Background: Guidelines support area-under-the-curve (AUC) monitoring for vancomycin dosing which may lower overall doses and reduce acute kidney injury (AKI). Objective: The aim of this study was to compare incidence of AKI across 3 vancomycin dosing modalities: AUC-targeted Bayesian pharmacokinetic software, AUC-targeted empiric dosing nomogram, and trough-guided dosing using clinical pharmacists’ judgment. Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients with a pharmacy dosing consult who received ≥1 dose of vancomycin and ≥1 serum vancomycin level documented between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Patients with baseline serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dL, weight ≥100 kg, receiving renal replacement therapy, AKI prior to vancomycin therapy, or vancomycin ordered only for surgical prophylaxis were excluded. The primary analysis was incidence of AKI adjusted for baseline serum creatinine, age, and intensive care unit admission. A secondary outcome was adjusted incidence of an abnormal trough value (<10 or >20 μg/mL). Results: The study included 3459 encounters. Incidence of AKI was 21% for Bayesian software (n = 659), 22% for the nomogram (n = 303), and 32% for trough-guided dosing (n = 2497). Compared with trough-guided dosing, incidence of AKI was lower in the Bayesian (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.89) and the nomogram (adjusted OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.95) groups. Compared with trough-guided dosing, abnormal trough values were less common in the Bayesian group (adjusted OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69-0.98). Conclusion and Relevance: Study results suggest that use of AUC-guided Bayesian software reduces the incidence of AKI and abnormal trough values compared with trough-guided dosing.
Purpose We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare response rates (complete remission plus partial remission) for nonsteroid immunosuppressant therapy to steroid-only immunosuppressant therapy in patients with membranous lupus nephritis. Methods A literature review was conducted from June 25, 2010 by querying PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Inclusion criteria were trials containing remission data on patients with confirmed pure class V (Va and Vb) membranous lupus nephritis. The primary analysis evaluates response rates for regimens that contain at least one nonsteroid immunosuppressant therapy and steroid-only immunosuppressant therapy. A proportion meta-analysis using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was performed. Data are reported as pooled proportions in percentages with 95% confidence intervals. Significant heterogeneity and/or bias were compensated for by trial exclusion. Results Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, which yielded 34 groups of patients' data. Upon meta-analysis, the response rate for nonsteroid immunosuppressant therapy is higher than for steroids alone (81% [74%-87%] vs 60% [39%-79%]), even when compensating for significant heterogeneity and bias (76% [71%-81%] versus 60% [39%-79%]). Conclusion Nonsteroid immunosuppressant therapies in combination with steroids seem to be more effective than steroids alone for inducing partial or complete remission in patients with membranous lupus nephritis who have nephrotic proteinuria at baseline. This trial was not able to analyze adverse events, flares, relapses, or patient survival because of underreporting.
Acute kidney injury (AKI), often present in critically ill patients and patients with cardiac dysfunction, may alter estimates of renal function. The impact of recent AKI on the accuracy of the Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance equation (CG-CrCl) before cardiac surgery is unknown. This single-center, retrospective study included patients who underwent cardiac surgery from 1 January 2006 through 30 June 2012 and whose 24-hour urine creatinine clearance (24hr-CrCl) was measured in the intensive care unit before surgery. We evaluated CG-CrCl accuracy by calculating absolute differences between 24hr-CrCl and CG-CrCl estimates. Clinical impact was signified by discrepancies in United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) renal impairment stage indicated by 24hr-CrCl versus CG-CrCl estimates. Acute kidney injury was evaluated by using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria. Of 161 patients, 93 (58%) had recent AKI: stage 1, 31 (33%); stage 2, 39 (42%); and stage 3, 23 (25%). In mL/min, the CG-CrCl overestimated 24hr-CrCl (absolute difference: total, -10 ± 25; no AKI, -7 ± 26; stage 1, -8 ± 17; stage 2, -16 ± 28; and stage 3, -10 ± 26; P=0.29). Renal impairment stages assigned by CG-CrCl did not match 24hr-CrCl in 70 (43%) of the 161 patients, especially those with recent AKI: no AKI, 24/68 (35%); stage 1, 13/31 (42%); stage 2, 23/39 (59%); and stage 3, 10/23 (43%). The CG-CrCl consistently overestimated 24hr-CrCl in critically ill patients before cardiac surgery. Clinicians should use the CG-CrCl cautiously when estimating renal function and medication dosages in this population.
