BACKGROUND: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is frequently prescribed at hospital discharge, often without infectious diseases (ID) clinician oversight. We developed a multidisciplinary team, including an ID pharmacist, to review OPAT care plans at hospital discharge to improve safety, clinical efficacy, practicality, and appropriateness of the proposed antimicrobial regimen. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the OPAT team on regimen safety, efficacy, and complexity; calculate the economic benefits of the service by avoiding hospital discharge delay, central venous catheter placement, or need for OPAT; and evaluate the discharge environment among OPAT referrals. METHODS: In an observational design, we analyzed the impact of an OPAT team from July 2009 through June 2010 at a large academic tertiary care hospital. All patients with plans for continued parenteral therapy after discharge referred to the OPAT team were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if OPAT was cancelled prior to processing of the referral. RESULTS: During the 1-year study period, 569 of 644 consecutive referrals to the OPAT team met inclusion criteria, resulting in 494 OPAT courses. Interventions by an ID pharmacist were made for safety (56%), regimen complexity (41%), and efficacy (29%). Lack of formal ID physician consultation resulted in more interventions for safety (64% vs 48%, p < 0.001) and efficacy (36% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Discharge delays were avoided for 35 referrals, resulting in 228 hospital days avoided and approximately $366,000 in hospital bed cost savings. Use of OPAT was avoided in 75 referrals (13.2%), preventing central venous catheter placement in 48 patients (8.4%), resulting in an additional $58,080 in cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The OPAT team optimized safety, efficacy, and convenience of OPAT while providing substantial cost savings. Further studies are needed to confirm the program's cost-effectiveness.

Antibiotics are commonly prescribed to treat a variety of bacterial infections. As with all medications, hypersensitivity reactions may occur and clinicians should be able to recognize them accurately and recommend appropriate management. Antibiotic related hypersensitivity reactions may be one of four different types: Type I reactions, which are IgE mediated and may lead to anaphylaxis; Type II reactions that are antibody-mediated and may result in thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, or hemolytic anemia; Type III reaction that involves an immune complex formation such as vasculitis; and Type IV reactions that consist of four subtypes and typically include a rash of varying level of severity with or without systemic signs and symptoms. Herein, we describe the mechanisms of different types of allergic reactions to commonly prescribed antibiotics and offer recommendations for management. Further, we briefly refer to antibiotic reactions that mimic hypersensitivity reactions but are not immune mediated, such as pseudoallergies and serum sickness-like reactions.

Purpose Published evidence regarding the influence of cirrhosis on the clinical pharmacokinetics of antibacterial agents is reviewed; dosing recommendations and a decision algorithm are provided. Summary A systematic PubMed search (1960–2013) was conducted to identify literature pertaining to the use of antibacterials with hepatobiliary clearance in adult patients with cirrhosis. Clinical drug databases, conference abstracts, and package inserts were also reviewed for pertinent information. Twenty-two antibiotics that undergo hepatic or mixed renal–hepatobiliary clearance were identified. Overall, published pharmacokinetic data to guide antibiotic dosing in adults with cirrhosis are sparse, and many relevant studies were conducted before wide adoption of the Child–Pugh method for classifying the severity of cirrhosis. Dose adjustments should be considered in the setting of decompensated liver disease, particularly with antibiotics that undergo phase I metabolism, have high protein binding, or are associated with a high frequency of hepatotoxicity or other concentration-dependent toxicities. Individualization of dosing regimens should take into account a number of variables: the intent of therapy (treatment versus prophylaxis); the duration of therapy; the site and severity of infection; the degree of organ dysfunction, as indicated by Child–Pugh class; the patient’s immune status, weight, and fluid status; and the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the antibacterial agents under consideration. Conclusion Cirrhosis has multiple effects on the disposition of a wide range of antibacterial agents. Appropriate antibiotic therapy selection and individualized dosing can contribute to optimal clinical outcomes while decreasing the risk of hepatotoxicity.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are a common cause of nosocomial urinary tract infections (UTIs) among hospitalized patients. Clinicians need to differentiate between VRE-associated urinary colonization, asymptomatic bacteriuria, and UTIs to determine the need for treatment and length of therapy. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the diagnosis and management of VRE from urinary sources, including compliance with institutional treatment guidelines, and identify risk factors associated with clinical failure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study among patients with VRE-positive cultures from urinary sources over a 3-year study period (July 2008-September 2011). Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate demographics, diagnostics, guideline compliance, pharmacotherapy, and outcomes. Risk factors associated with clinical failure were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-nine distinct episodes of VRE met inclusion criteria among 252 patients. Forty-seven percent and 77% of episodes occurred in patients admitted to an intensive care unit and hospitalized for 7 or more days, respectively. Fifty-eight percent of the episodes were classified as asymptomatic bacteriuria or colonization. Compliance with institutional treatment guidelines for the appropriate drug, dose, and duration occurred in approximately 70% of the cases. Among noncompliant cases (n = 83), 48 (58%) were overtreated, and 35 (42%) were undertreated. Clinical failure among all cases was common, including mortality (17.1%). Factors independently associated with clinical failure determined on multivariate analysis included weight 100 kg or more (OR 5.30; 95% CI 1.42–12.21; p = 0.014), renal disease (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.02–6.47; p = 0.048), indwelling catheter (OR 4.62; 95% CI 1.05–18.24; p = 0.046), and VRE bloodstream infection (OR 15.71; 95% CI 2.9–128.7; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Improved education is needed to minimize cases of overtreatment and undertreatment of VRE-associated UTIs and decrease inappropriate drug-related costs and clinical failure rates. Risk factors for clinical failure can be used to risk stratify VRE-associated UTIs and further guide treatment decisions.

The Accreditation Council of Pharmacy Education (ACPE) has taken a strong stance on assessment in pharmacy education. One available assessment tool is cumulative assessments, which may be administered at various points in the curriculum. This article presents the results of a survey of U.S. schools of pharmacy regarding the use of cumulative assessments within their curriculum. A 20-question survey tool was emailed to 125 schools of pharmacy. A total of 105 out of 125 schools participated (response rate 84%). Of these, 52 schools currently have a cumulative assessment program; 18 have one cumulative exam prior to advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs); 19 have a cumulative exam every didactic year; and seven have accumulative exams every semester, except during APPEs (n = 44). Increased faculty workload emerged as the top challenge faced by schools that have implemented a cumulative assessment program. Eighteen schools indicated that no outcomes are measured to determine the utility of the cumulative assessment. From these results, it appears that almost half of participating U.S. schools have implemented a cumulative assessment plan. However, it is apparent that more research needs to be done to determine which outcomes are expected to improve with the implementation of such an assessment plan.