>3%) reported adverse events were nausea, headaches, diarrhea, pruritus, rash, and insomnia; all were usually mild to moderate, self-limiting, and of little clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline is a cephalosporin with broad gram-positive activity, including Methicillin-resistant S aureus and vancomycin-resistant S aureus. Its gram-negative activity includes common respiratory pathogens and members of the Enterobacteriaceae. Clinical trials have reported that ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone, and vancomycin + aztreonam for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and complicated skin and skin-structure infections, respectively.

Besifloxacin: a topical fluoroquinolone for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Besifloxacin is a topical ophthalmic fluoroquinolone that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in May 2009 for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis caused by susceptible bacterial strains. OBJECTIVE: This article provides an overview of the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of ophthalmic besifloxacin when used for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS: Relevant reports pertaining to the pharmacology, efficacy, and tolerability of besifloxacin were identified through a search of MEDLINE (1985-December 2009) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1985-December 2009) using the terms besifloxacin, BOL-303224-A, ophthalmic fluoroquinolones, and bacterial conjunctivitis. Additional publications were identified by reviewing the reference lists of identified articles and searching the FDA Web site. RESULTS: Besifloxacin has potent in vitro inhibitory activity against most common ocular bacterial pathogens (MIC90 values generally < or =4 microg/mL), including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae. In an ocular pharmacokinetic study in 64 healthy volunteers, the C(max) in tears (mean [SD], 610 [540] microg/mL) was reached 10 minutes after a single ocular instillation of besifloxacin; concentrations > or =1.6 microg/g of tear were sustained for at least 24 hours; and the elimination t(1/2) was ~3.4 hours. In a study in 24 patients with a clinical diagnosis of bilateral bacterial conjunctivitis, systemic exposure (C(max)) after administration of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 3 times daily for 5 days was <0.5 ng/mL. In 2 randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled clinical trials, besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension was well tolerated and significantly more efficacious than vehicle in achieving clinical resolution (73.3% vs 43.1%, respectively, in one of the studies [P < 0.001]; 45.2% vs 33.0% in the other [P = 0.008]) and microbial eradication (88.3% vs 60.3% [P < 0.001] and 91.5% vs 59.7% [P < 0.001], respectively). In a randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, noninferiority trial comparing besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%, besifloxacin was found to be noninferior to moxifloxacin (predefined cutoff for noninferiority = -15), with no significant differences in rates of clinical resolution (58.3% and 59.4%, respectively; 95% CI, -9.48 to 7.29) or microbial eradication (93.3% and 91.1%; 95% CI, -2.44 to 6.74). Besifloxacin was generally well tolerated in these clinical trials, with the most common (> or =1.5%) ocular adverse events being nonspecific conjunctivitis (2.6%), blurred vision (2.1%), bacterial conjunctivitis (1.8%), and eye pain (1.5%). The recommended dose of besifloxacin is 1 drop in the affected eye(s) 3 times daily (4-12 hours apart) for 7 days. CONCLUSION: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% appeared to be well tolerated in the populations studied and was efficacious in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis caused by susceptible isolates.

Telavancin: a lipoglycopeptide antimicrobial for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria in adults.

BACKGROUND: Telavancin, a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic, is a semisynthetic derivative of vancomycin. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) caused by gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. OBJECTIVE: This article summarizes the pharmacology, in vitro and in vivo activity, pharmacokinetic properties, and clinical efficacy and tolerability of telavancin. METHODS: Relevant information was identified through a search of MEDLINE (1966-August 2010), Iowa Drug Information Service (1966-August 2010), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-August 2010), and Google Scholar using the terms telavancin, lipoglycopeptide, and TD-6424. Abstracts and posters from scientific meetings, as well as documents submitted by the manufacturer of telavancin to the FDA as part of the approval process, were consulted. In vivo and in vitro experimental and clinical studies and review articles that provided information on the activity, mechanism of action, pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of telavancin were reviewed. RESULTS: In vitro, telavancin has potent activity against S aureus, including methicillin-resistant strains; Streptococcus pneumoniae; and vancomycin-susceptible enterococci with MICs generally <1 µg/mL. Telavancin appears to have a dual mechanism of action, inhibiting cell wall formation and disrupting the cell membrane. In Phase III studies (ATLAS 1 and ATLAS 2), telavancin was found to be noninferior to vancomycin, with clinical cure rates of 88.3% and 87.1%, respectively, in clinically evaluable patients in the treatment of cSSSIs (difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, -2.1 to 4.6; P = NS). The effectiveness of telavancin in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia was assessed in 2 Phase III studies (ATTAIN 1 and ATTAIN 2). Preliminary findings were that the effectiveness of telavancin was not significantly different from that of vancomycin, with cure rates of 82.7% and 80.9% in the clinically evaluable population, respectively (difference, 1.8%; 95% CI, -4.1 to 7.7; P = NS). The most commonly (>10%) reported adverse events included taste disturbances, nausea, headache, vomiting, foamy urine, constipation, and insomnia. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials, the effectiveness of telavancin was not significantly different from that of vancomycin in the treatment of cSSSIs, and telavancin was generally well tolerated.

Treatment of skin and soft tissue infections in the elderly: A review.

BACKGROUND: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) have become the second most common type of infection among persons residing in long-term care facilities. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to review the latest information on SSTIs among the elderly, including age-related changes, challenges, and treatment strategies in the era of emerging bacterial resistance. METHODS: Relevant information was identified through a search of MEDLINE (1970-April 2010), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2010), and Google Scholar using the terms skin and soft tissue infection, skin and skin structure infection, cellulitis, treatment guidelines, and elderly. Additional publications were found by searching the reference lists of the identified articles. Trials published since 1970 were selected for this review if they prospectively evaluated mostly adults (≥18 years of age), included >50 patients, and reported diagnostic criteria as well as clinical outcomes in patients treated for simple or complicated SSTIs. RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 664 identified studies were selected and included in this review. A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials that were conducted exclusively in the elderly. Information on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly was based solely on clinical studies that were conducted in adults in general. As recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2008 update, SSTIs should be suspected in elderly patients who have skin lesions and present with a decline in functional status, with or without fever. Patients who present with symptoms of systemic toxicity should be hospitalized for further evaluation. Current challenges in the management of SSTIs include the rapid emergence of community-acquired, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA), the emergence of macrolide-resistant streptococci within the past decade, and the lack of a reliable algorithm to differentiate potentially life-threatening SSTIs that require aggressive interventions and prompt hospitalization from those that can be managed in an outpatient setting. S aureus was the most common cause of SSTIs, being isolated in 42.8% (5015/11,723) of wounds, followed by streptococci. Common SSTIs in the elderly such as shingles, diabetic foot infections, infected pressure ulcers, and scabies, and their treatment were also discussed. Based on reviews of published trials, treatment of simple SSTIs generally consisted of administration of agents with activity against S aureus and Streptococcus species such as a penicillinase-resistant ß-lactam, a first-generation cephalosporin, or clindamycin. Broadening of the antimicrobial spectrum to include gram-negative and anaerobic organisms should be implemented for complicated SSTIs such as diabetic foot infections and infected pressure ulcers. Local rates of MRSA, CA-MRSA, and macrolide-resistant streptococci should be considered when selecting empiric therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly; therefore, it is recommended to follow treatment based on the current IDSA guidelines. More research and publications are needed to establish proper selection of antimicrobial agents, treatment strategies, and duration of therapy of SSTIs in the elderly population.