RESUMO
Vancomycin continuous infusion (CI) has suggested benefits over intermittent infusion: reduced nephrotoxicity, higher target attainment, and simpler therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Empiric dosing regimens range from 30-60 mg/kg/day and it is unclear which regimen results in optimal exposure. This study evaluates whether a dosing regimen of 45 mg/kg/day after a 20 mg/kg loading dose for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 50 mL/min results in adequate exposure. We retrospectively analyzed plasma concentrations from patients treated with vancomycin CI as routine clinical care between February and October 2021. Patients under 18 years old, with renal replacement therapy, reduced creatinine clearance (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration < 50 mL min/1.73 m2 ) or outpatient antibiotic therapy were excluded. Dose, renal function, and blood draw procedures were assessed for each measured vancomycin sample. Initially, 121 samples were included. Subsequently, 7 samples, 6 of which with concentrations ≥ 40 mg/L, were verified to be incorrectly drawn and excluded. With doses of 40-50 mg/kg/day concentrations ranged from 18.4-61.0 mg/L. Only 25% were within the target window of 17-25 mg/L and 15% were ≥ 40 mg/L. Supratherapeutic concentrations were observed in 89% of samples from patients dosed 40-60 mg/kg/day with eGFR 50-80 mL/min. Concluding, an empiric dosing regimen of 45 mg/kg results in too high vancomycin exposure and thus we recommend lower doses and differentiation according to renal function. Additionally, when measuring concentrations over 40 mg/L incorrect sampling must be excluded before dose adjustment and the large variability in exposure between patients, warrants the need for swift TDM.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Unintentional changes to patients' medicine regimens and drug non-adherence are discovered by medication reconciliation. High numbers of outpatient visits and medication reconciliation being time-consuming, make it challenging to perform medication reconciliation for all outpatients. Therefore, we aimed to get insight into the proportion of outpatient visits in which information obtained with medication reconciliation led to additional drug-related actions. METHODS: In October and November 2018, we performed a cross-sectional observational study at the rheumatology outpatient clinic. Based on a standardized data collection form, outpatient visits were observed by a pharmacy technician trained to observe and report all drug-related actions made by the rheumatologist. Afterwards, the nine observed rheumatologists and an expert panel, consisting of two rheumatologists and two pharmacists, were individually asked which drug information reported on the drug list composed by medication reconciliation was required to perform the drug-related actions. The four members of the expert panel discussed until consensus was reached about their assessment of the required information. Subsequently, a researcher determined if the required information was available in digital sources: electronic medical record (electronic prescribing system plus physician's medical notes) or Dutch Nationwide Medication Record System. RESULTS: Of the 114 selected patients, 83 (73%) patients were included. If both digital drug sources were available, patient's input during medication reconciliation resulted in additional information to perform drug-related actions according to the rheumatologist in 0% of the visits and according to the expert panel in 14%. If there was only access to the electronic medical record, the proportions were 8 and 29%, respectively. Patient's input was especially required for starting a new drug and discussing drug-related problems. CONCLUSIONS: If rheumatologists only had access to the electronic medical record, in 1 out of 3 visits the patient provided additional information during medication reconciliation which was required to perform a drug-related action. When rheumatologists had access to two digital sources, patient's additional input during medication reconciliation was at most 14%. As the added value of patient's input was highest when rheumatologists prescribe a new drug and/or discuss a drug-related problem, it may be considered that rheumatologists only perform medication reconciliation during the visit when performing one of these actions.
