Abstract
Introduction
Pharmacist-driven (PD) dosing and monitoring services have been shown to improve the clinical and economic outcomes in patients treated with different antibiotics, other than teicoplanin. This study investigates the impact of PD dosing and monitoring services on the clinical and economic outcomes of non-critically ill patients receiving teicoplanin treatment.
Methods
A single-center retrospective study was conducted. Patients were divided into the PD group and the non-PD (NPD) group. Primary outcomes included the achievement of target serum concentration, and a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and sepsis or septic shock development during hospitalization or within 30 days of hospital admission. The cost of teicoplanin, overall medication cost, and total cost during hospital stay were also compared.
Results
A total of 163 patients from January to December 2019 were included and assessed. Seventy patients were assigned to the PD group and 93 to the NPD group. The PD group had a higher percentage of patients reaching the target trough concentration (54% versus 16%, p < 0.001). Around 26% of the patients in the PD group and 50% of the patients in the NPD group met the composite endpoint during their hospital stay (p = 0.002). The PD group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of sepsis or septic shock, shorter hospital stays, reduced drug costs, and lower total expenses.
Conclusions
Our study demonstrates that pharmacist-driven teicoplanin therapy can improve the clinical and economic outcomes for non-critically ill patients.
Trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn; identifier, ChiCTR2000033521.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out this study? |
This is the first study to evaluate the effect of pharmacist-driven dosing and monitoring services on the outcomes of patients under teicoplanin treatment. |
It has been well established that pharmacist dosing and monitoring services can enhance vancomycin and aminoglycoside treatments. Nevertheless, in contrast to the aforementioned two drugs, an extremely high variability in serum concentration was found in teicoplanin. Only very few studies with small sample sizes to date have evaluated the efficacy of pharmacist-driven dosing and monitoring service on the outcomes of patients treated with teicoplanin. |
Therefore, our team hypothesized that pharmacist-driven dosing and monitoring services may improve the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated with teicoplanin. |
What was learned from the study? |
Our study found that pharmacist-driven dosing and monitoring services resulted in a higher likelihood of attaining target concentration (54% versus 16%) and significantly improved clinical and economic outcomes. A significantly lower rate of sepsis, septic shock, and shorter length of hospital stay were also observed. Economic benefits discovered during the study included lower drug costs and lower total hospitalization costs. No difference was found in the incidence of nephrotoxicity. |
Introduction
Pharmacist-driven (PD) dosing and monitoring services in antibiotics based on pharmacokinetics have been shown to improve clinical outcomes [1,2,3,4,5]. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends implementing pharmacokinetic dosing services for patients as part of an antimicrobial stewardship program, and pharmacists now play a key role in antimicrobial stewardship to optimize antimicrobial selection, dose, and duration [6, 7]. Since the 1980s, the pharmacist-managed vancomycin and aminoglycoside strategies have been demonstrated to provide benefits in both clinical and economic outcomes [8, 9]. Pharmacist-managed pharmacokinetic dosing for vancomycin and aminoglycosides can reduce nephrotoxicity and increase target concentration attainment [1,2,3,4,5]. Further studies are needed for PD antibiotic therapies, other than vancomycin and aminoglycosides.
Following decades of clinical application, teicoplanin is now regarded as an alternative to vancomycin for treating infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria, particularly those caused by methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) [10]. Despite that the elimination of teicoplanin occurs primarily through the kidneys, teicoplanin has been reported to be less nephrotoxic than vancomycin [11, 12]. The Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring recently published clinical practice guidelines and recommended a target Cmin value of 15–30 mg/L in patients with non-complicated MRSA infections [13]. However, teicoplanin’s Cmin in actual clinical practice has been reported to range from 3.6 to 24.2 mg/L [14], indicating that unstable drug exposure is frequently observed during teicoplanin therapy. This high variability may lead to insufficient exposure to teicoplanin in patients with varying pathophysiological statuses [15,16,17]. Therefore, the dosing strategy should be calculated and personalized according to individual patients’ pathophysiological statuses and teicoplanin’s pharmacokinetics. Additionally, teicoplanin dosage regimens should be adjusted in a timely manner by monitoring the serum concentrations and clinical response [18]. Pharmaceutical care and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) provided by clinical pharmacists during teicoplanin therapy may help to improve the clinical outcomes in patients with MRSA infections. Besides the clinical benefits, in 2005, a nationwide analysis carried out in the USA showed that the presence of pharmacist-driven vancomycin or aminoglycoside dosing and monitoring service was associated with improvement of clinical and economic outcomes for patients who received these drugs [9]. An analysis that included 303 patients under vancomycin treatment demonstrated an overall cost saving of 5.1% under the care of the pharmacist [19]. This means that while improving the clinical outcomes of patients, the burden of medication cost may also be relieved. Our study focused on non-critically ill patients, since vancomycin is still considered to be the first-line choice of treating infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria in critically ill patients.
