Citations

PURPOSE Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurs in 56%-80% of bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) used in multiple myeloma (MM). Risk mitigation strategies are required to expedite escalation of care if toxicities develop. The rarity of grade 3 or 4 CRS compels protocolized outpatient management of BsAbs as outpatient practice may avoid hospital admissions and costly resource utilization without compromising safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with MM who received BsAb step-up dosing (SUD) from August 23, 2023, to March 29, 2024, were enrolled. Baseline demographics, patient outcomes, and CRS management were reviewed to assess the safety of outpatient practice. Resource utilization was also analyzed. RESULTS In this study, 34 patients received outpatient SUD of BsAbs (teclistamab n = 17, talequetamab n = 17) with 16 remaining outpatient throughout the entire SUD period. CRS occurred in seven patients who did not require hospitalization, demonstrating the safety of outpatient management of BsAb toxicity, regardless of low-grade CRS. CRS was observed in 24 patients (maximum grade 2) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in four patients (maximum grade 3). All patients with CRS received steroids, including 12 patients at home when instructed. Tocilizumab was given to 13 patients, accounting for 18 doses. If all doses of BsAbs and tocilizumab were given outpatient, the medication margin would be $115,004 in US dollars (USD). CONCLUSION An outpatient-based practice for BsAb administration demonstrated safety and cost savings. The description of our practice and results of this study provide valuable insights into the safety, feasibility, and resource stewardship of outpatient management of BsAbs. Future research should attempt to predict and stratify CRS risk to deliver a tailored supportive strategy and continued increase of outpatient management.

Background: Cervical cancer screening with a self-collected vaginal specimen for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2024, offering a potential solution to declining screening rates. Objective: We aimed to assess acceptability of clinic-based vaginal specimen self-collection for HPV testing and to evaluate associations between participants’ sociodemographics and their likelihood of choosing self-collection for future screening and the overall acceptability of using the Evalyn® brush device. We also evaluated associations between specific acceptability constructs and reported likelihood to use the device in the future and overall acceptability. Methods: Following self-collection of a vaginal specimen, participants completed an electronic survey that measured constructs from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Associations were assessed using logistic regressions. The study was conducted at a colposcopy clinic in the Gynecology department of a midwestern academic medical center in the United States from November 2022 through July 2023. Results: Participants ( n = 81) reported high likelihood (98% likely or very likely) of choosing in-home self-collection for future screening and unanimity on overall acceptability (100% acceptable or completely acceptable) of using the device. More affirmative responses to measures on instruction understandability, ease of device use, understanding the device is used for cervical cancer screening, and perceiving self-collection improves screening rates were associated with a higher likelihood to choose self-collection for future screenings and overall acceptability of the device (all p values <0.05). Conclusion: Vaginal specimen self-collection for HPV testing was well-received in the studied population, with high acceptability and likelihood of uptake. Implementation efforts should provide user-friendly instructions and emphasize the benefits of self-collection for cervical cancer screening, particularly among people less likely to engage with clinician-collected speculum-based screening.

Abstract Purpose Data regarding the incidence, onset, and management of complex outpatient antimicrobial therapy–induced neutropenia (COIN) are limited, and pharmacist involvement in COIN management has not been reported. This report describes the incidence, onset, and management of COIN at a large academic medical center. Methods This multisite retrospective cohort study examined adult patients undergoing serum laboratory monitoring for antimicrobials over a 4-year period. Patients receiving chemotherapy or immunosuppressants were excluded. Data collected included the antimicrobial regimen, complete blood count, duration of antimicrobial therapy until outcome occurrence, infectious syndrome, type of intervention, outcome, and pharmacist involvement. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for COIN incidence. The primary outcome was the incidence of COIN by antimicrobial drug. Results From 4,261 treatment episodes, 161 cases of COIN were identified (3.8% COIN incidence). The most common antimicrobials associated with COIN were intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem. The majority of COIN events were attributed to a combination of at least 2 antimicrobials. Piperacillin/tazobactam was significantly associated with higher odds of developing COIN (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-3.34; P = 0.038), whereas ertapenem was associated with significantly lower odds of COIN (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77; P = 0.005). The median time to neutropenia diagnosis was 22 days (interquartile range, 14-29 days) from the time of inpatient antimicrobial start. Intervention for COIN occurred in 66.5% of cases, with neutrophil count recovering in 96.9% of these patients. Clinical pharmacists initiated 74.8% of interventions. Conclusion COIN can be effectively identified and managed by a multidisciplinary team reviewing routine laboratory monitoring, enabling most patients to safely complete antimicrobial treatment.

