ABSTRACT
Background. Colistin is an old antibiotic that has been reintroduced as salvage therapy in hospitalised patients because it is frequently the only agent active against Gram-negative bacteria. Various guidelines for colistin administration have led to confusion in establishing the appropriate dose, which has potential for adverse consequences including treatment failure or toxicity. The emergence and spread of colistin resistance has been documented in South Africa (SA), but no local information exists on how and why colistin is used in hospitals, and similarly, compliance with current dosing guidelines is unknown.Objectives. To evaluate the current utilisation of colistin in SA hospitals, in order to identify stewardship opportunities that could enhance the appropriate use of this antibiotic.Methods. Electronic patient records of adult patients on intravenous (IV) colistin therapy for >72 hours in four private hospitals were retrospectively audited over a 10-month period (1 September 2015 - 30 June 2016). The following data were recorded: patient demographics, culture and susceptibility profiles, diagnosis, and indication for use. Compliance with six colistin process measures was audited: obtaining a culture prior to initiation, administration of a loading dose, administration of the correct loading dose, adjustments to maintenance dose according to renal function, whether colistin was administered in combination with another antibiotic, and whether de-escalation following culture and sensitivity results occurred. Outcome measures included effects on renal function, overall hospital mortality, intensive care unit length of stay (LoS), and hospital LoS.Results. Records of 199 patients on IV colistin were reviewed. There was 99.0% compliance with obtaining a culture prior to antibiotic therapy, 93.5% compliance with prescription of a loading dose, and 98.5% compliance regarding prescription of colistin in combination with another agent. However, overall composite compliance with the six colistin stewardship process measures was 82.0%. Non-compliance related to inappropriate loading and maintenance doses, lack of adjustment according to renal function and lack of de-escalation following culture sensitivity was evident. Significantly shorter durations of treatment were noted in patients who received higher loading doses (p=0.040) and in those who received maintenance doses of 4.5 MU twice daily v. 3 MU three times daily (p=0.0027). In addition, compared with patients who survived, more patients who died received the 3 MU three times daily maintenance dose (p=0.0037; phi coefficient 0.26).Conclusions. The study identified multiple stewardship opportunities to optimise colistin therapy in hospitalised patients. Urgent implementation of a stewardship bundle to improve colistin utilisation is warranted
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Colistin/administration & dosage , Gram-Negative Bacteria/therapeutic use , Inpatients , South AfricaABSTRACT
La evaluación de la calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer depende de muchas variables. En los últimos años se han desarrollado una serie de instrumentos (encuestas) que permiten medir la calidad de vida en pacientes oncológicos. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la factibilidad de la calidad de vida en pacientes oncológicos en Otorrinolaringología. Para ello se aplicó en forma transversal el cuestionario de la Calidad de Vida de la Universidad de Washington, UW-QOL (modificado) a 20 pacientes portadores de cáncer laríngeo manejados en el Hospital Sótero del Río. El grupo de pacientes tratados con quimio-radioterapia (n: 4) tiene una mejor evaluación en casi todos los aspectos estudiados, en comparación a los pacientes sometidos a laringectomía (n: 16). La radioterapia, sin embargo, impacta negativamente en el aspecto relacionado con la secreción salival. Según el tipo de laringectomía, existen diferencias importantes en ciertos aspectos, siendo las laringectomías parciales mejor evaluadas en el habla y las laringectomías totales, mejor valoradas respecto a la deglución. Se concluye que la calidad de vida es un factor importante a considerar a la hora de elegir entre diferentes alternativas de tratamientos oncológicamente aceptables, y debiera ser incorporada como parte de la evaluación rutinaria de estos pacientes.