Implementation of a Semistructured Clinical Event Documentation Tool for Acute Adverse Contrast Reactions

PurposeTo improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinicians documenting acute clinical events related to contrast agent administration using a web browser–based semistructured documentation support tool.MethodsA new tool called Contrast Incident Support and Reporting (CISaR) was developed to enable radiologists responding to contrast reactions to document inciting contrast class, type of event, severity of contrast reaction, and recommendation for future contrast use. Retrospective analysis was conducted of all CT and MRI examinations performed between February 2018 and December 2019 across our hospital system with associated contrast reaction documentation. Time periods were defined as before tool deployment, early adoption, and steady-state deployment. The primary outcome measure was the presence of event documentation by a radiologist. The secondary outcome measure was completeness of the documentation parameters.ResultsA total of 431 CT and MRI studies with reactions were included in the study, and 50% of studies had radiologist documentation during the pre-CISaR period. This increased to 66% during the early adoption period and 89% in the post-CISaR period. It took approximately 9 months from the introduction of CISaR to reach full adoption and become the main method for adverse contrast reaction documentation. The percentage of radiologist documentation that detailed provoking contrast agent class, severity of reaction, reaction type, and future contrast agent recommendation all significantly increased (P < .0001), with greater than 95% inclusion of each element.ConclusionThe implementation of a semistructured electronic application for adverse contrast reaction reporting significantly increased radiologist documentation rate and completeness of the documentation.     

Comparative evaluation of serological tests used for the diagnosis of rickettsial diseases prevalent in the temperate region of North India

PurposeThe clinical manifestations of rickettsial diseases mimic other endemic infections with similar presentations thus posing a serious challenge to clinicians for their diagnosis. For the diagnosis of rickettsial disease serological tests like Weil Felix, ELISA and IFA are used. There are limited studies that have evaluated different serological tests for the diagnosis of rickettsial diseases. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the ELISA and Weil Felix test for the diagnosis of rickettsial diseases prevalent in this region.MethodsSamples from 281 patients clinically suspected of rickettsial diseases were tested for spotted fever group (SFG), typhus group (TG) and scrub typhus group (STG) by Weil Felix, ELISA and IFA was taken as the gold standard. Baseline titers and cut-off ODs were calculated by taking samples from healthy blood donors.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of Weil Felix test ranged from 30% to 44%, 83.46%–97.86%, 9%–77%, 92–96% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive value of ELISA ranged from 80.77% to 96.15%, 96.33%–98.43%, 70.21%–88.64%, 92.89%–99.60% respectively. Maximum cross-reactions were observed between SFG and STG by the Weil Felix test and between STG and TG by ELISA.ConclusionsELISA was found to be sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of rickettsial diseases. It is easy to perform, does not require a technical expert for result interpretation and a large number of samples can be processed at a time.     

Preventing Adverse Drug Reactions After Hospital Discharge (PADR-AD): Protocol for a randomised-controlled trial in older people

BackgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) and adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people contribute to a significant proportion of hospital admissions and are common following discharge. Effective interventions are therefore required to combat the growing burden of preventable ADRs. The Prediction of Hospitalisation due to Adverse Drug Reactions in Elderly Community Dwelling Patients (PADR-EC) score is a validated risk score developed to assess the risk of ADRs in people aged 65 years and older and has the potential to be utilised as part of an intervention to reduce ADRs.ObjectivesThis trial was designed to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce ADR incidence in older people and to obtain further information about ADRs and ADEs in the 12–24 months following hospital discharge.MethodsThe study is an open-label randomised-controlled trial to be conducted at the Royal Hobart Hospital, a 500-bed public hospital in Tasmania, Australia. Community-dwelling patients aged 65 years and older with an unplanned overnight admission to a general medical ward will be recruited. Following admission, the PADR-EC ADR score will be calculated by a research pharmacist, with the risk communicated to clinicians and discussed with participants. Following discharge, nominated general practitioners and community pharmacists will receive the risk score and related medication management advice to guide their ongoing care of the patient. Follow-up with participants will occur at 3 and 12 and 18 and 24 months to identify ADRs and ADEs. The primary outcome is moderate-severe ADRs at 12 months post-discharge, and will be analysed using the cumulative incidence proportion, survival analysis and Poisson regression.SummaryIt is hypothesised that the trial will reduce ADRs and ADEs in the intervention population. The study will also provide valuable data on post-discharge ADRs and ADEs up to 24 months post-discharge.     