ImportanceDirect immunofluorescence (DIF) testing has been an important ancillary tool for the diagnosis of various inflammatory mucocutaneous conditions for more than 50 years. Current DIF test panels are based on historical clinical descriptions; few studies have rigorously addressed preanalytical, analytical, and/or postanalytical aspects, and even fewer have been replicated or validated. Recent unresolved key issues include whether DIF testing and test panels should be triaged or truncated based on clinical indication or histopathologic findings.ObjectiveTo assess levels of consensus regarding practical aspects of DIF testing among immunodermatology testing specialists in the US.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing modified Delphi methods with a priori characterized criteria, a survey containing 54 statements pertaining to DIF testing was created and distributed to assess consensus. Statements not initially reaching consensus were discussed in 2 live virtual sessions, which were supplemented by relevant literature review and free-text survey comments. These statements were then reassessed in a second survey. Immunodermatology testing specialists in US academic institution–based and independent laboratories were invited based on serving as immunodermatology laboratory medical directors, authoring pertinent literature, or delivering relevant talks at major conferences or by referral. The first survey was conducted from January to February 2024, and the second survey was conducted from March to April 2024.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary measured outcome was degree of consensus for various DIF testing practice, including DIF testing triage by histopathology/dermatopathology findings and DIF testing panel tailored truncations by clinical indication.ResultsA total of 23 respondents to the survey invitation had a mean (SD) of 18.5 (11.1) years and median (range) of 20.0 (1.5-46.0) years in immunodermatology laboratory practice. Consensus was achieved for 46 of 54 statements (85.2%) in the initial survey and for an additional 4 statements in the second survey (50 of 54 [92.6%]). Strong consensus was found against tailored truncation of DIF panel based on the clinical indication in the first survey round. The general acceptability of triaging specimens for DIF testing based on histopathology findings remained without consensus after both surveys.Conclusions and RelevanceOverall, participating US specialists in immunodermatology laboratory testing agreed on many practical aspects of DIF testing, including matters not queried previously. The findings also revealed areas of continued controversy and identified issues for prioritized future study.

Abstract Objective: Patients with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) are prone to Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO) colonization and infections, thus at risk for worse outcomes during critical illness. Understanding the prevalence and predictors of MDRO infections is essential to optimize interventions and treatments. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: The study evaluated the prevalence of MDRO isolation among adults with OUD admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2023. It included adults admitted to an ICU with bacterial infections and positive cultures obtained within 48 hours of admission. Demographics, clinical traits, and MDRO isolation rates were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate methods, and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression. Results: MDRO isolation occurred in 178 of 790 patients (22.5%), with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as the most frequently isolated organism. LASSO regression identified housing insecurity (OR: 1.79, 95% CI 1.09–2.93, P = .022), no receipt of medications for OUD treatment (OR: 1.56, 95% CI 1.06–2.29, P = .023), positive hepatitis C virus (HCV) status (OR: 2.19, 95% CI 1.19–4.03, P = .012), and intravenous antibiotic use in the prior 90 days (OR: 1.04 per 24 h, 95% CI 1.01–1.07, P = .007) as significant predictors of MDRO isolation. Conclusions: The study highlights a high prevalence of MDRO isolation in critically ill OUD patients admitted for infection-related issues with positive cultures obtained within 48 hours of admission, influenced by factors like housing insecurity, no receipt of medications for OUD treatment, HCV status, and prior antibiotic use.

Abstract Purpose/Background Clozapine requires careful monitoring to minimize adverse reactions and optimize response. Because of variable pharmacokinetics and interpatient variability, guidelines recommend therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), although practical guidance is limited. This study aims to characterize patient factors associated with TDM, rates of TDM use over time, turnaround times of TDM results, and influence of institutional initiatives aimed to improve TDM. Methods/Procedures A retrospective chart review was conducted at a large 2000-bed academic medical center from August 1, 2015, to November 26, 2023. Adult patients who were administered clozapine during medical or psychiatric inpatient hospitalizations were included. Data collected included patient demographics, clozapine TDM ordering, and clozapine TDM turnaround time. Yearly TDM rates were analyzed to evaluate the impact of various institutional clozapine-related initiatives on TDM practices. Results There were 679 encounters involving 334 patients; 62.7 % were men, and 84.4% were White. Younger patients were less likely to have levels drawn (odds ratio 0.98, confidence interval 0.97–0.99), while self-identified Asian patients more likely (odds ratio 7.54, confidence interval 1.60–35.42). TDM rates increased significantly over time for both medical ( P = 0.002) and psychiatric ( P < 0.001) admission types, with turnaround times improving from 66.07 hours in 2016 to 28.65 hours in 2022. Overall, TDM annual rates increased from 46.2% in 2015 to 69.6% in 2023. The time-period before and after an institutional initiative, which improved TDM turnaround time, was associated with improvements of TDM rates (36.2% vs 67.9%, P < 0.001) Conclusions This study highlights an increase in clozapine TDM use during the study period, but use remained suboptimal. Improvement of turnaround time was associated with increased TDM rates.