Referring to the above, this study aims to investigate the effect of pharmacist-driven teicoplanin therapy and pharmaceutical care on the clinical and economic outcomes of non-critically ill patients.
Methods
Study Design and Patient Enrollment
This was a retrospective study of non-critically ill patients treated with intravenous teicoplanin who were admitted to the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (China), a university-affiliated tertiary care medical center, from January to December 2019. A preauthorization strategy of antimicrobial stewardship led by pharmacists and infectious disease physicians was established at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital since 2012. All doctors were routinely recommended to perform teicoplanin TDM on the fourth day of the therapy after teicoplanin was prescribed, but the adherence to the recommendation differs greatly between different wards. Clinical pharmacists prompted TDM and rational use of teicoplanin in the wards they were working in. The clinical pharmacist used a personalized dosing strategy and adjustments during pharmaceutical care. In 2019, a total of 62 wards were registered at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. Among them, 40 wards were staffed by a total of only 33 clinical pharmacists, while the other 22 wards had no clinical pharmacists on staff. Non-critically ill adult patients (over 18 years of age) admitted to the hospital with infections treated with intravenous teicoplanin were included. Patients with isolation of MRSA from specimens or the detection of Gram-positive cocci and a suspicion of MRSA infection were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients who received teicoplanin for less than 72 h, cases of systemic antimicrobial therapy with the activity for MRSA before teicoplanin therapy, patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) before teicoplanin treatment, transfer to ICU within 72 h after teicoplanin therapy started, the presence of sepsis or septic shock before teicoplanin therapy, patients recruited by another study, patients that did not receive TDM, and patients with incomplete medical records. Given the nature of this retrospective observational study, no intervention was made to standardize care. The clinical protocols and the treatment of the patients were determined by the clinical team that cared for the patient. Teicoplanin regimens used were recorded. The loading dose was administered on day 1, twice daily according to the local consensus and the drug package inserts. If a TDM was performed, the trough concentration was routinely determined before administration on the fourth day according to clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were compared between the pharmacist-driven teicoplanin dosing and monitoring group (PD group) and the non-pharmacist-driven teicoplanin dosing and monitoring group (NPD group). The cost of teicoplanin, cost of medications and the total cost were recorded. The institutional ethics committee review board approved this study (Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Project number: 2020-085-01). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was not feasible due to the retrospective nature of the study. This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000033521).
Outcome Measures
The primary outcomes were defined as the attainment of the target trough concentrations (Cmin 15–30 mg/L) at the initial TDM, a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, and admission to the ICU or development of sepsis or septic shock during the hospital stay or within 30 days after hospital admission. Readmission within 10 days after initial hospital discharge was considered part of the index admission.
Secondary outcomes included the proportions of admissions to the ICU, sepsis, septic shock, and mortality. The clinical response at the end of treatment was considered a secondary outcome, for attenuation of the signs and symptoms was hypothesized to be part of the beneficial effect. By definition, a successful clinical response had to meet all of the following criteria: clinical response of “cured” [resolution of clinically significant signs and symptoms, defined as any criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)] or “improved” (partial resolution of clinically significant signs and symptoms); the patient did not receive a concomitant antibacterial agent that could potentially have been effective against MRSA during treatment. Also, the length of hospital stay was considered a secondary outcome.
