A Baker's Dozen of Top Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention Publications in Non-Hospital Care Settings in 2021.

The scope of antimicrobial stewardship programs has expanded beyond the acute hospital setting. The need to optimize antimicrobial use in emergency departments, urgent, primary, and specialty care clinics, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities prompted the development of core elements of stewardship programs in these settings. Identifying the most innovative and well-designed stewardship literature in these novel stewardship areas can be challenging. The Southeastern Research Group Endeavor (SERGE-45) network evaluated antimicrobial stewardship-related, peer-reviewed literature published in 2021 that detailed actionable interventions specific to the nonhospital setting. The top 13 publications were summarized following identification using a modified Delphi technique. This article highlights the selected interventions and may serve as a key resource for expansion of antimicrobial stewardship programs beyond the acute hospital setting.

COVID-19 therapy: What works? What doesn't? And what's on the horizon?

Here is the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatments that are FDA approved or authorized, in clinical trials, or not recommended to combat COVID-19.

Adjusting vasopressin availability and formulation: A cost-savings initiative.

PURPOSE: The increase in vasopressin price has required many healthcare systems to consider cost-saving strategies. To combat rising medication costs, our institution changed formulations from 50 units/250 mL to 20 units/100 mL and removed vasopressin from automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs). METHODS: This retrospective review occurred at a 545-bed academic medical center with 97 adult intensive care unit beds. Adult patients receiving a continuous vasopressin infusion were included with no exclusion criteria. A 1-month period was assessed before and after changing the formulation (pre and post groups, respectively). Duplicate bags compounded by pharmacy and bedside teams were also assessed in the pre group. The primary outcome was the estimated annual cost savings due to formulation change with a secondary outcome of estimated annual cost savings due to removal of vasopressin from ADCs. Each 20-unit vial of vasopressin cost $183.21 (wholesale acquisition cost) at the time of the study. RESULTS: In the pre group, 39 patients requiring a vasopressin infusion were allocated an average of 2 bags each costing $1,099.26 per patient. In the post group, 41 patients required an average of 4 bags each costing $732.84 per patient. With respect to the primary outcome, a savings of $366.42 per patient and an average of 40 patients per month would lead to an annual cost savings of $175,881.60. Secondary outcome analysis identified 9 duplicate bags prepared in the pre group; therefore, removal of vasopressin from ADCs is estimated to provide additional cost savings of $59,360.04. The estimated annual cost savings from both initiatives is $235,241.64. CONCLUSION: Changing the vasopressin formulation and removing it from ADCs resulted in a significant cost savings to the health system.