Purpose The time to complete oncology pharmacist tasks is needed to determine workload and productivity. The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) and the Hematology/Oncology Practice and Research Network (PRN) of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) partnered with the aim of establishing consensus on the time required to complete oncology pharmacy tasks. Methods Fifteen patient care tasks and 9 non-patient care tasks, commonly completed by oncology pharmacists were each assigned an average amount of time to be completed. This list was then converted into 24 statements and the Delphi survey method was utilized with an expert panel to arrive at consensus between December 2023 and February 2024. Consensus was defined as at least 75% agreement. The complete manuscript was endorsed by HOPA and ACCP Hematology/Oncology PRN. Results Thirty-three pharmacist-experts agreed to participate in this survey with all participating in round 1, and 29 (87.9%) participating in round 2. In round 1, 9 tasks achieved consensus, with 7 of these being classified as patient care associated. Seven statements reaching 65% but less than 75% agreement were deemed to reach borderline consensus. Eight statements failed to achieve at least 65% agreement and were modified based on respondent feedback. In round 2, 15 statements were included with all achieving consensus. At the completion of round 2, all 24 statements reached consensus, and the survey was deemed complete. Conclusion This project produced the first comprehensive consensus statements for the average time for a US-based oncology pharmacist to complete common patient and non-patient care-related tasks.

Background and Aims: Among those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is often diagnosed at a late stage and is a leading source of mortality. Detection of pCCA in PSC when curative action can be taken is challenging. Our aim was to create a deep learning model that analyzed MRI to detect early-stage pCCA and compare its diagnostic performance with expert radiologists. Approach and Results: We conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving adults with large duct PSC who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI. Senior abdominal radiologists reviewed the images. All patients with pCCA had early-stage cancer and were registered for liver transplantation. We trained a 3D DenseNet-121 model, a form of deep learning, using MRI images and assessed its performance in a separate test cohort. The study included 398 patients (training cohort n=150; test cohort n=248). pCCA was present in 230 individuals (training cohort n=64; test cohort n=166). In the test cohort, the respective performances of the model compared to the radiologists were: sensitivity 87.9% versus 50.0%, p <0.001; specificity 84.1% versus 100.0%, p <0.001; area under receiving operating curve 86.0% versus 75.0%, p <0.001. Even when a mass was absent, the model had a higher sensitivity for pCCA than radiologists (91.6% vs. 50.6%, p <0.001) and maintained good specificity (84.1%). Conclusions: The 3D DenseNet-121 MRI model effectively detects early-stage pCCA in PSC patients. Compared to expert radiologists, the model missed fewer cases of cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Estimated glomerular filtration rate is more accurate with combined creatinine and cystatin C equations (eGFRcr-cys) than creatinine alone. This study created and evaluated a cefepime dosing nomogram based on eGFRcr-cys for initial dosing in the critically ill. DESIGN: Pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults treated with cefepime. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data from 120 patients with baseline cystatin C and follow-up cefepime levels were used to develop a nomogram based on eGFRcr-cys and weight for initial cefepime dosing. The predicted proportion of patients who achieved a free cefepime concentration above the minimum inhibitory concentration of the organism for 100% of the dosing interval in the first 24 hours (100% ƒT > MIC at 24 hr) was compared between administered doses and those predicted by the nomogram doses. Overall drug exposure was estimated with the free area under the concentration time curve from 0 to 24 hours (ƒAUC0–24) and compared between administered and nomogram doses. Achievement of 100% ƒT > MIC at 24 hours was predicted to be significantly better with the nomogram compared with the administered dose (76% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). The median ƒAUC0–24 as predicted by the nomogram (666 mg·hr/L) was slightly higher than the actual ƒAUC0–24 with administered doses (612 mg·hr/L; p = 0.01), but the nomogram led to fewer ƒAUC0–24 values which were either too high (> 900) or too low (< 300) (7% vs. 20%; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a cystatin C-inclusive dosing nomogram for cefepime could improve target attainment without increasing the risk of potentially toxic levels in the critically ill.