Safety outcome measures were defined as the proportion of nephrotoxicity, thrombocytopenia, hepatotoxicity, and any other adverse events recorded during teicoplanin therapy or within 72 h after the teicoplanin therapy ended. Nephrotoxicity was defined as acute kidney injury determined by serum creatinine (SCr) increase of more than 0.3 mg/L within 48 h, or 50% increase from the baseline within 7 days, or a urine volume less than 0.5 mL/kg/h for 6 h [20]. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count of < 100 × 103/µL combined with a reduction of more than 25% from the baseline count [21]. Hepatotoxicity was defined as any one of the following: serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) greater than five times the upper limit of normal (UPN), or alkaline phosphatase (ALP) greater than two times of the UPN on two separate occasions at least 24 h apart, as well as total serum bilirubin > 2.5 mg/dL, along with elevated serum AST, ALT, or ALP level, or international normalized ratio > 1.5 with elevated serum AST, ALT or ALP [22]. Other adverse events were identified and recorded by the clinical team looking after the patient.
All patients’ costs during hospital stays were calculated. The total cost of teicoplanin therapy, cost of TDM, cost of medications, and aggregated charges were recorded. The cost of TDM of teicoplanin was $14 at our center. All costs were obtained in the Chinese official currency (Chinese Yuan) and then converted to US dollars at an exchange rate of 0.141 (1.00 US dollar equivalent to 7.11 Chinese Yuan; October 31, 2022) when the data were analyzed.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were tested for normal distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the normally distributed data and as the median and quartiles (25–75) for skewed data distributions. The two-tailed Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney test were used to analyze continuous data when appropriate. Categorical variables were presented as the number of cases. The Pearson chi-squared (χ2) test and Fisher’s exact test were used to analyze the categorical variables. The effects of PD dosing service and pharmaceutical care on the primary outcomes were evaluated by logistic regression. The results were reported as the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes were performed to assess the interactions between different characteristics. The following predefined baseline characteristics were analyzed: sex (male versus female), age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (≥ 3 versus < 3), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (with CKD versus without CKD), hypoalbuminemia (serum album < 25 g/L versus ≥ 25 g/L), and primary infection (pneumonia versus others). p < 0.05 was required for statistical significance. The IBM SPSS Statistics software (Statistics for Windows, version 25, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and GraphPad Prism 9.2 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA) were used for statistical analysis and plotting graphs.
Results
Patient Characteristics
A total of 1095 patients received intravenous teicoplanin therapy. Of these, 473 were critically-ill patients admitted to the ICU, and the other 622 were not critically ill, while 451 of these cases had either MRSA cultures isolated from patient specimens, or gram-positive cocci were identified in the patients’ specimen and the patients were clinically suspected to have MRSA. Seventy cases received systemic antimicrobial therapy with MRSA activity prior to teicoplanin therapy. Twenty-seven patients were transferred to the ICU within 72 h after starting teicoplanin therapy. Twenty-five patients were excluded because they received less than 72 h of intravenous teicoplanin therapy and 49 were excluded for other reasons. Among them, 163 patients received at least one TDM and were finally included in the final analysis. Clinical pharmacists handled seventy cases and provided pharmaceutical care, while the remaining 93 cases did not receive such intervention. No differences were found in loading dose regimens or maintenance dose regimens. The patient characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Clinical Outcomes
As shown in Table 2, the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, admission to the ICU, or development of sepsis or septic shock occurred in 18 (26%) patients in the PD group, as compared with 46 (50%) patients in the NPD group (p = 0.002). The results of logistic regression multivariate analysis showed that PD dosing and pharmaceutical care (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.09–0.32, p < 0.001) was associated with reduced risk of reaching primary composite endpoint, while baseline procalcitonin (PCT) > 0.5 ng/mL (OR 17.00, 95% CI 6.30–45.83, p < 0.001) and pneumonia as primary infection site (OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.82–9.41, p < 0.001) were associated with increased risk of reaching a primary composite endpoint, detailed in Table S1. The results of the primary composite endpoint subgroup analyses are reported in Fig. S1. The effects of the PD teicoplanin therapy provided a clinical benefit for the primary composite endpoint in most subgroups except patients with primary infection site outside pneumonia, but the interaction effect did not reach statistical significance (p for interaction = 0.299). The prevalence of attaining target Cmin differed significantly between groups (p < 0.001). Thirty-eight patients (54%) in the PD group and 15 patients (16%) in the NPD group attained the target Cmin. Pharmacist-driven dosing services and pharmaceutical care were associated with an increased probability of target concentration attainment (OR 5.20, 95% CI 2.44–11.05, p < 0.001); detailed results of the logistic analysis are shown in Table S2. The effect was consistent across subgroups (Fig. S2). Subgroup analyses showed that pharmacist-driven dosing and pharmaceutical care significantly increases teicoplanin target concentration attainment across subgroups.