Kidney transplant recipients require meticulous clinical and laboratory surveillance to monitor allograft health. Conventional biomarkers, including serum creatinine and proteinuria, are lagging indicators of allograft injury, often rising only after significant and potentially irreversible damage has occurred. Immunosuppressive medication levels can be followed, but their utility is largely limited to guiding dosing changes or assessing adherence. Kidney biopsy, the criterion standard for the diagnosis and characterization of injury, is invasive and thus poorly suited for frequent surveillance. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) is a sensitive, noninvasive, leading indicator of allograft injury, which offers the opportunity for expedited intervention and can improve long-term allograft outcomes. This article describes the clinical rationale for a routine testing schedule utilizing dd-cfDNA surveillance at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12 during the first year following kidney transplantation and quarterly thereafter. These time points coincide with major immunologic transition points after transplantation and provide clinicians with molecular information to help inform decision making.
Development of valid and feasible quality indicators (QIs) is needed to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings.Literature search identified published guidelines that were reviewed for QI extraction. A panel of 14 experts was assembled, including primary care physicians, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists, and outcomes research pharmacists. A screening survey excluded QIs that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. A validity screening survey used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each QI based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised QI wording, added new QIs, and voted to include or exclude each QI. A priority survey used a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included QIs.Literature search identified 520 references published from January 2015 to March 2021 and 4 additional guidelines from professional/governmental websites. The study included 41 guidelines. Extraction of 741 recommendations yielded 115 candidate QIs. Feasibility screening excluded 28 QIs. Validity screening and expert panel discussion excluded 73 QIs and added 1 QI. The final set of 15 prioritized QIs focused on pain management safety, education, weight-management, psychological wellbeing, optimizing first-line medications, referral, and imaging.This multi-disciplinary expert panel established consensus on QIs for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings by combining scientific evidence with expert opinion. The resulting list of 15 prioritized, valid, and feasible QIs can be used to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management.
The purpose of this project was to develop a set of valid and feasible quality indicators used to track opioid stewardship efforts in hospital and emergency department settings.Candidate quality indicators were extracted from published literature. Feasibility screening excluded quality indicators that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant to pain management in the hospital and emergency department settings. Validity screening used an electronic survey of key stakeholders including pharmacists, nurses, physicians, administrators, and researchers. Stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each quality indicator based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised quality indicator wording, added new quality indicators, and voted to include or exclude each quality indicator. Priority ranking used a second electronic survey and a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included quality indicators.Literature search yielded 76 unique quality indicators. Feasibility screening excluded 9 quality indicators. The validity survey was completed by 46 (20%) of 228 stakeholders. Expert panel discussions yielded 19 valid and feasible quality indicators. The top 5 quality indicators by priority were: the proportion of patients with (1) naloxone administrations, (2) as needed opioids with duplicate indications, and (3) long acting or extended release opioids if opioid-naïve, (4) the average dose of morphine milligram equivalents administered per day, and (5) the proportion of opioid discharge prescriptions exceeding 7 days.Multi-professional stakeholders across a health system participated in this consensus process and developed a set of 19 valid and feasible quality indicators for opioid stewardship interventions in the hospital and emergency department settings.
We thank Drs. Oyler, Short, and Goree for their feedback and thoughtful review of our list of opioid stewardship quality indicators. The Houston Methodist Opioid Stewardship Program selected and prioritized quality indicators that were best suited to evaluate opioid stewardship interventions in hospital and emergency department settings. Of note, all quality indicators listed in our article and appendix were identified as being feasible and were deemed to have high or appropriate face validity by stakeholders. Only metrics with the highest priority rankings were retained in our list of 19 quality indicators. However, all of the quality indicators listed in the appendix may warrant additional attention in future studies or consensus processes. It is possible that our prioritization of quality indicators was influenced by local practices, healthcare culture, and information technology considerations that may not be fully applicable at other health systems. Quality indicator 25 related to e-prescribed opioid discharge prescriptions and is a very important metric to ensure safe and appropriate opioid use at discharge. Since our transition to allowing e-prescribing over a year ago, a substantial proportion of opioid discharge prescriptions are e-prescribed at Houston Methodist. Because a full list of discharge medications is entered in our electronic health record (EHR) for each patient, our stewardship program could easily access these EHR lists to track appropriateness of opioid discharge prescriptions that were printed or e-prescribed. Because our goal was to identify metrics that should be the target of future opioid stewardship interventions, our stakeholders assigned a higher priority to metrics focused on quantity and duration of opioids prescribed at discharge. However, determining whether or not a health system has the ability to allow for e-prescribing may be a valuable core element for evaluating opioid stewardship efforts among health systems.
