Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 11 de 11
Filtrar
1.
Transpl Infect Dis ; 24(5): e13924, 2022 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36254516

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Current methods for benchmarking inpatient antimicrobial use (AU) could benefit from combining AU with antimicrobial resistance (AR) information to provide metrics benchmarked to microbiological data; this may yield more instructive and better risk-adjusted measurements than AU and AR in isolation. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, we computed facility-wide AU/AR ratios from 2019 to 2020 for specific antimicrobial agents and corresponding AR events, and compared median monthly AU/AR ratios between March 2019 through December 2019 (pre-COVID period) and March 2020 through December 2020 (COVID period). Aggregate AU was expressed as a ratio to aggregate AR events for antimicrobials that typically have activity against the AR organism and are frequently used to treat the AR organism in clinical practice. We also computed AU/AR ratios in our surgical intensive care unit in the pre-COVID period. RESULTS: High-median facility-wide monthly AU/AR ratios were observed for intravenous vancomycin/methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, with 130.0 in the pre-COVID period and 121.3 in the COVID period (p =.520). Decreases in facility-wide median monthly AU/AR ratios were observed between periods for meropenem/ESBL Enterobacterales (20.9 vs. 7.9, p < .001), linezolid/vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (48.5 vs. 15.8, p =.004), and daptomycin/vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (32.2 vs. 4.8, p = .002). Increases in facility-wide median monthly AU/AR ratios were observed between periods for ceftazidime-avibactam/carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (0.0 vs. 3.2, p = .020) and ceftazidime-avibactam/multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (0.0 vs. 4.0, p = .017). The AU/AR ratio for intravenous vancomycin/methicillin-resistant S. aureus in the surgical intensive care unit was 191.5 in the pre-COVID period. CONCLUSIONS: AU/AR ratios may be used to supplement current AU and AR metrics. Future directions should include the development of more AU metrics benchmarked to microbiological information. AU metrics more specific to transplant infectious diseases should be developed.


Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Daptomicina , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Benchmarking , Carbapenêmicos , Atenção à Saúde , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana Múltipla , Humanos , Pacientes Internados , Linezolida , Meropeném , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana , Estudos Retrospectivos , Vancomicina
2.
J Pharm Pract ; 33(2): 222-225, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29911459

RESUMO

Adverse effects of linezolid are typically limited to diarrhea, nausea, and headache when shorter durations are used; however, as extended durations of linezolid therapy are increasingly more common, additional monitoring parameters should be considered in these patients. We describe a unique case of hypoglycemia, lactic acidosis, and pancreatitis related to an extended duration of linezolid therapy. A 52-year-old woman presented with altered mental status, abdominal pain, and hypotension following six weeks of linezolid and ertapenem therapy. Laboratory data revealed an initial blood glucose of 40 mg/dL and metabolic acidosis secondary to lactic acidosis. Finally, her abdominal pain on admission was likely related to an enlarged pancreas noted on computed tomography of her abdomen. Due to suspected linezolid toxicity, the patient received two intermittent hemodialysis sessions to remove linezolid and correct the metabolic acidosis. Given limited data on long-term monitoring of patients receiving extended durations of linezolid therapy, we suggest periodic monitoring of lactate, arterial blood gas, and blood glucose. If patients present with this triad of symptoms secondary to linezolid therapy, adverse effects should be treated with dextrose and intravenous thiamine while reserving hemodialysis for those with metabolic acidosis refractory to thiamine.


Assuntos
Acidose Láctica/induzido quimicamente , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Hipoglicemia/induzido quimicamente , Infecções/tratamento farmacológico , Linezolida/efeitos adversos , Pancreatite/induzido quimicamente , Administração Intravenosa , Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Feminino , Glucose/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Linezolida/administração & dosagem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Diálise Renal , Tiamina/uso terapêutico
3.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 71(10): 2938-44, 2016 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27407049

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although echinocandins are generally well tolerated, there is little information on the frequency with which renal and hepatic adverse effects occur during use of micafungin or other parenteral antifungal (PAF) agents in clinical practice. METHODS: MYCOS is a multicentre cohort study of adult and paediatric patients who received micafungin or other PAFs between 2005 and 2012 at seven tertiary care hospitals from six centres in the USA. PAF cohort controls were selected through propensity score (PS) matching to micafungin recipients using clinical characteristics, other treatments, procedures and hospital service where PAF treatment was initiated. Analysis was restricted to patients without chronic liver and kidney conditions at the time of cohort entry. Treatment-emergent hepatic and renal injury was documented by changes in liver enzymes or estimated glomerular filtration rate through 30 days following completion of PAF treatment. Comparisons were quantified using the HR from a proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: There were 2970 micafungin recipients PS matched to 6726 recipients of comparator PAFs. Balance was achieved in all baseline covariates between treatment groups. There were similar rates of hepatic injury (micafungin, 13 events per 100 patients and other PAF, 12 per 100; HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.14) and lower rates of renal injury (micafungin, 63 events per 100 patients and other PAF, 65 per 100; HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99) for micafungin recipients versus PAF comparators. CONCLUSION: For a wide spectrum of underlying conditions, we observed no increase in liver injury by micafungin and possibly a reduced risk of renal dysfunction in comparison with other PAF medications.