Concerning secondary outcomes, the PD group experienced a 6% hospital mortality rate, in contrast to the NPD group’s 14% (4 versus 13, p = 0.087), with the majority of fatalities taking place in the ICU. No statistical differences were found in the proportion of admission to the ICU between groups (14% versus 26%, p = 0.073). Sepsis occurred in 17 (24%) of the patients in the PD group and 37 (40%) of those in the NPD group (p = 0.037). Four (6%) patients developed septic shock in the PD group and 15 (16%) in the NPD group (p = 0.040). A clinical response was observed at the end of treatment in 60 patients (86%) of the PD group and 75 patients (81%) of the NPD group (p = 0.396). The median hospital length of stay among the patients was 22 days in the PD group and 35 days in the NPD group (p < 0.001). The incidence rate of nephrotoxicity was 14% in the PD group and 16% in the NPD group; no statistical differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.746). Two patients (3%) in the PD group and seven patients (8%) in the NPD group experienced thrombocytopenia (p = 0.196). Four events (6%) of hepatotoxicity were observed in the PD group, while 11 (12%) were observed in the NPD group (p = 0.181). Other adverse events also showed no differences between groups (16% versus 24%, p = 0.212). Detailed events are shown in Table S3.
Economic Outcomes
As shown in Table 3, the total cost during hospital stay was lower in the PD group (p < 0.001). The median total cost of patients in the PD group was $17,763 with an interquartile range from $10,925 to $20,805, while the median aggregated cost of patients in the NPD group was $20,129 with an interquartile range from $15,241 to $25,890. A cost increase in median total charge was observed at a level of $2366 (13%). Cost of medications also differed greatly between groups, significantly lower drug cost was observed in the PD group ($5456 [3664–7279] vs $6702 [5441–7814], p < 0.001). When comparing the medians of drug cost between groups, an increase of $1246 (22%) was found. No differences were found when comparing teicoplanin cost [$605 (534–679) versus 644 (557–773)], p = 0.078).
Target Trough Concentration Attainment
TDM was performed 244 times for 163 patients. Unfortunately, only 33% of patients attained the target Cmin according to the initial TDM during teicoplanin therapy. The prevalence attaining target concentration in follow-up TDM was higher (42%) after adjustment of teicoplanin dosage regimens.
As demonstrated in Fig. 1, the PD group showed a significantly higher trough concentration (median initial Cmin: 16.3 mg/L versus 11.1 mg/L, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of attaining the target Cmin than the NPD group. In the PD group, 9 (13%) adjustments of dosing strategies were made during teicoplanin therapy, while only 4 (4%) adjustments were made in the NPD group (p = 0.046), respectively. Finally, after dosing adjustments during teicoplanin therapy, 40 patients (59%) from the PD group finally reached the target Cmin, while only 28 patients (30%) of the NPD group reached the target Cmin (p < 0.001).
Initial trough concentrations between the PD group and NPD group. Each black dot on the left represents one case in the PD group. Each gray square on the right represents one case in the NPD group. The median initial concentration was 16.3 mg/L with an interquartile range from 10.3 mg/L to 21.5 mg/L in the PD group (black solid line with error bars), and 11.1 mg/L with an interquartile range from 7.2 mg/L to 15.6 mg/L in the NPD group (gray solid line with error bars), p < 0.001
Figure 2 shows the distribution and proportion of different initial Cmin levels in the PD group and the NPD group. The incidence of subtherapeutic initial trough concentrations was significantly lower in the PD group than in the NPD group [27 (39%) vs 70 (75%), respectively, p < 0.001]. The proportion of patients with high initial Cmin (> 30 mg/L) was 7% (5 patients) in the PD group and 9% (8 patients) in the NPD group, respectively; no statistical differences were found (p = 0.734). Unfortunately, subtherapeutic trough concentrations still occurred in 26 patients (37%) in the PD group and in 59 patients (63%) in the NPD group after dosage adjustment during teicoplanin therapy (p < 0.001). The incidence of unexpectedly high trough concentration did not show any statistical differences between groups after adjustment of the dosage regimen [4 (6%) versus 6 (7%), respectively, p = 0.846].
