BackgroundPatients are commonly reported as being allergic to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics. However, many patients with this reported allergy are able to receive BL treatments because they do not have true allergies. In many cases these are simply intolerances due to side effects reported as an allergy. Delabelling these patients leads to better clinical outcomes, optimal antibiotic usage, decreased bacterial resistance and reduced healthcare costs. Therefore, the aims of this study were to identify incorrectly labelled BL allergies in hospitalised patients and to assess antibiotic use in delabelled patients in order to establish a quality indicator to optimise antimicrobial treatments.MethodsA prospective study was conducted in which hospitalised patients treated with antimicrobial drugs and labelled as ‘BL-allergic’ were identified by clinical pharmacists. An allergist assessed whether patients were suitable candidates for a skin test or oral challenge. The Allergy Service removed ‘BL-allergic’ labels if negative results were obtained. Delabelled patients were followed up by clinical pharmacists to study the use of BL antibiotics as a result of the delabelling programme.ResultsA total of 176 suspected allergic patients were identified and 91 (51.7%) were tested either by a skin test or oral challenge based on the patient indicators. Seven (16.4%) patients tested were allergic to BL antibiotics, 76 (83.5%) were totally delabelled and eight (0.1%) were partially delabelled. Thirty-two (38.1%) delabelled patients required antibiotic treatment in another inpatient or outpatient setting, of whom 27 (84.3%) patients with a new infectious episode received BL treatments while five (15.7%) continued to receive antimicrobial treatments without BL.ConclusionAfter the implementation of a protocol to detect incorrect BL allergy labels, 83.5% of the patients in this cohort were completely delabelled. This shows that there is a clear opportunity to optimise the use of antibiotics by delabelling ‘BL-allergic’ patients.
ObjectiveVoriconazole is an antifungal agent used in the treatment of aspergillosis and fluconazole-resistant Candida infections. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of voriconazole is recommended to optimise clinical results. The aim of this study was the development and validation of a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method for measuring voriconazole in human serum, and comparison with an ARK immunoassay method.MethodsLinearity, precision, accuracy and stability of the HPLC method were validated according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines. The method was applied to the analysis of 58 trough serum samples from patients treated with voriconazole, and the HPLC-UV (ultraviolet) method was compared with an ARK immunoassay. The correlation of both methods was studied by the Pearson regression coefficient and the concordance of the values was evaluated by the Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok methods.ResultsAll validation parameters met the criteria set out in the FDA and EMA guidelines. The standard curve was linear over a concentration range of 0.25–16 µg/mL with a limit of quantification of 0.125 µg/mL. No interactions between voriconazole and other drugs was observed and voriconazole was stable after 1 month at −80°C. Comparison of the HPLC method and the enzyme immunoassay method showed a linear correlation with a systematic error of −0.61 µg/mL between both methods.ConclusionThe method developed is simple and fast and can be easily applied for routine therapeutic drug monitoring of voriconazole. The HPLC-UV method was more sensitive than the immunoassay method and there was concordance with the immunoassay. Consequently both methods could be used, considering the correlation between them.
Objectives Although levetiracetam presents an easy dosing and tolerability, therapeutic drug monitoring may be recommended in certain situations. Measurement of levetiracetam in serum plasma is commonly done by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). After ARK Diagnostics marketed an enzyme immunoassay (IA) for levetiracetam in serum or plasma, automated determinations are possible. In this study, the performance of this immunoassay and the impact of automation on the follow-up in patients treated with levetiracetam is evaluated. We also detected those subpopulations of patients who may benefit the most from this therapeutic drug monitoring. Methods Samples from 50 outpatients diagnosed with epilepsy and treated with levetiracetam were collected. This new IA was performed on the Architect c4000 analyser and compared with the HPLC. Then, a retrospective observational study that included serum samples of levetiracetam for 24 months, was conducted to evaluate the impact of automattion and the influence of some variables (age, sex, renal function, and coadministration of valproic acid and glucuronidationinducing drugs) in levetiracetam apparent oral clearance (CLp/F) by a multivariate linear regression. results The mean high-performance liquid chromatography quantified concentration (CpHPLC) was 18.43 mcg/mL (95% CI: 15.48 to 21.39) and immunoassay concentration (CpEI) was 18.35 mcg/mL (95% CI: 15.20 to 21.50) (P=0.861). The Pearson's linear correlation coefficient obtained in the analysis was r 2 =0.88, according to the following equation: CpHPLC=−0.29+1.01 CpEI. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.97). After IA implementation, the number of levetiracetam determinations increased in 76.27%. The median of Clp/F was higher (P<0.001) in inducers (4.36 L/h; IQR:3.29-5.44) and lower (P<0.001) in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 mL/min (2.7 L/h; IQR: 0.58-3.85). Conclusions The Ark method performed on the Architect is fully acceptable and can be used routinely to measure levetiracetam plasmatic concentration levels. It has demonstrated the need for closer monitoring in patients with renal failure or co-administration of glucuronidation-inducing drugs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.