Assuntos
Injúria Renal Aguda/induzido quimicamente , Antifúngicos/efeitos adversos , Doença Hepática Induzida por Substâncias e Drogas/etiologia , Equinocandinas/efeitos adversos , Lipopeptídeos/efeitos adversos , Micoses/complicações , Micoses/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Antifúngicos/administração & dosagem , Estudos de Coortes , Equinocandinas/administração & dosagem , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Infusões Parenterais , Lipopeptídeos/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Micafungina , Micoses/epidemiologia , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Fatores de Risco , Centros de Atenção Terciária , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
4.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 4(4): 740-6, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27130709

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Ceftaroline fosamil is a cephalosporin approved for treating skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), including those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study ceftaroline use and associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), among inpatients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective electronic health record review of inpatients from Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital who received ceftaroline between May 2012 and February 2015. ADRs diagnosed by clinical providers during the course of clinical care were subsequently verified and classified. Risk factors for ADRs were identified. RESULTS: Among 96 patients (median age, 57 years; 54% females) who received a median of 28 (interquartile range, 6-63) ceftaroline doses, 54% were being treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and treatment indications other than SSTI and CAP comprised 59% of care. There were 31 ADRs observed in 20 (21%) patients; hematologic (n = 15) and cutaneous (n = 9) findings were most common. Observed HSRs included rash with mucosal lesions (n = 1), rash with skin desquamation (n = 1), and possible organ-specific HSRs (n = 2). Patients who suffered an ADR received more doses of ceftaroline (median, 46 vs 21; P = .013). There was no increased risk of ceftaroline ADR among patients with reported beta-lactam allergy history (P > .5). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline is used to treat a range of infections beyond SSTI and CAP. We observed a high rate of ADRs from ceftaroline, including signs of severe HSRs. More data are needed to understand the frequency and predictors of ceftaroline ADRs and HSRs.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Cefalosporinas/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ceftarolina
5.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 71(7): 2010-3, 2016 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27076105

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the rate of incident neutropenia and identify potential clinical factors associated with incident neutropenia among patients treated with long courses of ceftaroline. METHODS: We retrospectively identified adult patients who received ceftaroline for ≥7 days consecutively at two large academic medical centres in Boston, USA between November 2010 and March 2015. Clinical characteristics (age, gender, medication allergies, baseline renal function, duration of ceftaroline exposure, total daily ceftaroline dose, body mass-adjusted ceftaroline dose and development of rash and neutropenia) were recorded and the rate of incident neutropenia was calculated. The Naranjo probability scale was used to assess whether ceftaroline exposure was associated with neutropenia. We assessed whether clinical factors were associated with neutropenia. RESULTS: The overall rate of incident neutropenia was 10%-14% with ≥2 weeks and 21% with ≥3 weeks of ceftaroline exposure. The median duration of ceftaroline exposure [26 days (IQR 22-44; range 13-68) in patients who developed neutropenia and 15 days (IQR 9-29; range 7-64) in patients without neutropenia] was associated with incident neutropenia (P = 0.048). The median total number of ceftaroline doses received [63 (IQR 44-126; range 36-198) by neutropenic patients and 32 (IQR 22-63; range 14-180) by non-neutropenic patients] was also associated with incident neutropenia (P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of neutropenia was high and associated with duration of ceftaroline exposure and total number of doses received. Close laboratory monitoring is warranted with long-term ceftaroline use.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Cefalosporinas/efeitos adversos , Cefalosporinas/uso terapêutico , Neutropenia/induzido quimicamente , Neutropenia/epidemiologia , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Boston/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Adulto Jovem , Ceftarolina
7.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 115(4): 294-300.e2, 2015 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26070805

