Nishaminy Kasbekar

Limiting the Emergence of Extended‐Spectrum β‐Lactamase–Producing Enterobacteriaceae: Influence of Patient Population Characteristics on the Response to Antimicrobial Formulary Interventions

BACKGROUND Effective methods to control the emergence of extended-spectrum beta -lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella species (ESBL-EK) remain unclear. Variations in the patient populations at different hospitals may influence the effect of antimicrobial formulary interventions. METHODS To examine variations across hospitals in the response to antimicrobial interventions (ie, restriction of ceftazidime and ceftriaxone) designed to curb the spread of ESBL-EK, we conducted a 5-year quasi-experimental study. This study was conducted at 2 hospitals within the same health system: Hospital A is a 625-bed academic medical center, and Hospital B is a 344-bed urban community hospital. All adult patients with a healthcare-acquired clinical culture of ESBL-EK from July 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002 were included. RESULTS After the interventions, the use of ceftriaxone decreased by 86% at Hospital A and by 95% at Hospital B, whereas the use of ceftazidime decreased by 95% at Hospital A and by 97% at Hospital B. The prevalence of ESBL-EK at Hospital A decreased by 45% (P < .001), compared with a 22% decrease at Hospital B (P = .36). The following variables were significantly more common among ESBL-EK-infected patients at Hospital B: residence in a long-term care facility (adjusted odds ratio, 3.77 [95% confidence interval, 1.70-8.37]), advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06]), and presence of a decubitus ulcer (adjusted odds ratio, 4.13 [95% confidence interval, 1.97-8.65]). CONCLUSIONS The effect of antimicrobial formulary interventions intended to curb emergence of ESBL-EK may differ substantially across institutions, perhaps as a result of differences in patient populations. Variability in the epidemiological profiles of ESBL-EK isolates at different hospitals must be considered when designing interventions to respond to these pathogens.

Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy and the Kidney: An Update on Antiretroviral Medications for Nephrologists

Highly active antiretroviral therapy has dramatically altered the treatment and life expectancy of individuals who are infected with HIV. More than 20 antiretroviral drugs and drug combinations now are available in the United States. Nephrologists need to have an understanding of the pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral medications and the proper dosing of these medications in patients with impaired kidney function. It is also important for nephrologists to be aware of drug-drug interactions that can occur between antiretroviral medications and other medications that they may prescribe, including immunosuppressive medications that are used for renal transplantation, as this becomes more common in HIV-infected patients. Adverse reactions that affect the kidneys and cause fluid-electrolyte complications occur with certain antiretroviral agents, although most are relatively free of nephrotoxicity. This article reviews the clinical pharmacology and dosing modifications of the newer antiretroviral medications in patients with reduced kidney function; important drug-drug interactions involving these medications, particularly with other medications that are likely to be prescribed by nephrologists; and renal toxicities of antiretroviral agents.

Use of Antiepileptic Drugs in Patients with Kidney Disease

The number of medications used to treat different types of seizures has increased over the last 10–15 years. Most of the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are likely to be unfamiliar to many nephrologists. For both the older and newer AEDs, basic pharmacokinetic information, recommendations for drug dosing in patients with reduced kidney function or who are on dialysis, and adverse renal and fluid‐electrolyte effects are reviewed. Newer AEDs are less likely to have significant drug–drug interactions than older agents, but are more likely to need dosage adjustment in patients with reduced kidney function. The most common renal toxicities of these drugs include metabolic acidosis, hyponatremia, and nephrolithiasis; interstitial nephritis and other adverse effects are less common. Little is known about the clearance of most of the newer AEDs with high‐efficiency hemodialyzers or with peritoneal dialysis. Monitoring of drug levels when available, careful clinical assessment of patients taking AEDs, and close collaboration with neurologists is essential to the management of patients taking AEDs.

The safety of heparins in end-stage renal disease.

In patients on chronic dialysis, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the most commonly used agent for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis extracorporeal circuit, for hemodialysis catheter “locking” between dialysis treatments, and for nondialysis indications such as venous thromboembolic disease, peripheral vascular disease, and acute coronary artery disease. Potentially serious complications of UFH, such as hemorrhage, osteoporosis, and thrombocytopenia, have led to consideration of other options for anticoagulation, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs). LMWH can be used for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis circuit, but whether this has significant benefit compared to UFH remains to be proven. Because of the somewhat unpredictable risk of severe bleeding complications when LMWH is used for other indications in dialysis patients, UFH rather than LMWH is preferred for treatment of thromboembolic disease in these patients. DTIs have been used for anticoagulation in dialysis patients with heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), with argatroban being the preferred agent if heparin‐free hemodialysis cannot be performed. UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant in the vast majority of dialysis patients requiring systemic anticoagulation and for anticoagulation of the extracorporeal hemodialysis circuit.

HEMATOLOGY: ISSUES IN THE DIALYSIS PATIENT: The Safety of Heparins in End‐Stage Renal Disease

In patients on chronic dialysis, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the most commonly used agent for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis extracorporeal circuit, for hemodialysis catheter “locking” between dialysis treatments, and for nondialysis indications such as venous thromboembolic disease, peripheral vascular disease, and acute coronary artery disease. Potentially serious complications of UFH, such as hemorrhage, osteoporosis, and thrombocytopenia, have led to consideration of other options for anticoagulation, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs). LMWH can be used for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis circuit, but whether this has significant benefit compared to UFH remains to be proven. Because of the somewhat unpredictable risk of severe bleeding complications when LMWH is used for other indications in dialysis patients, UFH rather than LMWH is preferred for treatment of thromboembolic disease in these patients. DTIs have been used for anticoagulation in dialysis patients with heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), with argatroban being the preferred agent if heparin‐free hemodialysis cannot be performed. UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant in the vast majority of dialysis patients requiring systemic anticoagulation and for anticoagulation of the extracorporeal hemodialysis circuit.

HEMATOLOGY: ISSUES IN THE DIALYSIS PATIENT: The Safety of Heparins in End-Stage Renal Disease: SAFETY OF HEPARINS IN ESRD

In patients on chronic dialysis, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the most commonly used agent for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis extracorporeal circuit, for hemodialysis catheter “locking” between dialysis treatments, and for nondialysis indications such as venous thromboembolic disease, peripheral vascular disease, and acute coronary artery disease. Potentially serious complications of UFH, such as hemorrhage, osteoporosis, and thrombocytopenia, have led to consideration of other options for anticoagulation, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs). LMWH can be used for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis circuit, but whether this has significant benefit compared to UFH remains to be proven. Because of the somewhat unpredictable risk of severe bleeding complications when LMWH is used for other indications in dialysis patients, UFH rather than LMWH is preferred for treatment of thromboembolic disease in these patients. DTIs have been used for anticoagulation in dialysis patients with heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), with argatroban being the preferred agent if heparin‐free hemodialysis cannot be performed. UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant in the vast majority of dialysis patients requiring systemic anticoagulation and for anticoagulation of the extracorporeal hemodialysis circuit.