金黄色葡萄球菌异质性耐药机制及实验室检测技术

 异质性耐药是一种特殊的细菌耐药类型，常表现为同一克隆来源的不同细菌亚群对某种抗菌药物表现出不一致的耐药特征，大多数亚群对某种抗菌药物敏感，而少部分亚群对其耐药或高度耐药。异质性耐药分离株常会导致特定抗菌药物抗感染治疗失败。针对异质性耐药菌较为深入的研究主要集中于革兰阴性菌，革兰阳性球菌的相关报道较少。近年有研究报道万古霉素、利奈唑胺、苯唑西林等多种类型抗菌药物异质性耐药金黄色葡萄球菌分离株出现，但其实际临床意义尚待进一步评估。此文对金黄色葡萄球菌异质性耐药机制和检测技术最新进展进行综述，为细菌异质性耐药机制研究和新型检测技术研发提供新的思路。     

舒巴坦治疗老年心力衰竭患者肺部感染的临床效果及不良反应发生率分析

目的本研究分析舒巴坦治疗老年心力衰竭患者肺部感染的临床效果及不良反应发生情况,为临床治疗提供参考。方法160例老年心力衰竭肺部感染患者为研究对象,分为两组:对照组(n=80)患者在常规治疗的基础上采用头孢曲松钠治疗,观察组(n=80)患者在常规治疗的基础上采用头孢哌酮钠舒巴坦治疗。分析两组患者的细菌清除率、治疗前后心功能和肺功能的改善及不良反应的发生情况。结果观察组患者在细菌清除率明显高于对照组患者的细菌清除率(对照组vs观察组=84.35%vs 87.92%,χ²=5.654,P<0.05);两组患者治疗后心功参数LVEDD、LVESD、LVEF和肺功参数用力呼气容积和用力肺活量均得到显著的改善(P<0.05),且与对照组相比,观察组患者的上述指标改善显著(P<0.05);两组研究对象的不良反应包括凝血功能障碍、肝功能障碍、轻度皮疹和呕吐。结论舒巴坦治疗老年心力衰竭患者肺部感染安全性高,且临床疗效值得认可,可在临床推广应用。     

The Impact of Patient Access to Their Electronic Health Record on Medication Management Safety: A Narrative Review

IntroductionAs the American’s Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) stated that patients should be allowed to review their medical records, and as information technology is ever more widely used by healthcare professionals and patients, providing patients with online access to their own medical records through a patient portal is becoming increasingly popular. Previous research has been done regarding the impact on the quality and safety of patients’ care, rather than explicitly on medication safety, when providing those patients with access to their electronic health records (EHRs).AimThis narrative review aims to summarise the results from previous studies on the impact on medication management safety concepts of adult patients accessing information contained in their own EHRs.ResultA total of 24 studies were included in this review. The most two commonly studied measures of safety in medication management were: (a) medication adherence and (b) patient-reported experience. Other measures, such as: discrepancies, medication errors, appropriateness and Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) were the least studied.ConclusionThe results suggest that providing patients with access to their EHRs can improve medication management safety. Patients pointed out improvements to the safety of their medications and perceived stronger medication control. The data from these studies lay the foundation for future research.     

Updates in therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease

Biologics and immunomodulators (IMM) are generally considered the most effective therapies for the treatment of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. However, despite the efficacy of these therapies, many patients either have a primary lack of response or a secondary loss of response to these medications. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a systematic approach to managing such patients. In this review, we summarize the latest data on TDM, including reactive and proactive TDM, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on biologics and/or IMM.     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.