Clinical pharmacist input on HIV management may improve antiretroviral prescribing for psychiatric patients.

PURPOSE: The results of a study to determine the difference in HIV management with clinical pharmacist input in an adult psychiatric hospitalized patient population are reported. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study of patients admitted to a psychiatric hospital on antiretroviral (ARV) medication(s) from October 2016 to March 2017 (phase I: no pharmacist involvement), October 2017 to March 2018 (phase II: partial pharmacist involvement), and November 2018 to January 2019 (phase III: consistent pharmacist involvement). Patients were excluded if less than 18 years of age, pregnant, incarcerated, or taking ARV medication(s) for non-HIV indications. The primary outcome was difference in appropriateness of ARV therapy prior to and during pharmacist involvement. Secondary outcomes were appropriateness of opportunistic infection (OI) prophylaxis, laboratory testing, and comprehensive HIV management. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included per phase. An increased number of appropriate ARV regimens were initiated in phase II compared to phase I (62% vs 32%; P = 0.01) and in phase III compared to phase II (84% vs 62%; P = 0.036). Increased laboratory monitoring was seen with partial and consistent pharmacist involvement. Among the patients requiring OI prophylaxis, appropriate prophylaxis was initiated in more patients in phase III (57%) than in phase II (50%) or phase I (11%). More patients had comprehensive HIV management in phase II compared to phase I (38% vs 5%; P < 0.001) and in phase III compared to phase II (46% vs 38%; P = 0.48). CONCLUSION: Pharmacist involvement in HIV management in a psychiatric patient population increased appropriateness of ARV therapy, laboratory testing, and OI prophylaxis.

Does the Beta-Lactam Matter? Nafcillin versus Cefazolin for Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections.

BACKGROUND: Antistaphylococcal penicillins have historically been regarded as the drugs of choice for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bloodstream infections (BSI). However, recent outcomes data compared to cefazolin treatment are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: This study compared treatment failure and adverse effects associated with nafcillin and cefazolin for MSSA BSI. METHODS: Adult inpatients with MSSA BSI between January 1, 2009 and August 31, 2015 were included in this retrospective cohort study if they received ≥72 h of nafcillin or cefazolin as directed therapy after no more than 72 h of any empiric therapy. The primary composite endpoint was treatment failure defined by clinician documentation, 30-day recurrence of infection, all-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality, or loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic-related acute kidney injury (AKI), acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), hepatotoxicity, and rash. RESULTS: Among 157 patients, 116 (73.9%) received nafcillin and 41 (26.1%) received cefazolin. The baseline characteristics were similar except cefazolin-treated patients had higher APACHE II scores and more frequent renal dysfunction. No difference in the composite treatment failure outcome (28.4 vs. 31.7%; p = 0.69) was detected between the nafcillin and cefazolin groups, respectively. In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients without known follow-up, there was no significant difference of treatment failure. AKI, AIN, hepatotoxicity, and rash were all numerically more frequent among nafcillin-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among nafcillin- or cefazolin-treated patients with MSSA BSI, there was no significant difference in treatment failure. Observing more frequent presumptive adverse effects associated with nafcillin receipt, future prospective studies evaluating cefazolin appear warranted.