Trends in teicoplanin loading dose implementation from 2010 to 2019 and evaluation of safety and efficacy factors: a retrospective cohort study based on a Japanese administrative claims database.
Database
Japan
Liver injury
Loading dose
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Mortality
Teicoplanin
Journal
Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences
ISSN: 2055-0294
Titre abrégé: J Pharm Health Care Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672177
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2023
01 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
14
06
2023
accepted:
06
09
2023
medline:
1
11
2023
pubmed:
1
11
2023
entrez:
1
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The loading dose of teicoplanin (TEIC) is recommended for implementation. However, there is significant discrepancy between the dose settings in the package insert and, in the guidelines, and the actual status of loading doses in Japan is unclear. Furthermore, TEIC causes liver injury as side effect. Although the risk of developing liver injury has not been reported to be increased following a loading dose based on the guidelines, there is a lack of reports in large populations. Therefore, we evaluated the trend in the loading dose and factors affecting the efficacy and safety of TEIC administration. A Japanese administrative claims database was used in this study. Trends in loading doses were evaluated in target populations administered TEIC between 2010 and 2019. Patient characteristics were adjusted by propensity score matching based on the guideline group (total dose of 3 days > 1,600 mg) and non-guideline group (≤ 1,600 mg) of the loading dose. Finally, univariable and multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors affecting 30-day mortality and liver injury. A total of 10,030 patients were selected based on these criteria. The proportion of loading doses based on the recommended guidelines showed an increase over time, regardless of the implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), but especially so in cases where TDM was implemented, the loading doses were administered in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines. Conditional logistic regression analysis showed a relationship between drug management and guidance fees (odds ratio [OR]: 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36‒0.55), a reimbursement indicating pharmacist intervention, and a reduction in 30-day mortality. In addition, loading doses based on the recommended guidelines had no influence on liver injury, and other factors were not significantly associated with increased incidence of liver injury. Thus, this study implies the benefits of pharmacological management as indicated by drug management and guidance fee and supports the implementation of loading doses based on the guideline on TEIC administration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The loading dose of teicoplanin (TEIC) is recommended for implementation. However, there is significant discrepancy between the dose settings in the package insert and, in the guidelines, and the actual status of loading doses in Japan is unclear. Furthermore, TEIC causes liver injury as side effect. Although the risk of developing liver injury has not been reported to be increased following a loading dose based on the guidelines, there is a lack of reports in large populations. Therefore, we evaluated the trend in the loading dose and factors affecting the efficacy and safety of TEIC administration.
METHODS
METHODS
A Japanese administrative claims database was used in this study. Trends in loading doses were evaluated in target populations administered TEIC between 2010 and 2019. Patient characteristics were adjusted by propensity score matching based on the guideline group (total dose of 3 days > 1,600 mg) and non-guideline group (≤ 1,600 mg) of the loading dose. Finally, univariable and multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors affecting 30-day mortality and liver injury.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 10,030 patients were selected based on these criteria. The proportion of loading doses based on the recommended guidelines showed an increase over time, regardless of the implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), but especially so in cases where TDM was implemented, the loading doses were administered in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines. Conditional logistic regression analysis showed a relationship between drug management and guidance fees (odds ratio [OR]: 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36‒0.55), a reimbursement indicating pharmacist intervention, and a reduction in 30-day mortality. In addition, loading doses based on the recommended guidelines had no influence on liver injury, and other factors were not significantly associated with increased incidence of liver injury.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Thus, this study implies the benefits of pharmacological management as indicated by drug management and guidance fee and supports the implementation of loading doses based on the guideline on TEIC administration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37908001
doi: 10.1186/s40780-023-00304-y
pii: 10.1186/s40780-023-00304-y
pmc: PMC10619217
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
35Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
ID : 23HA2002
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : JP21K10290
Informations de copyright
© 2023. Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences and BioMed Central Ltd.
Références
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021 Jun;46(3):622-632
pubmed: 33547647
J Infect Chemother. 2022 Sep;28(9):1266-1272
pubmed: 35606308
Cancer Sci. 2023 Jun;114(6):2560-2568
pubmed: 36866958
Hematol Oncol. 2023 Aug;41(3):354-362
pubmed: 36792059
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 Oct;53(10):4069-79
pubmed: 19596875
J Infect Chemother. 2014 Jan;20(1):43-7
pubmed: 24462424
JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021 Feb 03;3(1):dlaa114
pubmed: 34223066
Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2021 Dec;8(4):459-480
pubmed: 34148219
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Feb 1;52(3):e18-55
pubmed: 21208910
Lancet Infect Dis. 2013 Dec;13(12):1057-98
pubmed: 24252483
Lancet. 2022 Feb 12;399(10325):629-655
pubmed: 35065702
J Pharm Health Care Sci. 2020 Aug 18;6:18
pubmed: 32832095
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452-8
pubmed: 23208313
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 9;17(9):e0274324
pubmed: 36083990
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Sep;68(9):1243-55
pubmed: 22411630
Med Clin North Am. 1995 Jul;79(4):833-44
pubmed: 7791426
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000 Sep;39(3):167-83
pubmed: 11020133