Impact of Hospitalist-Led Interdisciplinary Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20%-50% of antimicrobial use in hospitals is inappropriate. Limited data exist on the effect of frontline provider engagement on antimicrobial stewardship outcomes. METHODS: A three-arm pre-post quality improvement study was conducted on three adult internal medicine teaching services at an urban academic hospital. Data from September through December 2016 were compared to historic data from corresponding months in 2015. Intervention arms were (1) Educational bundle (Ed-only); (2) Educational bundle plus antimicrobial stewardship rounds twice weekly with an infectious disease-trained clinical pharmacist (Ed+IDPharmDx2); and (3) Educational bundle plus internal medicine-trained clinical pharmacist embedded into daily attending rounds (Ed+IMPharmDx5). RESULTS: Total antibiotic use decreased by 16.8% (p < 0.001), 6.8% (p = 0.08), and 33.0% (p < 0.001) on Ed-only, Ed+IDPharmDx2, and Ed+IMPharmDx5 teams, respectively. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use decreased by 26.2% (p < 0.001), 7.8% (p = 0.09), and 32.4% (p < 0.001) on the Ed-only, Ed+IDPharmDx2, and Ed+IMPharmDx5 teams, respectively. Duration of inpatient antibiotic therapy decreased from 4 to 3 days on the Ed+IMPharmDx5 team (p = 0.01). Length of stay for patients who received any antibiotic decreased from 9 to 7 days on the Ed-only team (p < 0.001) and from 9 to 6 days on the Ed+IMPharmDx5 team (p < 0.001). There was no significant change in 30-day readmission to the same facility, transfer to ICU, or in-hospital mortality for any team. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary, frontline provider-driven approaches to antimicrobial stewardship may contribute to reduced antibiotic use and length of hospital stay.

Favorable adverse event profile of sofosbuvir/ribavirin compared to boceprevir/interferon/ribavirin for treatment of hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Triple therapy for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) with first-generation directly acting antiviral agents, the non-structural serine protease inhibitors boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir have resulted in improved sustained virologic response (SVR) rates. However, a high incidence of adverse events (AEs), high pill burdens and drug interactions remain significant barriers to successful completion of therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the AEs observed with BOC triple therapy in comparison to IFN-free sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) therapy in HCV monoinfected, genotype-1 (GT-1) individuals. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated HCV monoinfected, treatment-naïve or -experienced, GT-1 individuals treated with either BOC/IFN/RBV at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore (n = 97) or SOF/RBV in the NIAID SPARE clinical trial (n = 60). AEs, namely hematologic (hemoglobin, neutrophil and platelet counts), hepatic (alanine transaminase or bilirubin) and renal (eGFR), were measured according to the DAIDS toxicity table (version 1.0). RESULTS: BOC/IFN/RBV was associated with significantly more AEs, most commonly neutropenia, anemia and thrombocytopenia. In the SOF/RBV cohort, five (8 %) patients discontinued treatment early, but none (0 %) were because of AEs, while 60 (62 %) patients on triple therapy discontinued treatment early, 34 (57 %) because of AEs. SVR24 rates were 68 versus 34 % with SOF/RBV versus BOC/IFN/RBV. CONCLUSIONS: SOF/RBV treatment was associated with fewer side effects than BOC-based triple therapy, appearing to be a safer and more tolerable alternative for HCV GT-1 subjects. These results show that emerging IFN-free therapies may enhance patient adherence, allowing treatment of larger number of patients with improved efficacy.

The use of preexposure treatments for HIV prophylaxis.

Infection with human immunodeficiency virus remains a global concern with a significant number of incident infections still reported worldwide. The use of prophylaxis prior to exposure to the virus to prevent infection has been a growing area of recent research. Results in nonhuman primates and clinical trials in high-risk patient populations using preexposure prophylaxis have shown promising results in terms of efficacy and safety, especially relating to oral preexposure prophylaxis. The potential use of oral antiretroviral agents traditionally used for human immunodeficiency virus treatment as prophylaxis raises interesting considerations, such as the best agents available for such a role, long-term safety in healthy individuals, and the potential development of resistance to these agents should infection occur. From a public health perspective, the cost-effectiveness of implementing this preventive strategy has not been fully defined at this point in time.