Development and evaluation of a national gentamicin and vancomycin quality improvement programme.

BACKGROUND: Scottish Antimicrobial Prescribing Group (SAPG) recommendations to reduce broad-spectrum antimicrobial use led to an increase in gentamicin and vancomycin prescribing. In 2009, SAPG introduced national guidance to standardize dosage regimens, reduce calculation errors and improve the monitoring of these antibiotics. Studies conducted in 2010 and 2011 identified limitations in guideline implementation. OBJECTIVES: To develop, implement and assess the long-term impact of quality improvement (QI) resources to support gentamicin and vancomycin prescribing, administration and monitoring. METHODS: New resources, comprising revised guidelines, online and mobile app dose calculators, educational material and specialized prescribing and monitoring charts were developed in collaboration with antimicrobial specialists and implemented throughout Scotland during 2013-16. An online survey in 2017 evaluated the use of these resources and a before (2011) and after (2018) point prevalence study assessed their impact. RESULTS: All 12 boards who responded to the survey (80%) were using the guidance, electronic calculators and gentamicin prescription chart; 8 used a vancomycin chart. The percentage of patients who received the recommended gentamicin dose increased from 44% to 89% (OR 10.99, 95% CI = 6.37-18.95) between 2011 and 2018. For vancomycin, the correct loading dose increased from 50% to 85% (OR = 5.69, CI = 2.76-11.71) and the correct maintenance dose from 55% to 90% (OR = 7.17, CI = 3.01-17.07). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated improvements in the national prescribing of gentamicin and vancomycin through the development and coordinated implementation of a range of QI resources and engagement with local and national multidisciplinary teams.

Discontinuation, persistence and adherence to subcutaneous biologics delivered via a homecare route to Scottish adults with rheumatic diseases: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand patterns of subcutaneous (SC) biologics use over time in adults with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases receiving a homecare delivery service. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Patients in secondary care receiving SC biologics in the largest Scottish Health Board. PARTICIPANTS: A new bespoke cohort was created from routine data gathered as part of a health board Homecare Service Database. Patients over 18 years who received a supply of SC biologic from January 2012 to May 2015 with a diagnosis for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) were included. OUTCOMES MEASURED: A standardised framework was applied by measuring discontinuation rates, persistence using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression and adherence using medication refill adherence (MRA) and compliance rate (CR). RESULTS: 751 patients were identified (AS: 105, PsA: 227, RA: 419) of whom 89.3% had more than one biologic delivery (median days' follow-up: AS: 494; PsA: 544; RA: 529) and 83.2% did not switch biologic. For all conditions, approximately half were persistent on their index biologic (52% AS, 54% PsA, 48%RA). Of patients who discontinued treatment, the majority reinitiated with the same biologic (19% AS, 18% PsA and 21% RA). Overall adherence during the period of treatment was over 80% when calculated using MRA (median %MRA: AS: 84.0%, PsA: 85.0%, RA: 82.4%) or CR (median %CR: AS: 96.6%, PsA: 97%, RA: 96.6%). CONCLUSION: Use of linked routine data is a sustainable pathway to enable ongoing evaluation of biologics use. A more consistent approach to studying use (discontinuation, persistence and adherence metrics) should be adopted to enable comparability of studies.

Amikacin use and therapeutic drug monitoring in adults: do dose regimens and drug exposures affect either outcome or adverse events? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify the amikacin dosage regimens and drug concentrations consistent with good outcomes and to determine the drug exposures related to nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. METHODS: A literature review was conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full journal articles reporting randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, interrupted time series trials, and controlled before and after studies involving amikacin therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and dose adjustment were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Seventeen studies for inclusion were identified, comprising 1677 participants. Amikacin doses ranged from 11 to 15 mg/kg/day with 13 studies using 15 mg/kg/day. Studies were generally designed to compare different aminoglycosides rather than to assess concentration-effect relationships. Only 11 papers presented data on target concentrations, rate of clinical cure and toxicity. Target peak concentrations ranged from 15 to 40 mg/L and target troughs were typically <10 or <5 mg/L. It was not clear whether these targets were achieved. Measured peaks averaged 28 mg/L for twice-daily dosing and 40-45 mg/L for once-daily dosing; troughs averaged 5 and 1-2 mg/L, respectively. Fifteen of the included studies reported rates of nephrotoxicity; auditory and vestibular toxicities were reported in 12 and 8 studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found little published evidence to support an optimal dosage regimen or TDM targets for amikacin therapy. The use of alternative approaches, such as consensus opinion and a review of current practice, will be required to develop guidelines to maximize therapeutic outcomes and minimize toxicity with amikacin.

Research is 'a step into the unknown': an exploration of pharmacists' perceptions of factors impacting on research participation in the NHS.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored National Health Service (NHS) pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of pharmacist-led research in the workplace. DESIGN: Semistructured, face-to-face discussions continued until distinct clusters of opinion characteristics formed. Verbatim transcripts of audio-recordings were subjected to framework analysis. SETTING: Interviews were carried out with 54 pharmacists with diverse backgrounds and roles from general practices and secondary care in the UK's largest health authority. RESULTS: The purpose and potential of health services research (HSR) was understood and acknowledged to be worthwhile by participants, but a combination of individual and system-related themes tended to make participation difficult, except when this was part of formal postgraduate education leading to a qualification. Lack of prioritisation was routinely cited as the greatest barrier, with motivation, confidence and competence as additional impediments. System-related themes included lack of practical support and pharmacy professional issues. A minority of highly motivated individuals managed to embed research participation into routine activity. CONCLUSIONS: Most pharmacists realised the desirability and necessity of research to underpin pharmacy service expansion, but a combination of individual and professional level changes is needed to increase activity. Our findings provide a starting point for better understanding the mindset of hospital-based and general practice-based pharmacists towards research, as well as their perceived barriers and supports.