Survey of Canadian Pharmacists’ Responses to Warnings of Potential Interactions Between Ceftriaxone and Calcium in IV Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 2007, because of a potential interaction between ceftriaxone and calcium-containing IV solutions, Roche Laboratories (manufacturer of Rocephin [ceftriaxone] in the United States) issued letters to health care professionals advising them of changes to the product monograph. Subsequently, warning letters were also issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada. The Health Canada recommendations and their implications for clinical practice generated debate in the Canadian hospital pharmacy community.Objective: To evaluate the response to the warnings among hospital pharmacists and their respective institutions.Methods: An anonymous, voluntary 10-question survey was distributed to members of the Pharmacy Specialty Networks of the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists. Requests to participate were solicited via 2 e-mail messages. Responses were analyzed descriptively.Results: A total of 152 pharmacists participated in the survey. Fortythree respondents (28.3%) reported being very concerned and 86 (56.6%) reported being somewhat concerned about the Health Canada Notice to Hospitals. About half (77/152 [50.7%]) of the respondents felt that the Health Canada notice did not need to be strictly heeded. Two-thirds (98/145 [67.6%]) reported that their institutions had addressed the risk of an interaction through a change in policy regarding the administration of ceftriaxone. Eighty-eight (61.5%) of 143 participants indicated that their institution’s official position on the notice was that it represented a “relative contraindication” (i.e., the benefit may outweigh the risk).Conclusions: Warning letters issued by the manufacturer, the FDA, and Health Canada generated concern within the Canadian hospital pharmacy community. However, a large proportion of hospital pharmacy practitioners did not agree with strict adherence to the Health Canada notice.RÉSUMÉ Contexte : En 2007, à cause d’une interaction potentielle entre la ceftriaxone et les solutions intraveineuses contenant du calcium, Roche Laboratories (fabricant de Rocephin [ceftriaxone] aux États-Unis) ont émis une mise en garde aux professionnels de la santé les informant d’une modification à la monographie du produit. Par la suite, des mises en garde ont également été émises par la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) des États-Unis et par Santé Canada. Les recommandations de Santé Canada et leurs conséquences sur la pratique clinique ont soulevé un débat au sein de la communauté de la pharmacie hospitalière.Objectif : Évaluer la réponse à la mise en garde parmi les pharmaciens d’hôpitaux et leurs établissements respectifs.Méthodes : Un sondage anonyme à participation volontaire comportant 10 questions a été remis aux membres des Réseaux de spécialistes en pharmacie de la Société canadienne des pharmaciens d’hôpitaux. Les invitations à participer au sondage ont été communiquées au moyen de deux courriels. Les réponses ont été analysées de façon descriptive.Résultats : Au total, 152 pharmaciens ont participé au sondage. Quarante-trois répondants (28,3%) ont déclaré être très préoccupés et 86 (56,6%) ont déclaré être quelque peu préoccupés par l’Avis aux hôpitaux de Santé Canada. Environ la moitié (77/152 [50,7%]) des répondants estimaient qu’il n’était pas nécessaire de suivre à la lettre l’avis de Santé Canada. Les deux-tiers (98/145 [67,6%]) ont déclaré que leur établissement avait pris des mesures contre le risque d’interaction en modifiant leur politique d’administration de la ceftriaxone. Par ailleurs, 88 (61,5%) de 143 répondants ont indiqué que la position officielle de leur établissement relativement à cet avis était que celui-ci représentait une « contre-indication relative » (c.-à-d. que les bienfaits pouvaient l’emporter sur le risque).Conclusions : Les mises en garde émises par les fabricants, par la FDA et par Santé Canada ont soulevé des inquiétudes au sein de la communauté des pharmaciens d’hôpitaux du Canada. En revanche, une forte proportion des praticiens de la pharmacie hospitalière n’étaient pas d’accord pour observer à l’avis de Santé Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".