Carbapenems Utilization Evaluation in Neutropenic Patients of a Teaching Hospital

  • Lida Bahador Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Shiraz (Iran)
  • Afsaneh Vazin Mail Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Shiraz (Iran)
  • Mohammad Ali Davarpanah Shiraz HIV/AIDS Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran
  • Peyman Arfa Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.; Pediatric Infections Research Center, Mofid Children's Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords:
Carbapenems, DUE, Neutropenia, IDSA

Abstract

Background: Carbapenems is frequently prescribed for treatment or prophylaxis in neutropenic patients. It is cleared that antimicrobial misuse can cause poor patient outcomes, through raise of antibiotic resistance, increased adverse events, and prolonged length of hospital stay. Objectives: to evaluate the rational use of Imipenem- Cilastatin and Meropenem for empirical antibacterial therapy in neutropenic patients based on IDSA guideline. Methods: through this cross-sectional study, we assessed the appropriateness of administration of Carbapenems in neutropenic patients admitted in hematology–oncology and bone marrow transplant wards in Namazee hospital, Shiraz, Iran, from March 2012 to May 2013. Results: Total of 90 patients were enrolled. Drug therapy duration was appropriate in 69.6% of Imipenem-Cilastatin and 75% of Meropenem groups. Sampling time of culture was appropriated in 59.1% of Imipenem-Cilastatin and 78.3% of Meropenem group, interval of drug administration was correct in 74.5% at initiation and 79.4% during therapy in Imipenem-Cilastatin group. For dosing these values were 74.5% and 72.2%, respectively. These values were evaluated in patients who received Meropenem too, interval was correct in 89.5% at initiation and 90.3% during therapy, dosing was correct in 12.3% either at initiation and during therapy. Conclusion: These finding suggest that attention to correct dose, correct interval, renal dose adjustment, logical indication for administration of carbapenem should be considered by health care system

References

1. Alshukairia, s., et al., A de-escalation protocol for febrile neutropenia cases and its impact on carbapenem resistance: A retrospective,quasi-experimental single-center study. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 2015. 499: p. 1-9.
2. AG, F., et al., Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis, 2011. 52: p. 56-93.
3. Glasmacher A, et al., An evidence-based evaluation of important aspects of empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2005. 11: p. 17-23.
4. Irfan, S., et al., Emergence of Carbapenem resistant Gram negative and vancomycin resistant Gram positive organisms in bacteremic isolates of febrile neutropenic patients: A descriptive study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 2008. 8.
5. Vazin, A., M.A. Davarpanah, and S. Ghalesoltani, Antifungal agent utilization evaluation in hospitalized neutropenic cancer patients at a large teaching hospital. Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety, 2015. 7: p. 97-102.
6. Koda-Kimble, et al., Applied Therapeutics. 10 ed. 2013.
7. Wilby, K.J., et al., A Review of Clinical Outcomes Associated with Two Meropenem
Dosing Strategies. Drugs R D 2017. 17: p. 73-78.
8. N, I., et al., Proper use of carbapenems: Role of the infectious disease specialist. Med Mal Infect, 2016. 46: p. 10-3.
9. C, L. and B. L, Antimicrobial resistance: risk associated with antibiotic overuse and initiatives to reduce the problem. Ther Adv Drug Saf., 2014. 5(6): p. 229-41.
10. AK, T., C. JL, and N. DP, Antimicrobial resistance: impact on clinical and economic outcomes and the need for new antimicrobials. Expert Opin Pharmacother, 2015. 16(2): p. 159-77.
11. R, S. and C. J, The true cost of antimicrobial resistance. BMJ, 2013. 346: p. f1493.
12. Arfa, P., et al., A Prospective Study to Assess Vancomycin Serum Concentrations in Pediatric Patients with Current Dosing Guidelines. IJPR, 2016. 15(1): p. 341-6.
13. Y, J., et al., Piperacillin-tazobactam vs. imipenem-cilastatin as empirical therapy in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients with febrile neutropenia. Clin Transplant., 2016. 30(3): p. 263-9.
14. SJ, E., et al., Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in treating severe infections in intensive care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2008. 27: p. 531-43.
15. WK, K., N. GT, and R. WH, Evaluation of the appropriateness of imipenem/cilastatin prescription and dosing in a tertiary care hospital. Infect Drug Resist, 2015. 24(8): p. 31-8.
16. C, F., et al., An open, randomised, multi-centre study comparing the safety and efficacy of sitafloxacin and imipenem/cilastatin in the intravenous treatment of hospitalised patients with pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 2001. 17(3): p. 177-88.
17. W, P., S. S, and P. U, Therapeutic effectiveness of the generic preparation of meropenem (Mapenem) in the treatment of moderate to severe infection in children. J Med Assoc Thai., 2012. 95(7): p. 895-902.
18. D, R., et al., Prospective drug utilization evaluation of three broad-spectrum antimicrobials: cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem. QJM, 2006. 99(6): p. 397-406.
19. BH, C., et al., Antibiotic-treated infections in intensive care patients in the UK. anesthesia, 2004. 59(9): p. 885-90.
20. A, F., et al., A double-blind comparison of empirical oral and intravenous antibiotic therapy for low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. N Engl J Med, 1999. 341(5): p. 305-11.
21. M, T., et al., Appropriate use of restricted antimicrobial agents in hospitals: the importance of empirical therapy and assisted re-evaluation. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2000. 46(3): p. 501-8.
22. Sakhaiyan, E., et al., Drug Utilization Evaluation of Imipenem in Patients Undergoing Bone Marrow Transplantation. International Journal of Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Research, 2009. 3(2): p. 10-13.
23. JF, m., Update on the efficacy and tolerability of meropenem in the treatment of serious bacterial infections. Clin Infect Dis, 2008. 47 (supplement1).
24. A, G., et al., Levofloxacin in the empirical treatment of patients with suspected bacteraemia/sepsis: comparison with imipenem/cilastatin in an open, randomized trial. J Antimicrob Chemother, 1999. 44: p. 799-810.
25. Horita, N., et al., Comparison of antipseudomonal β-lactams for febrile neutropenia empiric therapy: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2017. 23(10): p. 723-729.
26. E, S., et al., Drug use evaluation of Meropenem at a tertiary care university hospital: A report from Northern Iran. J Res Pharm Pract, 2015. 4: p. 222-5.
27. Shiva, A., et al., Drug Utilization Evaluation of Imipenem in an Educational Hospital in Mazandaran Province. Pharmaceutical sciences, 2014. 20(1): p. 12-17.
28. SC, S., Empiric antibiotic therapy for granulocytopenic cancer patients. Am J Med, 1986. 80: p. 13-20.
29. M, C., et al., Ciprofloxacin for infection prophylaxis in granulocytopenic patients with acute leukemia. Haematologica, 1990. 75(6): p. 541-5.
30. J, K., et al., Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol., 2016. 27: p. v111-v118.
31. T, D., Imipenem and Meropenem. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis, 1999. 10(1): p. 38-44.
32. L, B., et al., Pharmacokinetics of meropenem in critically ill patients with severe infections. Ther Drug Monit, 2013. 35(1): p. 63-70.
Published
2020-02-03
How to Cite
1.
Bahador L, Vazin A, Davarpanah MA, Arfa P. Carbapenems Utilization Evaluation in Neutropenic Patients of a Teaching Hospital. J Pharm Care. 7(4):106-111.
Section
Original Article(s)