Utilization of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: The combination antiretroviral bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) is a single-tablet, once-daily regimen used in individuals living with HIV; however, its use in the context of renal impairment is uncertain. We report 6 patient cases of BIC/FTC/TAF utilization in individuals with HIV with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring long-term hemodialysis (HD). SUMMARY: These case reports describe the utilization of BIC/FTC/TAF in individuals with HIV who require chronic HD, the laboratory parameters measured, and patient-reported quality of life and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Utilization of BIC/FTC/TAF appears to be an option for individuals with HIV who have ESRD and require long-term HD. This regimen allows for once-daily dosing, elimination of potential serious drug interactions, and simplified patient ART regimens in our patient subset.

Comparison of vancomycin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) using two-point pharmacokinetics versus two open-access online single-concentration vancomycin calculators.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Current vancomycin monitoring guidelines recommend the use of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC24 ) monitoring in patients with serious Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections by utilizing either a Bayesian approach or first-order analytic equations. Several open-access websites exist that allow estimation of vancomycin AUC24 with the use of a single steady-state concentration. It is uncertain how these open-access calculators perform against guideline-recommended methods. The objective was to compare AUC24 estimates from two online, open-access, single-concentration vancomycin calculators compared with the two-point pharmacokinetic (2PK) method. METHODS: AUC24 estimates were made using the 2PK reference method and the single-concentration vancomycin calculators, ClinCalc and VancoPK. The AUC24 estimates from the 2PK reference method were compared to the online calculators by assessing bias (median AUC24 difference) and precision (AUC24 difference ± 100 mg*h/L). Clinical precision was also assessed by characterizing the frequency that the 2PK reference method and the online calculators showed clinical disagreement based on the following AUC24 categories: (1) AUC24 < 400 mg*h/L; (2) AUC24 400-600 mg*h/L and (3) AUC24 > 600 mg*h/L. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 253 patients were included in the study. The AUC24 estimates from the ClinCalc and VancoPK single-concentration vancomycin calculators showed some bias and imprecision, though VancoPK appeared to have less. Clinical disagreement versus the 2PK reference method occurred in 31.2% and 19.4% of AUC24 estimates from the ClinCalc and VancoPK single-concentration vancomycin calculators, suggesting clinical imprecision. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The AUC24 estimates from single-concentration, online vancomycin calculators showed some bias and imprecision in comparison to the 2PK method. Institutions should validate these online, trough-only calculators relative to a 2PK method in their patient populations prior to adoption as standard-of-care.

Student attitudes regarding timing of immunization training within the pharmacy curriculum: Optimizing immunization training in pharmacy schools in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The pharmacist's role in vaccination efforts continues to increase; therefore, it is essential to ensure that pharmacy students receive effective training to be confident and competent administering immunizations. The purpose of this research was to assess the impact of immunization training timing on students' hands-on experience and perception during pharmacy school. METHODS: One hundred forty-five pharmacy schools were surveyed to determine details of their immunization training programs. A follow-up survey was sent to select schools to determine student comfort immunizing during introductory pharmacy practice experiences (IPPEs) and paid employment in pharmacy settings. Quantitative data regarding the number of immunizations delivered during IPPEs and work was collected. Questions also assessed attitudes regarding timing of immunization training and missed opportunities to immunize. RESULTS: Results indicated students trained during their third professional year (PY3) were less comfortable giving immunizations during their IPPEs or work than those trained during the first professional year (PY1) or second professional year (PY2) (IPPE P < .01; work P < .01 PY1; P = .01 PY2). PY3s were more likely to prefer training earlier in the curriculum. PY2s and PY3s were more likely to believe the timing of their immunization training caused missed opportunities to deliver immunizations. The earlier the immunization training occurred in the curriculum, the more vaccinations the student administered. CONCLUSIONS: Providing immunization training programs to pharmacy students earlier in their curriculum provides students with superior experience and instills confidence.