The initial trough concentrations distribution of patients from PD group (blue) and NPD group (red) are shown above. Most patient from NPD group failed to attain the target Cmin. Significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed between groups in patients with subtherapeutic concentration (< 15 mg/L) and patients attaining the target Cmin (15–30 mg/L). No significant difference was found in patients with unexpectedly high trough concentration (> 30 mg/L)
Discussion
Despite the increased use of teicoplanin, achieving initial therapeutic serum concentrations still poses a challenge to clinicians due to the significant variability in pharmacokinetic parameters and clinical heterogeneity observed across different patient populations [15,16,17]. In recent decades, pharmacists have played an increasingly important role in the procurement, distribution, review and safety handling of drugs [23]. Pharmacist-driven dosing and monitoring services have been found to be beneficial in vancomycin and aminoglycoside therapy, especially when applied to attain an effective target concentration or area under the curve [24]. According to our study, a pharmacist-driven teicoplanin therapy and pharmaceutical care can increase the likelihood of patients achieving the target initial therapeutic serum concentration, which improved the clinical outcomes of non-critically ill patients.
Teicoplanin has a high protein binding rate, a low volume of distribution, and a very long elimination half-life of 83–163 h [25, 26]. As a result, variations in serum albumin levels and renal function can cause significant changes in serum concentrations of teicoplanin. These characteristics highlight the importance of TDM in teicoplanin treatment. The pharmacist-implemented teicoplanin dosing strategy and monitoring can take advantage of pharmacokinetic data and tailor the dosage to each individual patient, which enhanced the percentage of patients achieving the target Cmin, particularly among those with low serum albumin and compromised renal function. According to the subgroup analyses of our study, patients with low serum albumin levels significantly benefit from pharmacist-driven teicoplanin dosing services and pharmaceutical care. Additionally, the PD group encompassed a greater number of patients with compromised renal function, and their clinical outcomes also saw improvement as a result of the pharmacist-guided dosing and monitoring services. However, we did not witness a decrease in the incidence of nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, or other adverse events. One potential explanation is that teicoplanin’s recommended target trough concentration for clinical efficacy is 15–30 mg/L, which is significantly lower than the concentrations causing adverse effects (thrombocytopenia ≥ 40 mg/L, nephrotoxicity ≥ 60 mg/L) [21, 27,28,29]. Owing to the large therapeutic window, the incidence of unexpectedly high trough concentrations reaching the toxicity threshold was relatively low in both groups. Therefore, teicoplanin’s TDM was primarily administered to ensure the attainment of the trough concentration for clinical effectiveness, rather than to prevent adverse effects.
In our study, we found that more than half of the patients underwent teicoplanin treatment without the assistance of clinical pharmacists, owing to a shortage of qualified clinical pharmacists. More clinical pharmacists are needed to promote the rational use of medications. In addition to the dosing service of teicoplanin, the pharmaceutical care provided by clinical pharmacists can bring other benefits that were not directly measured in our research. One such example is comorbidity. Among the patients in our study, we found a median age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3, which indicates a considerable level of comorbidities. Comorbidities are common among hospitalized patients, which means that polypharmacy and potential drug interactions frequently occur among these patients. Pharmacist-led interventions have been documented to decrease the likelihood of drug–drug interactions. For interactions with high severity, the reduction rate reached up to 81% [30]. Pharmacists can also improve the clinical outcomes by improving the adherence to medications. An analysis of 54,322 hospitalizations for heart failure revealed that nonadherence to medications contributed to hospital admission in 7.9% subjects [31]. Pharmacists can help the medical team and the patients identify barriers to medication adherence. To achieve this goal, pharmacists may use strategies such as patient education, drug regimen simplification, and identifying lower-cost alternatives where appropriate [32]. Additionally, the primary aspects of pharmaceutical care included clarifying drug orders and identifying and addressing drug-related problems, resulting in a reduction of medication errors and adverse events. These services have been reported to decrease annual institutional costs by $25,140 to $270,000 [33]. Our study revealed that pharmacist-driven teicoplanin dosing and pharmaceutical care also improved patients’ economic outcomes. We observed cost savings of 13% in total expenses and 22% in overall drug costs, with no difference in teicoplanin costs between groups. This suggests that promoting rational teicoplanin use and implementing appropriate pharmaceutical care by clinical pharmacists were crucial factors in avoiding unnecessary costs to the patients.
