MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367599181 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.3337

Vancomycin Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Canadian Hospitals

2023· article· en· W4367599181 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sarah C J Jorgensen, Mark McIntyre, Jennifer Curran, Miranda So

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalSinai Health SystemUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVancomycinCross-sectional studyMedicineDrugTherapeutic drug monitoringIntensive care medicineEmergency medicinePharmacologyStaphylococcus aureusPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Little is known about the current landscape of vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in Canadian hospitals, which operate within publicly funded health care systems. Objectives: To determine current TDM practices for vancomycin and associated challenges and to gather perceptions about TDM based on area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) in Canadian hospitals. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to hospital pharmacists in spring 2021 through multiple national and provincial antimicrobial stewardship, public health, and pharmacy organizations. The survey gathered data about hospital characteristics, TDM methods, inclusion criteria for patient selection, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, vancomycin susceptibility testing and reporting, and perceived barriers and challenges. Results: In total, 120 pharmacists from 10 of the 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada, representing 12.5% of Canadian acute care hospitals (n = 962), completed at least 90% of survey questions. The predominant TDM method was trough-based (107/119, 89.9%); another 10.1% of respondents (12/119) reported performing AUC-based TDM (with or without trough-based TDM), and 17.9% (19/106) of those not already using AUC-based TDM were considering implementing it within 1 to 2 years. Among hospitals performing trough-based TDM, 60.5% (66/109) targeted trough levels between 15 and 20 mg/L for serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. One-quarter of the respondents using this method (27/109, 24.8%) agreed that trough-based TDM was of uncertain benefit, and about one-third (33/109, 30.3%) were neutral on this question. Multiple challenges were identified for trough-based TDM, including sub- or supra-therapeutic concentrations and collection of specimens at inappropriate times. Overall, 40.5% (47/116) of respondents agreed that AUC-based TDM was likely safer than trough-based TDM, whereas 23.3% (27/116) agreed that AUC-based TDM was likely more effective. Conclusions: This survey represents a first step in developing evidence-based, standardized best practices for vancomycin TDM that are uniquely suited to the Canadian health care system. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : On connaît peu de choses sur le paysage actuel du suivi thérapeutique pharmacologique (STP) de la vancomycine dans les hôpitaux canadiens, dont les activités s’inscrivent dans le cadre des systèmes de soins de santé financés par les deniers publics. Objectifs : Déterminer les pratiques actuelles de STP de la vancomycine et les défis associés et recueillir les perceptions concernant le STP sur la base de l’aire sous la courbe de la concentration en fonction du temps (ASC) dans les hôpitaux canadiens. Méthodes : Un sondage a été distribué électroniquement aux pharmaciens d’hôpitaux au printemps 2021 par plusieurs organismes nationaux et provinciaux de gestion de l’utilisation des antimicrobiens, de santé publique et de pharmacie. Le sondage a permis de rassembler des données concernant les caractéristiques des hôpitaux, les méthodes de STP, les critères d’inclusion pour la sélection des patients, les objectifs pharmacocinétiques et pharmacodynamiques, les tests de sensibilité à la vancomycine et les rapports des résultats, ainsi que les obstacles et les défis perçus. Résultats : Au total, 120 pharmaciens de 10 des 13 provinces et territoires du Canada, représentant 12,5 % des hôpitaux canadiens de soins actifs (n = 962), ont répondu à au moins 90 % des questions du sondage. La méthode de STP prédominante utilisée était celle de la concentration minimale (107/119, 89,9 %); un autre 10,1 % des répondants (12/119) ont déclaré effectuer un STP basé sur l’ASC (avec ou sans STP basé sur la concentration minimale), et 17,9 % (19/106) de ceux qui n’effectuaient pas déjà le STP basé sur l’ASC envisageaient de le mettre en œuvre d’ici 1 à 2 ans. Parmi les hôpitaux pratiquant le STP basé sur la concentration minimale, 60,5 % (66/109) ciblaient des concentrations minimales entre 15 et 20 mg/L pour les infections graves à Staphylococcus aureus résistant à la méthicilline. Un quart des répondants qui utilisaient cette méthode (27/109, 24,8 %) convenaient que les avantages du STP basé sur la concentration minimale étaient incertains, et environ un tiers (33/109, 30,3 %) étaient neutres. De multiples défis ont été identifiés pour le STP basé sur la concentration minimale, notamment des concentrations sous- ou supra-thérapeutiques et la collecte d’échantillons à des moments inappropriés. Dans l’ensemble, 40,5 % (47/116) des répondants convenaient que le STP basé sur l’ASC était probablement plus sûr que le STP basé sur la concentration minimale, tandis que 23,3 % (27/116) convenaient que le STP basé sur l’ASC était probablement plus efficace. Conclusions : Ce sondage représente une première étape dans l’élaboration de pratiques exemplaires normalisées et fondées sur des données probantes pour le STP de la vancomycine qui sont particulièrement adaptées au système de santé canadien.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207