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Self-reported penicillin allergy infrequently reflects an inability to tolerate penicillins. Inpatients reporting penicillin allergy receive alternative antibiotics that might be broader spectrum, more toxic, or less effective. OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess a clinical guideline for the general inpatient provider that directs taking a history and prescribing antibiotics for patients with penicillin or cephalosporin allergy. METHODS: A guideline was implemented to assist providers with assessing allergy history and prescribing antibiotics for patients with reported penicillin or cephalosporin allergy. The guideline used a standard 2-step graded challenge or test dose. A quasi-experimental study was performed to assess safety, feasibility, and impact on antibiotic use by comparing treatment 21 months before guideline implementation with 12 months after guideline implementation. RESULTS: Significantly more test doses to ß-lactam antibiotics were performed monthly after vs before guideline implementation (median 14.5, interquartile range 13-16.25, vs 2, interquartile range 1-3.25, P < .001). Seven adverse drug reactions occurred during guideline-driven test doses, with no significant difference in rate (3.9% vs 6.1%, P = .44) or severity (P > .5) between periods. Guideline-driven test doses decreased alternative antimicrobial therapy after the test dose, including vancomycin (68.3% vs 37.2%, P < .001), aztreonam (11.5% vs 0.5%, P < .001), aminoglycosides (6.0% vs 1.1%, P = .004), and fluoro quinolones (15.3% vs 3.3%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The implementation of an inpatient antibiotic prescribing guideline for patients with penicillin or cephalosporin allergy was associated with an almost 7-fold increase in the number of test doses to ß-lactams without increased adverse drug reactions. Patients assessed with guideline-driven test doses were observed to have significantly decreased alternative antibiotic exposure.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Cefalosporinas/efeitos adversos , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/epidemiologia , Prescrições de Medicamentos/normas , Penicilinas/efeitos adversos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Cefalosporinas/administração & dosagem , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/etiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Pacientes Internados , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Penicilinas/administração & dosagem , Padrões de Prática Médica , Autorrelato , Testes Cutâneos
8.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 2(1): ofv027, 2015 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26034776

RESUMO

Validated skin testing is lacking for many drugs, including ceftaroline. The cross-reactivity between ceftaroline and other ß-lactam antibiotics is unknown. We report a case of a pregnant patient with cystic fibrosis and multiple drug allergies who required ceftaroline for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia and underwent an uncomplicated empiric desensitization procedure.

9.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 2(4): 407-13, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25017528

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Inpatient providers have varying levels of knowledge in managing patients with drug and/or penicillin (PCN) allergy. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were (1) to survey inpatient providers to ascertain their baseline drug allergy knowledge and preparedness in caring for patients with PCN allergy, and (2) to assess the impact of an educational program paired with the implementation of a hospital-based clinical guideline. METHODS: We electronically surveyed 521 inpatient providers at a tertiary care medical center at baseline and again 6 weeks after an educational initiative paired with clinical guideline implementation. The guideline informed providers on drug allergy history taking and antibiotic prescribing for inpatients with PCN or cephalosporin allergy. RESULTS: Of 323 unique responders, 42% (95% CI, 37-48%) reported no prior education in drug allergy. When considering those who responded to both surveys (n = 213), we observed a significant increase in knowledge about PCN skin testing (35% vs 54%; P < .001) and loss of PCN allergy over time (54% vs 80%; P < .0001). Among those who reported attending an educational session (n = 62), preparedness to determine if an allergy was severe significantly improved (77% vs 92%; P = .03). Other areas, including understanding absolute contraindications to receiving a drug again and PCN cross-reactivity with other antimicrobials, did not improve significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient providers have drug allergy knowledge deficits but are interested in tools to help them care for inpatients with drug allergies. Our educational initiative and hospital guideline implementation were associated with increased PCN allergy knowledge in several crucial areas. To improve care of inpatients with drug allergy, more research is needed to evaluate hospital policies and sustainable educational tools.


Assuntos
Alergia e Imunologia/educação , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/tratamento farmacológico , Prescrições de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Educação/métodos , Alergia e Imunologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Reações Cruzadas , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/epidemiologia , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/imunologia , Seguimentos , Humanos , Pacientes Internados , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Prática Profissional , Testes Cutâneos
10.
J Pharm Pract ; 26(5): 476-82, 2013 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24064436

RESUMO

Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) describes any unexplained diarrhea associated with the use of an antibiotic. AAD also includes infection caused by Clostridium difficile, however this organism only accounts for a small percentage of diarrhea caused by antibiotics. AAD can be caused by multiple other organisms including C perfringens, S aureus, and Candida. Some antibiotics are more likely to cause non-C difficile AAD, such as erythromycin and the penicillin class. AAD develops through the loss of normal flora and reduced colonic bacterial carbohydrate metabolism during antibiotic administration. There is an increasing interest in the use of probiotics for the prevention of AAD. There are several meta-analyses that report a relative risk reduction of AAD with the use of probiotics during antibiotic administration. Interpretation of these studies has been challenging due to the heterogeneity and size of the patient populations, unclear probiotic regimen, and unclear safety profile. Since AAD can be a reason for a patient to become non-compliant or receive incomplete treatment, clinicians should monitor for this potential adverse effect caused by antibiotics.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Diarreia/prevenção & controle , Probióticos/uso terapêutico , Animais , Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Metabolismo dos Carboidratos/efeitos dos fármacos , Clostridioides difficile/isolamento & purificação , Colo/metabolismo , Colo/microbiologia , Diarreia/induzido quimicamente , Diarreia/microbiologia , Monitoramento de Medicamentos/métodos , Humanos , Adesão à Medicação , Probióticos/administração & dosagem , Probióticos/efeitos adversos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...