In addition to infectious diseases, clinical pharmacists who specialize in other specialties have also demonstrated the benefits of their care in patients’ clinical outcomes in different populations other than patients with infectious disease. Koshman reviewed the published randomized trials and found that the involvement of pharmaceutical care in the treatment of patients with heart failure greatly reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalizations [34, 35]. Another study of 335 patients in 32 medical offices demonstrated that a pharmacist–physician collaborative intervention improved blood pressure control in patients with diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease [36]. In a postoperative cohort of patients with colorectal cancer, a pharmacist-led parenteral nutrition standardization program reduced the incidence of postoperative infection and many other complications [37]. In the future, we hope that advancing pharmaceutical care will enable clinical pharmacists to overcome existing barriers and contribute to clinical decision-making. This involvement would enhance the effectiveness of drug therapy, decrease drug-related expenses, and ultimately improve the quality of patient care [38].
Despite the fact that this study encompassed a considerable number of non-critically ill patients and yielded statistically significant, conclusive results, it does have multiple limitations. First, this was a single-center retrospective study, which means that the effects of pharmaceutical care might differ in other healthcare facilities. Second, clinical pharmacists working at our center gave priority to patients with specific pathophysiology (i.e., chronic kidney disease), which may have resulted in distinct baseline characteristics between the two groups. However, to minimize bias as much as possible, we have taken some measures such as performing subgroup analyses. Finally, no interventions occurred during the study. Future prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to further investigate these findings.
Conclusions
Pharmacist-driven teicoplanin dosing services and pharmaceutical care increased the likelihood of reaching the target concentration and for providing follow-up dose adjustment during therapy to improve the clinical and economic outcomes for non-critically ill patients. In summary, our study demonstrated a reduced percentage of patients with sepsis or septic shock, a higher likelihood of achieving to reach target concentration, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower medication costs as a result of pharmacist-driven teicoplanin dosing services and pharmaceutical care.
References
Hovey SW, Jacobson JL, Welsh KM, Vu BN. Implementation of a pharmacist-driven vancomycin and aminoglycoside dosing service in a pediatric hospital. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2022;27:340–6. https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-27.4.340.
Marquis KA, DeGrado JR, Labonville S, Kubiak DW, Szumita PM. Evaluation of a pharmacist-directed vancomycin dosing and monitoring pilot program at a tertiary academic medical center. Ann Pharmacother. 2015;49:1009–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028015587900.
Masuda N, Maiguma T, Komoto A, Haruki Y, Sugiyama T, Kondo S, Teshima D. Impact of pharmacist intervention on preventing nephrotoxicity from vancomycin. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;53:284–91. https://doi.org/10.5414/CP202274.
Smith AP, Millares-Sipin CA, James M, Cohen H. Impact of a pharmacist-initiated vancomycin monitoring program. Consult Pharm. 2016;31:505–10. https://doi.org/10.4140/TCP.n.2016.505.
Momattin H, Zogheib M, Homoud A, Al-Tawfiq JA. Safety and outcome of pharmacy-led vancomycin dosing and monitoring. Chemotherapy. 2016;61:3–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000440607.
Kooda K, Canterbury E, Bellolio F. Impact of pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship on appropriate antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2022;79:374–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.11.031.
Parente DM, Morton J. Role of the pharmacist in antimicrobial stewardship. Med Clin North Am. 2018;102:929–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2018.05.009.
