ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of monotherapy versus combination therapy for the treatment of infections caused by S. maltophilia. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study included patients treated with either monotherapy or combination therapy for infections caused by S. maltophilia. Primary outcomes included overall in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and clinical cure. Safety outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used as a control for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 407 patients were included, 330 patients received monotherapy and 77 patients received combination therapy. A total of 21% presented with concomitant bacteremia. After adjusting the differences between the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences between patients who received monotherapy versus combination therapy in clinical cure (55% vs 65%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.31) and overall in-hospital mortality (52% vs 49%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57). However, patients who received monotherapy had a lower rate of 30-day mortality (28% vs 32%; OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.90) and acute kidney injury (9% vs 18%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.78). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes did not significantly differ in patients who received combination therapy versus monotherapy. More data are needed to validate these findings.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) has long been considered the treatment of choice for infections caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Levofloxacin has emerged as a potential option for treating these infections. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients who received TMP-SMX versus levofloxacin for treating S. maltophilia infections. METHODS: A retrospective, cohort study was conducted in 4 tertiary centres and included patients who were treated with either TMP-SMX or levofloxacin for infections caused by S. maltophilia. The main study outcomes were overall in-hospital mortality, 30-d mortality, and clinical cure. Safety outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression was used to control for the effect of the covariables. RESULTS: We included 371 patients in this study, 316 received TMP-SMX and 55 patients received levofloxacin. A total of 70% were in the intensive care unit and 21% presented with bacteraemia. No statistically significant differences were observed in overall in-hospital mortality (52% vs. 40%; P = 0.113; odd ratio [OR], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-2.86), 30-d mortality (28% vs. 25%; P = 0.712; OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.59-2.18), or clinical cure (55% vs. 64%; P = 0.237; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.37-1.31). Rates of acute kidney injury were comparable between the two groups (11% vs. 7%; P = 0.413). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving levofloxacin for the treatment of infections caused by S. maltophilia demonstrated clinical outcomes similar to those receiving TMP-SMX. Our study suggests that levofloxacin can be a reasonable alternative to TMP-SMX to treat these infections.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate pharmacy students' nontechnical skills in a simulated session by assessing their teamwork skills and ability to identify patient safety priorities. METHODS: This study involved 2 phases. Phase I was a simulated case with a total of 23 errors. Students were divided into groups and instructed to identify errors in the setting. Teamwork skills were assessed using the Individual Teamwork Observation and Feedback Tool. Phase II was a debriefing and reflection session. Quantitative data were generated using the number of errors and Individual Teamwork Observation and Feedback Tool domain scores, while qualitative data were obtained using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The study participants were 78 female PharmD students who were divided into 26 groups. The average number of errors identified was 8 (range: 4-13), and the most identified error was using the wrong drug (96%). The teamwork skills displayed by most groups were shared decision-making, participating in discussions, and demonstrating respect and leadership in ways that were sensitive to the needs of the team. The students described the activity as fun and novel as it encouraged them to be more detail oriented. CONCLUSION: The designed simulation setting is an innovative tool to assess students' understanding of patient safety priorities and teamwork skills.
Subject(s)
Education, Pharmacy , Students, Pharmacy , Humans , Education, Pharmacy/methods , Feedback , Leadership , Patient Care Team , Patient SafetyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This research aimed, first, to identify, summarize, and synthesize the studies reporting the development, translation, and/or psychometric evaluation of PROMs in Arabic-speaking populations and, second, to evaluate the psychometric properties and the translation process of a sample 26 PROMs. METHODS: In 2019, PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were searched for studies reporting the development, translation, or cross-cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures in Arabic-speaking populations, and those including the assessment of one or more psychometric properties as PROMs (including validity, reliability, responsiveness, interpretability) in our target populations were included. The review protocol registration number is CRD42018088991. RESULTS: The search strategy outlined above yielded a total of 3179 titles in the three databases. Of these, 174 English language studies met the inclusion criteria. One hundred thirty-six PROMs were identified. The methodological quality and translation process of PROMs reported by at least two studies (26 PROM instruments, 63 studies) were examined. Internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity were the most frequently reported psychometric properties. Structural validity, cross-cultural validity, responsiveness, and measurement error were largely unreported. The process of developing at least two independent forward translations and back translation of the instrument into the source language were reported by 32 and 43 studies, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a need for further investigation of measurement properties of Arabic PROMs measures before routine use can be recommended in clinical practice.
