Real-life temocillin use in Greater Paris area, effectiveness and risk factors for failure in infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales: a multicentre retrospective study.

Background: Temocillin is a ß-lactam that is not hydrolysed by ESBLs. Objectives: To describe the real-life use of temocillin, to assess its effectiveness in infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, and to identify risk factors for treatment failure. Methods: Retrospective multicentric study in eight tertiary care hospitals in the Greater Paris area, including patients who received at least one dose of temocillin for ESBL infections from 1 January to 31 December 2018. Failure was a composite criterion defined within 28 day follow-up by persistence or reappearance of signs of infection, and/or switch to suppressive antibiotic treatment and/or death from infection. A logistic regression with univariable and multivariable analysis was performed to identify risks associated with failure. Results: Data on 130 infection episodes were collected; 113 were due to ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. Mean age was 65.2 ±â€Š15.7 years and 68.1% patients were male. Indications were mostly urinary tract infections (UTIs) (85.8%), bloodstream infections (11.5%), respiratory tract infections (RTIs) (3.5%) and intra-abdominal infections (3.5%). Bacteria involved were Escherichia coli (49.6%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (44.2%) and Enterobacter cloacae (8.8%). Polymicrobial infections occurred in 23.0% of cases. Temocillin was mostly used in monotherapy (102/113, 90.3%). Failure was found in 13.3% of cases. Risk factors for failure in multivariable analysis were: RTI (aOR 23.3, 95% CI 1.5-358.2) and neurological disease (aOR 5.3, 95% CI 1.5-18.6). Conclusions: The main use of temocillin was UTI due to ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae, with a favourable clinical outcome. The main risk factor for failure was neurological disease.

The impact of interventions by pharmacists collected in a computerised physician order entry context: a prospective observational study with a 10-year reassessment.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study assesses clinical interventions by pharmacists prospectively collected from medical and surgical wards, notably the acceptance of interventions, computerised physician order entry (CPOE)related problems, the potential impact of interventions on patient safety evaluated by a multidisciplinary committee, and their evolution over the 10 years since a first assessment. METHODS: A prospective observational study covering 13 months was conducted in a French teaching hospital with a patient information system that integrates an electronic health record (EHR) with a CPOE. Interventions by pharmacists were prospectively recorded using CPOE. All interventions were reviewed by two pharmacists. We assessed the interventions, the possible implications of the CPOE in prescribing errors, and the acceptance of interventions by physicians. A committee reviewed the potential clinical impact for patients. The results were compared with the same outcomes collected 10 years ago in the same hospital. RESULTS: A total of 2141 interventions by pharmacists were reviewed. Among them, 1589 (74.1%) were accepted by physicians. Regarding the potential clinical impact, a total of 1136 (53%) interventions concerned prescriptions that were potentially significant or serious for patients and 42 (2%) of them were potentially life-threatening. Ten years earlier, the acceptance rate was 23%. Moreover, 14.7% of errors were attributed to the use of the software, whereas 10 years earlier the rate of errors was 49%. CONCLUSIONS: The acceptance rate and frequency of CPOE-related errors were better than 10 years before, which is encouraging and shows the importance of regular training and collaboration with healthcare givers to reduce errors. The routine analysis of interventions by pharmacists with medical staff feedback should continue to improve their relevance and effectiveness.

Pharmaceutical interventions to improve safety of chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Cancer chemotherapy is a high-risk process. To improve patient safety, a systematic pharmaceutical analysis of chemotherapy prescriptions is performed in our institution. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) on the safety of patient chemotherapy prescriptions. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in an 800-bed university hospital with oncology departments. All chemotherapy prescriptions were included and PIs were collected prospectively during one month. The clinical impact of PIs was scored by an expert panel of oncologists and pharmacists, using the Hatoum scale. Univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted to identify factors associated with a higher frequency of PIs. RESULTS: Of 1346 prescriptions included, 129 required a PI (9.6% (95% CI: 8.1-11.4)). Most PIs were scored as having at least a significant impact for patient safety (69.8% (95% CI: 60.4-76.9)). The frequency of PIs was significantly associated with tumour site (p = 0.04) and weekday of prescription (p = 0.005). Multivariate analysis identified factors independently associated with PI performance, including pancreas and biliary tract cancers (odds ratio = 2.8 (95% CI: 1.4-5.3)), ovary cancers (odds ratio = 2.4 (95% CI: 1.2-4.8)) and head and neck cancers (odds ratio = 2.4 (95% CI: 1.1-5.1)) and the day 1 of the protocol with a cytotoxic agent (odds ratio = 3.7 (95% CI: 1.1-11.1)). CONCLUSIONS: Oncology pharmacists have a critical role in the safety of chemotherapy prescriptions. The coordination between healthcare professionals and access to patient data seem essential to improve the PIs' relevance and their clinical impact on patient safety.