ABSTRACT
Purpose: The implementation of an automated, pharmacist-driven, scoring system within the EMR has been shown to improve patient care in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia by increasing the adherence to disease specific quality-of-care measures. However, there are a lack of studies evaluating the incorporation of blood culture review into standard, non-antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist workflow. Our institution implemented an automated, pharmacist-driven, antimicrobial scoring system in the electronic medical record (EMR) on August 6, 2019. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, quasi-experimental study of hospitalized, non-critically ill adult (18-89 years of age) patients with bacteremia between July 6, 2018 and July 5, 2019 (pre-implementation group) and September 6, 2019 and September 5, 2020 (post-implementation group). The primary outcome was time to directed antibiotic therapy in patients with positive blood cultures. Secondary outcomes included hospital length-of-stay, days of therapy (DOT) while inpatient, time to effective therapy, 30-day all-cause mortality, and rates of Clostridioides difficile infections documented within 3 months of positive culture results. Results: Implementation of the antimicrobial scoring system did not result in a significant change in time to directed antibiotic therapy (32.5 hours vs 37.4 hours; P = .757). There was also no difference found for time to effective antibiotic therapy (-12.6 hours vs -14.2 hours; P =.905) and no difference found for all other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The implementation of the antimicrobial scoring system did not lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better define a patient population that may benefit from this system.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.
