Treatment of bacterial prostatitis.

Prostatitis is characterized by voiding symptoms and genitourinary pain and is sometimes associated with sexual dysfunction. Up to 25% of men receive a diagnosis of prostatitis in their lifetime, but <10% have a proven bacterial infection. The causes and treatment of nonbacterial prostatitis are largely unknown, but bacterial prostatitis is caused by infection with uropathogens, especially gram-negative bacilli, although infection is sometimes due to gram-positive and atypical microorganisms. Acute bacterial prostatitis is easily diagnosed (by abrupt urogential and often systemic symptoms, along with bacteriuria) and treated (by systemic antibiotic therapy). Chronic bacterial prostatitis is characterized by prolonged or recurrent symptoms and relapsing bacteriuria; diagnosis traditionally requires comparing urinary specimens obtained before with specimens obtained after prostatic massage. Treating chronic bacterial prostatitis requires prolonged therapy with an antibiotic that penetrates the prostate (ie, one with high lipid solubility, a low degree of ionization, high dissociation constant, low protein binding, and small molecular size). We review recent pharmacological and clinical data on treating bacterial prostatitis.

Reasons provided by prescribers when overriding drug-drug interaction alerts.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate prescribers' rationales for overriding drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts and to determine whether these reasons were helpful to pharmacists as a part of prescription order verification. STUDY DESIGN: An observational retrospective database analysis was conducted using override reasons derived from a computerized system at 6 Veterans Affairs medical centers. METHODS: Data on DDI alerts (for interactions designated as "critical" and "significant") were obtained from ambulatory care pharmacy records from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004. Prescribers' reasons for overriding alerts were organized into 14 categories and were then rated as clinically useful or not to the pharmacist in the assessment of potential patient harm. RESULTS: Of 291,890 overrides identified, 72% were for critical DDIs. Across the Veterans Affairs medical centers, only 20% of the override reasons for critical DDI alerts were rated as clinically useful for order verification. Despite a mandatory override reason for critical DDI alerts, 53% of the responses were "no reason provided." The top response categories for critical and significant DDI alerts were "no reason provided," "patient has been taking combination," and "patient being monitored." CONCLUSIONS: When given the opportunity to provide a reason for overriding a DDI alert, prescribers rarely enter clinical justifications that are useful to order verification pharmacists. This brings into question how computerized physician order entry systems should be designed.

Comparative costs of ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of diabetic foot infections.

PURPOSE: To evaluate potential cost savings, trial data were used to determine the clinical outcomes for i.v. ertapenem given once daily and i.v. piperacillin-tazobactam given every six hours daily in treating diabetic foot infections. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was conducted on the drug-dosing data of the subset of patients enrolled in a recent double-blind randomized trial who were treated solely as inpatients and were clinically evaluable at fi nal assessment (n = 99). Cost per dose was calculated from (a) average hospital acquisition price per dose for ertapenem ($40.52) or piperacillin-tazobactam ($13.58), (b) average U.S. wages and benefits for labor, based on nine published time-and-motion studies of i.v. antibiotic preparation and administration ($3.10), and (c) consumable supplies, using a 40% discount off the manufacturer list price ($2.90). For each patient, the actual number of antibiotic doses given was multiplied by total cost per dose. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between antibiotic groups with respect to patient demographics, percentage with a severe wound, and mean days of i.v. therapy. Compared with piperacillin-tazobactam, patients treated with ertapenem received significantly fewer mean doses (25.5 versus 7.5; p < 0.0001) and lower antibiotic-related costs ($502.76 versus $355.55, respectively; p < 0.001). The $147.21 difference between groups accounts for approximately 3% of total hospital Medicare reimbursements for these infections. CONCLUSION: A CMA of treatment of diabetic foot infections showed that, compared with piperacillin-tazobactam given four times daily i.v., ertapenem given once daily i.v. was associated with lower drug acquisition and supply costs and less time and labor devoted to preparation and administration of i.v. therapy.