Impact of clinical pharmacist intervention on antimicrobial use in a small 164-bed hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To study the impact of clinical pharmacist interventions (PIs) on antimicrobial prescriptions in terms of physician acceptance rates, clinical benefits and antimicrobial use/cost outcomes. METHODS: This study retrospectively analysed the impact of antimicrobial PIs over a 2-year period (October 2012 to October 2014) in a private non-teaching 164-bed hospital without a formal antimicrobial stewardship programme. Excluded from the study were outpatients and patients admitted to the intensive care unit or the emergency department. The PIs focused on appropriate indication and appropriate dosage; drug adverse events, allergies, intolerance and interactions; sequential therapy; therapeutic de-escalation; excessive duration of treatment and therapeutic drug monitoring. Carbapenems and linezolid were classified as special-vigilance drugs. Amoxicillin-clavulanic, piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin were classified as preferred drugs. Clinical benefits evaluated in accordance with internal guidelines, were classified as enhancing appropriate antimicrobial prescription or potentially reducing toxicity. Antimicrobial use and expenditure were compared with that of the previous 2-year period. RESULTS: 386 PIs were implemented in 303 patients. The overall acceptance rate was 83.4%. The acceptance rate for appropriate prescription PIs was significantly lower than for toxicity PIs (73.7% vs 90.9%; p<0.0001). Significant reductions in the use of special-vigilance drugs (from 39.9 (22.2-86.0) to 28.0 (6.0-43.4) defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 patient-days; p=0.0003) were seen and increases in the use of piperacillin-tazobactam (from 13.2 (0-22.9) to 17.2 (6.9-44.8) DDD/1000 patient-days; p=0.007) and of cephalosporins (from 123.5 (61.8-196.6) to 149.1 (80.3-228.2) DDD/1000 patient-days; p=0.027). Overall cost savings were 5.1%. CONCLUSIONS: PIs on antimicrobial prescriptions may be effective in enhancing appropriate use of antimicrobials, reducing their toxicity, reducing the use of special-vigilance drugs and reducing overall antimicrobial cost.

A systematic review of inpatient antimicrobial stewardship programmes involving clinical pharmacists in small-to-medium-sized hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) have been widely implemented in large hospitals but little is known regarding small-to-medium-sized hospitals. This literature review evaluates outcomes described for ASPs participated in by clinical pharmacists and implemented in small-to-medium-sized hospitals (<500 beds). METHODS: Following PRISMA principles, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched in early 2016 for English language articles describing implementation and outcomes for inpatient ASPs participated in by clinical pharmacists in small-to-medium-sized hospitals. Each included study was required to include at least one of the following outcomes: microbiological outcomes, quality of care and clinical outcomes or antimicrobial use and cost outcomes. RESULTS: We included 28 studies from 26 hospitals, mostly American or Canadian. Most cases (23 studies) consisted of time-series comparisons of pre-and post-intervention periods. Of the 28 studies analysed, 8 reported microbiological outcomes, 21 reported quality of care and clinical outcomes, and 27 reported antimicrobial use and cost outcomes. Interventions were not generally associated with significant changes in mortality or readmission rates but were associated with substantial cost savings, mainly due to reduced use of antibiotics or the use of cheaper antibiotics. CONCLUSION: As far as we are aware, ours is the first systematic review that evaluates ASPs participated in by clinical pharmacists in small-to-medium-sized hospitals. ASPs appear to be an effective strategy for reducing antimicrobial use and cost. However, the limited association with better microbiological, care quality and clinical outcomes would highlight the need for further studies and for standardised methods for evaluating ASP outcomes.

Frequency and outcomes of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel after hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in patients treated with clopidogrel, and the potential impact of this use on cardiovascular events. METHOD: Three-month prospective observational study. All patients taking clopidogrel who were admitted to the study hospital were included in the study. They were split into categories based on whether they had taken the drug concomitantly with PPI upon admission, upon discharge or during follow-up, or if they had not taken the two drugs together at all. Any post-discharge readmissions for cardiovascular events in the three months following the original admission were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included in the study. Only 26 patients (19,6%) did not take any PPI. Among 14 patients (10.5%) readmitted because of a cardiovascular event, 13 were taking clopidogrel concomitantly with a PPI (not statistically significant). Most of the readmitted patients presented other risk factors potentially related with cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: This study underlines a high concomitant use of PPI with clopidogrel, with no evidence of an increasing risk of readmission due to cardiovascular event potentially related to a drug-drug interaction between these drugs. The study did not identify any readmission related to a gastro-intestinal complication.