Oritavancin vs Standard of Care for Treatment of Nonendovascular Gram-Positive Bloodstream Infections.

Background: Data is limited comparing oritavancin (ORT) to the standard-of-care (SOC) for the treatment gram-positive blood stream infections (BSI). Methods: This was a retrospective study of all patients in the Veteran's Affairs Health Care System treated with at least 1 dose of oritavancin or at least 5 days of vancomycin, daptomycin, ceftaroline, ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin for a documented gram-positive BSI from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2021. Patients with polymicrobial blood cultures or positive cultures from other sites were included if the organisms were sensitive to the incident antimicrobial; no concomitant antimicrobials could be used once the incident agent was started. Individuals were also excluded if they were diagnosed with endocarditis, had a neutrophil count 96-hours of treatment before the incident antimicrobial was started.The primary composite outcome was clinical failure, defined as all-cause mortality within 30-days from the end of therapy, or blood cultures positive for the incident organisms ≥72 hours after administration of the first dose and ≤30 days after the administration of the final dose of the study antimicrobial, or any drug or line-related readmissions within 30-days of hospital discharge. Results: Two hundred-forty patients were identified for screening with 96 meeting criteria (27 in ORT and 69 in SOC groups). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups except more patients in the ORT group received >96-hours of treatment before the incident antimicrobial was started (70.3% (19/27) vs 13.04% 9/69); P < .001). The pathogen most prevalent was methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (ORT 33.3% (9/27) vs SOC 46.4% (32/69)). Clinical failure occurred in 7.4% (2/27) in the ORT group and 17.4% (12/69) in SOC (P = .34). No components of the primary outcome were significantly different between groups, but AKI did occur more commonly in the SOC group (27.5% (19/69) vs 3.7% (1/27); P = .01). Conclusions: ORT appears to be a safe and effective option when directly compared to the SOC for non-endocarditis BSIs.

Informatics Tools in Deprescribing and Medication Optimization in Older Adults: Development and Dissemination of VIONE Methodology in a High Reliability Organization.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is common in older adults, with almost 20% of older adults taking ≥10 medications. They are at great risk for adverse events related to potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Although evidence-based methods for deprescribing have been successful at reducing polypharmacy and improving quality of medication use, there are several challenges to implementing these methods on a large scale. VIONE, a medication deprescribing methodology, was developed to reduce polypharmacy and PIMs across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). (VIONE stands for Vital, Important, Optional, Not indicated, and Every medication has an indication.) This study describes the tools created for implementation of VIONE and the dashboards used to track VIONE implementation and subsequent deprescribing across the VHA; their use and sustainment are examined in a health system-wide adoption of this deprescribing practice in a high reliability organization (HRO). METHODS: VIONE was disseminated by the VHA via the Diffusion of Excellence Initiative. Dissemination included an implementation toolkit and four dashboards that collect and display data from the electronic medical record to monitor utilization of VIONE, track medication discontinuations, and prospectively identify veterans who may be candidates for deprescribing. FINDINGS: Between 2016 and the present, VIONE has been adopted at >130 medical centers and influenced almost 700,000 unique patients. In addition, a total of >1.6 million medication orders have been discontinued by >15,000 providers. IMPLICATIONS: The VIONE methodology and informatics tools were widely disseminated and successfully adopted and sustained nationally in a high reliability organization, leading to a reduction in PIM use by older adults and improved quality and patient safety. Future efforts should continue to consider ways to leverage electronic medical record data and other relevant informatics tools to provide customized clinical decision support to further medication optimization and deprescribing efforts.

Maintaining Implementation through Dynamic Adaptations (MIDAS): protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of implementation strategies to optimize and sustain use of evidence-based practices in Veteran Health Administration (VHA) patients.

BACKGROUND: The adoption and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is a challenge within many healthcare systems, especially in settings that have already strived but failed to achieve longer-term goals. The Veterans Affairs (VA) Maintaining Implementation through Dynamic Adaptations (MIDAS) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) program was funded as a series of trials to test multi-component implementation strategies to sustain optimal use of three EBPs: (1) a deprescribing approach intended to reduce potentially inappropriate polypharmacy; (2) appropriate dosing and drug selection of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); and (3) use of cognitive behavioral therapy as first-line treatment for insomnia before pharmacologic treatment. We describe the design and methods for a harmonized series of cluster-randomized control trials comparing two implementation strategies. METHODS: For each trial, we will recruit 8-12 clinics (24-36 total). All will have access to relevant clinical data to identify patients who may benefit from the target EBP at that clinic and provider. For each trial, clinics will be randomized to one of two implementation strategies to improve the use of the EBPs: (1) individual-level academic detailing (AD) or (2) AD plus the team-based Learn. Engage. Act. PROCESS: (LEAP) quality improvement (QI) learning program. The primary outcomes will be operationalized across the three trials as a patient-level dichotomous response (yes/no) indicating patients with potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among those who may benefit from the EBP. This outcome will be computed using month-by-month administrative data. Primary comparison between the two implementation strategies will be analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with clinic-level monthly (13 to 36 months) percent of PIMs as the dependent variable. Primary comparative endpoint will be at 18 months post-baseline. Each trial will also be analyzed independently. DISCUSSION: MIDAS QUERI trials will focus on fostering sustained use of EBPs that previously had targeted but incomplete implementation. Our implementation approaches are designed to engage frontline clinicians in a dynamic optimization process that integrates the use of actional clinical data and making incremental changes, designed to be feasible within busy clinical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05065502 . Registered October 4, 2021-retrospectively registered.