Fletcher CV, Giese RM, Rodman JH. Pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing of vancomycin and tobramycin. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986;43:2198–201.
Bond CA, Raehl CL. Clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacist-managed aminoglycoside or vancomycin therapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005;62:1596–605. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp040555.
Gemmell CG, Edwards DI, Fraise AP, Gould FK, Ridgway GL, Warren RE, Joint Working Party of the British Society for Joint Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Hospital Infection Society and Infection Control Nurses Association. Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57:589–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkl017.
Svetitsky S, Leibovici L, Paul M. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:4069–79. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00341-09.
Wood MJ. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37:209–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/37.2.209.
Hanai Y, Takahashi Y, Niwa T, Mayumi T, Hamada Y, Kimura T, Matsumoto K, Fujii S, Takesue Y. Clinical practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of teicoplanin: a consensus review by the Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022;77:869–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkab499.
Sato M, Chida K, Suda T, Muramatsu H, Suzuki Y, Hashimoto H, et al. Recommended initial loading dose of teicoplanin, established by therapeutic drug monitoring, and outcome in terms of optimal trough level. J Infect Chemother. 2006;12:185–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10156-006-0446-y.
Pea F, Brollo L, Viale P, Pavan F, Furlanut M. Teicoplanin therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill patients: a retrospective study emphasizing the importance of a loading dose. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51:971–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkg147.
Shi L, Zhuang Z, Duan L, Zhu C, Xue H, Wang X, Xu X, Yuan Y, Shi L, Li J, Sun J, Liu X, Zhou Q, Lu J, Tang L. Dose optimization of teicoplanin for critically ill patients with renal dysfunction and continuous renal replacement therapy: experience from a prospective interventional study. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:817401. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.817401.
Gao L, Xu H, Ye Q, Li S, Wang J, Mei Y, Niu C, Kang T, Chen C, Wang Y. Population pharmacokinetics and dosage optimization of teicoplanin in children with different renal functions. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:552. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00552.
Darley ES, MacGowan AP. The use and therapeutic drug monitoring of teicoplanin in the UK. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004;10:62–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00747.x.
Mas-Morey P, Ballesteros-Fernández A, Sanmartin-Mestre E, Valle M. Impact of clinical pharmacist intervention on antimicrobial use in a small 164-bed hospital. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2018;25:e46–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-001307.
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO. Clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2012(2):1–138.
Elajez R, Abdallah I, Bakdach D, Shaat E, Osman E, Baraka M, Gergess R, Abdalla R, Al Hamoud E, Al Bakri M, Al SH. Thrombocytopenia associated with teicoplanin use: a retrospective observational study. Ann Pharmacother. 2022;56:1231–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280221078123.
Fontana RJ, Liou I, Reuben A, Suzuki A, Fiel MI, Lee W, Navarro V. AASLD practice guidance on drug, herbal, and dietary supplement-induced liver injury. Hepatology. 2023;77:1036–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.32689.
Hand K. Antibiotic pharmacists in the ascendancy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(Suppl 1):i73–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkm163.
Jantarathaneewat K, Phodha T, Singhasenee K, Katawethiwong P, Suwantarat N, Camins B, Wongphan T, Rutjanawech S, Apisarnthanarak A. Impact of pharmacist-led multidisciplinary team to attain targeted vancomycin area under the curved monitoring in a tertiary care center in Thailand. Antibiotics (Basel). 2023;12:374. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12020374.
Outman WR, Nightingale CH, Sweeney KR, Quintiliani R. Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers after administration of intravenous loading and maintenance doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34:2114–7. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.34.11.2114.
Wilson AP. Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;39:167–83. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200039030-00001.
Veldman RG, van der Pijl JW, Claas FH. Teicoplanin-induced thrombocytopenia. Nephron. 1996;73:721–2. https://doi.org/10.1159/000189175.
Aslan AT, Pashayev T, Dağ O, Akova M. Comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem for the risk of acute kidney injury. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;40:1953–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04258-7.
Frye RF, Job ML, Dretler RH, Rosenbaum BJ. Teicoplanin nephrotoxicity: first case report. Pharmacotherapy. 1992;12:240–2.
