Background: The approved dosing of ertapenem in patients with chronic kidney disease stage 5 utilizing dialysis (CKD-5D) is 0.5 g intravenous daily. Several reports associated this dosing strategy with neurotoxicity. Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify the incidence of neurotoxicity in this population and the risk factors associated with this toxicity. The secondary objective was to review the literature and discuss a safer/cost-effective dosing strategy based on available data. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted screening all patients who received ertapenem and hemodialysis at our quaternary hospital between May 2015 and March 2019. Patients’ demographics, comorbidities, concomitant drugs (known to induce neurotoxicity), and seizure history were collected. Results: A total of 99 eligible patients were identified; 10 of them (10%) developed neurotoxicity. The patients who developed neurotoxicity were all male; mean age was 74 ± 9 years as compared with 68.9 ± 13 years in the sample. Bivariate relationships between all predictors and the seizures (dichotomously coded) were estimated to investigate the risk factors. The following were the significant predictors of seizures: male sex (17%; P = 0.014), dementia (27%; P = 0.012), and concomitant use of β-lactams, aminoglycosides, or fluoroquinolones (19.6%; P = 0.042). Conclusion and Relevance: The currently approved ertapenem dose imposes a risk of developing neurotoxicity in patients with CKD-5D. Utilizing the published data in this population, alternative post-dialysis dosing strategies administered through dialysis access such as 1 g loading dose, followed by either 0.5 g (for the 48 hours interdialytic time) or 1 g (for the 72 hours interdialytic time) might warrant further investigation for efficacy and safety.

Background and objective: Extending a consistent pharmacy antimicrobial stewardship weekend service was a newly implemented initiative. We sought to evaluate the impact of incorporating an Infectious Diseases (ID)-trained clinical pharmacist into an antimicrobial stewardship program (AMS) during weekends. Results: The number of documented interventions was 451 on 362 patients compared to 115 interventions on 108 patients during the pre-implementation period (p = 0.04), with interventions primarily targeting Watch antibiotics, as classified by the WHO AWaRe classification. A reduction in the LOS was observed, with a median of 16 days (8–34) during the post-implementation period compared to 27.5 days (10–56) during the pre-implementation period (p = 0.001). The median DOT increased during the post-implementation period to 8 (6–11), versus the increase to 7 (4–11) during the pre-implementation period (p ≤ 0.001). Finally, there was no significant difference observed in healthcare-associated CDI and infection-related readmission. Methods: This is a retrospective single-center, pre–post quasi-experimental study. Data including the documented pharmacist interventions were collected from the electronic medical record (EMR), the pre-implementation phase was in 2020, and post-implementation was in 2021. The primary outcome was to identify the number of AMS interventions through prospective audit and feedback review analysis. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic days of therapy (DOT), length of hospital stay (LOS), healthcare-associated Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and infection-related readmission. Conclusions: The pharmacist-driven weekend AMS is an opportunity for pharmacists to intervene and optimize patients’ care plans. This initiative demonstrated significant increased AMS-related interventions, promoted judicious antimicrobial use, and contributed to a reduced length of hospital stay. Our findings need to be replicated in a larger prospective study.