Novel Multidisciplinary Approach for Outpatient Antimicrobial Stewardship Using an Emergency Department Follow-Up Program.

Purpose: Outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are becoming increasingly prevalent in healthcare. Many programs have demonstrated the effectiveness of pharmacist-driven outpatient consultations or follow-up programs to ensure appropriate antimicrobial prescribing. However, there is a paucity of literature describing multidisciplinary approaches in large healthcare systems for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to describe the feasibility and impact of a combined effort between ASP pharmacotherapy specialists and nurse practitioners (NPs) in managing an ED follow-up center. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for patients discharged from the ED between January 2018 and June 2019. Patients were identified for inclusion based on documentation by ASP pharmacotherapy specialists in the electronic health record for patient-specific inquiries from ED follow-up center NPs. The primary outcome of this study was to describe the number and types of interventions made by ASP pharmacotherapy specialists. Results: A total of 1088 patients were included in the study, for 1114 documented ASP calls. The urinary tract was the most common source of positive culture (79%), and third-generation cephalosporins were the most frequent antibiotic associated with calls (20%). Out of total calls, 60% lead to ASP interventions. Among total calls, the most frequent interventions were to correct drug-bug mismatches (20%), initiate new therapy (10%), and discontinue therapy (7%). Conclusion: This report describes a novel initiative that combines the efforts of ED NPs and ASP pharmacotherapy specialists in managing an ED follow-up center at a large healthcare system.

Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized at Acute Care Services: Real-World Experience in the New York Metropolitan Area During the Early Pandemic Before Initiation of Clinical Trials.

As New York became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic early on, clinicians were challenged to provide optimal medical and pharmaceutical care, despite the paucity of supporting literature and guidance. We sought to describe prescribing patterns and outcomes of physician response to the urgent need to treat COVID-19 patients before initiation of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 initially admitted to acute care services during March 2020. Critically ill patients requiring intensive care unit level of care on admission were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 639 consecutive patients (supportive care, n = 247; treatment n = 392) were included in the analysis. Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 12.2%. The mortality was 8.7% higher in the treatment group (15.6% vs 6.9% in the supportive care group, P < 0.001). Treatment was not protective against progression to severe disease (18.4% vs 3.6% with supportive care, P < 0.0001). Time to defervescence, duration of oxygen support, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay were also higher in the treatment group. In multivariate analysis, 60 years or older, presence of severe disease, and need for ICU admission were identified as independent predictors of 28-day mortality. There were 41 (10.5%) adverse event in the treatment group, with the majority being QT prolongation and gastrointestinal effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hospitalized patients admitted to acute care services, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or both could not be shown to improve mortality, progression to severe disease, or clinical response.

Evaluation of Meropenem Extended Versus Intermittent Infusion Dosing Protocol in Critically Ill Patients.

Extended infusion (EI) administration of ß-lactams can improve target attainment in critically ill patients with altered pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. To optimize meropenem dosing in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock, our Antimicrobial Stewardship Program implemented a EI meropenem (EIM) protocol in an 18-bed Medical Intensive Care Unit in March 2014. In this retrospective study, we compared intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and clinical response in patients who received meropenem for ≥72 hours administered per EIM protocol of 1 g over 3 hours every 8 hours versus intermittent infusion (IIM) protocol of 500 mg over 30 minutes every 6 hours. Age, weight, comorbidities, severity of illness, and vasopressor use were comparable between groups (EIM protocol n = 52, IIM protocol n = 96). The IIM protocol group had higher rates of renal dose adjustment at meropenem initiation. Among 56 identified gram-negative (GN) pathogens, 94% had meropenem minimal inhibitory concentration ≤0.25 mg/L. The ICU mortality was lower (19 vs 37%; P = .032) and clinical response was higher (83% vs 46%; P < .01) in the EIM protocol versus IIM protocol group. Total vasopressor days were shorter (2 vs 3 days; P = .038), and white blood cell normalization rate was higher (87% vs 51%; P < .01) in the EIM protocol versus IIM protocol group. There was no difference in days of mechanical ventilation, duration of therapy, and ICU stay. The IIM protocol was also identified as an independent risk factor associated with ICU mortality (hazard ratio: 3.653, 95% confidence interval: 1.689-7.981; P = .001) after adjusting for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. In this cohort of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock and highly susceptible GN pathogens, there was improved mortality and clinical response in the EIM protocol group.