Moura CS, Prado NM, Belo NO, Acurcio FA. Evaluation of drug–drug interaction screening software combined with pharmacist intervention. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34:547–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-012-9642-2.
Ambardekar AV, Fonarow GC, Hernandez AF, Pan W, Yancy CW, Krantz MJ. Get with the guidelines steering committee and hospitals. Characteristics and in-hospital outcomes for nonadherent patients with heart failure: findings from get with the guidelines-heart failure (GWTG-HF). Am Heart J. 2009;158:644–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2009.07.034.
Milfred-Laforest SK, Chow SL, Didomenico RJ, Dracup K, Ensor CR, Gattis-Stough W, Heywood JT, Lindenfeld J, Page RL 2nd, Patterson JH, Vardeny O, Massie BM. Clinical pharmacy services in heart failure: an opinion paper from the Heart Failure Society of America and American College of Clinical Pharmacy Cardiology Practice and Research Network. J Card Fail. 2013;19:354–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2013.02.002.
Kane SL, Weber RJ, Dasta JF. The impact of critical care pharmacists on enhancing patient outcomes. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:691–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-1705-3.
Koshman SL, Charrois TL, Simpson SH, McAlister FA, Tsuyuki RT. Pharmacist care of patients with heart failure: a systematic review of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:687–94. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.7.687.
Dunn SP, Birtcher KK, Beavers CJ, Baker WL, Brouse SD, Page RL 2nd, Bittner V, Walsh MN. The role of the clinical pharmacist in the care of patients with cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2129–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.025.
Anderegg MD, Gums TH, Uribe L, MacLaughlin EJ, Hoehns J, Bazaldua OV, Ives TJ, Hahn DL, Coffey CS, Carter BL. Pharmacist intervention for blood pressure control in patients with diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease. Pharmacotherapy. 2018;38:309–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2083.
Tong Y, Sun J, Xin W, Chen L, Kong S, Mi X, Feng Y, Jin W, Wu Y, Ding H, Fang L. Pharmacist-led standardization of total parenteral nutrition improves postoperative nutritional status in colorectal cancer patients. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10:339. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-1172.
Cuvelier E, Robert L, Musy E, Rousselière C, Marcilly R, Gautier S, Odou P, Beuscart JB, Décaudin B. The clinical pharmacist’s role in enhancing the relevance of a clinical decision support system. Int J Med Inf. 2021;155:104568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104568.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the participants of the study. The authors thank all the doctors, residents, pharmacists, and nurses directly involved in the management of these patients. We thank Xiaoyuan Chen, Jinglin Wang, and Yichen Li for their valuable suggestions in manuscript drafting. We thank Simin Yan, Huanyu Ni, Huiyan Jiang, and Yanran Zhao (the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School) for supporting our research during this pandemic in the context of such a difficult health crisis. They did not receive funding for this assistance.
Funding
Funding was provided by Project of Modern Hospital Management and Development Institute, Nanjing University and Aid Project of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Health, Education and Research Foundation (NDYG2021044). The rapid service fee was funded by the authors.
Author Contributions
Dayu Chen and Bo Wen drafted and wrote the manuscript. Xuanyu Wu, Xinxin Zheng, Xingkai Chen, and Jiayue Guo collected the data. Xingkai Chen, Haixia Zhang, and Yunxing Liu analyzed the data. Dayu Chen, Huaijun Zhu, and Haozhen Ren designed the study. Shaoshi Zhu wrote and revised part of the manuscript. Yunxing Liu and Haozhen Ren revised the manuscript and supervised the work. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Disclosures
Dayu Chen, Bo Wen, Xuanyu Wu, Xinxin Zheng, Huaijun Zhu, Xingkai Chen, Dan Han, Jinchun Liu, Yunxing Liu, Jiayue Guo, Shaoshi Zhu, Haozhen Ren, Weihong Ge, and Haixia Zhang have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (protocol code 2020-085-01 and date of approval 28 May 2020). Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available at https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=52861
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, D., Wen, B., Wu, X. et al. Pharmacist-Driven Dosing Services and Pharmaceutical Care Increase Probability of Teicoplanin Target Concentration Attainment and Improve Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Non-Critically Ill Patients. Infect Dis Ther 12, 1579–1592 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00812-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00812-2