Palonosetron versus Granisetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting after Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study.

The triplet antiemetic regimen is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, the superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in triplet antiemetic therapy remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) and granisetron (GRA) in triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV. This study included 267 patients who received MEC at our hospital between April 2017 and September 2020. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising PALO or GRA and dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant on days 1-3. We evaluated the rate of complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall phase (0-120 h) after first-cycle chemotherapy. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for non-CR. The rate of CR in the overall and delayed phases was significantly higher in the PALO group (91.9 and 91.9%, respectively) than in the GRA group (74.1 and 75.5%, respectively). In the acute phase, the incidence was not different between the GRA and PALO groups (96.5 and 99.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and the use of GRA were risk factors for non-CR. Subgroup analysis revealed the superiority of PALO over GRA in female patients, but not in male patients. In conclusion, PALO was more effective than GRA in triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing CINV during MEC, especially for female patients.

[Evaluation of Intervention by an Antimicrobial Stewardship Team for Patients with Bacteremia].

In this study, antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) intervention was evaluated by comparing patient outcomes and consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics [carbapenem antibiotics and tazobactam/piperacillin (TAZ/PIPC)] before and after the intervention. There was no fluctuation in the consumption rate of carbapenem, TAZ/PIPC and other antibiotics, but there was a decreased annual consumption of antibiotics after AST intervention compared to before intervention. For the carbapenems, antimicrobial use density (AUD) of meropenem (MEPM) was highest in both periods, at 20.1 and 20.4 before and after AST intervention, respectively, with no significant change after AST intervention. However, the days of therapy (DOT) for MEPM were 27.4 and 24.8 d, respectively, with a decreasing trend after AST intervention. AUD and DOT for TAZ/PIPC after AST intervention were 6.5 and 8.1 d, respectively, which were lower than the pre-intervention values. Rapid identification of the causative strain enables early de-escalation and may improve the economics of antibiotic use, but there was no difference from before to after AST intervention. Compared with before and after strain identification, the carbapenem administration rate after AST intervention was significantly lower than the pre-intervention rate (p<0.01). There was no difference in 28-day mortality and treatment period before and after AST intervention, and there were no differences in outcomes such as resolution of bacteremia, mortality, exacerbation and no change from before to after AST intervention. Based on these results, we suggest that AST intervention can reduce consumption of antibiotics without altering patient outcomes.

Pharmacokinetics of linezolid during continuous hemodiafiltration: A case report.

The pharmacokinetics of linezolid clearance (CLLZD) during continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF) has not been comprehensively analyzed. Here, we examined CLLZD by CHDF in a patient with septic shock and disseminated intravascular coagulation due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The extraction ratio of LZD by CHDF was 22.6%, and the protein-binding rate was 17.9% ± 7.7%. In addition, it was determined that the calculated total body clearance of LZD was 30.2 mL/min, plasma elimination half-life was 8.66 h, and the CLLZD by the dialyzer used for CHDF was 23.0 mL/min. From the obtained pharmacokinetics, the CLLZD of patients continuing CHDF was estimated to be approximately half of the reported CLLZD for healthy subjects. In addition, the LZD concentration of the sepsis patient who underwent CHDF remained higher than the minimum inhibitory concentration and was similar to the LZD concentrations reported in normal renal function patients. Although further studies are warranted, when LZD is administered to patients treated with CHDF, the present findings suggest that dose regulation is not required.