Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin dihydrate monotherapy with those of a combination of cefuroxime axetil plus erythromycin as empirical therapy forcommunity-acquiredpneumoniainhospitalizedpatients.Methods: Patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. The standard therapy of cefuroxime plus erythromycin was consistent with the American Thoracic Society, Canadian Community-Acquired Pneumonia Consensus Group, and Infectious Disease Society of America consensus guidelines. The doses were intravenous azithromycin (500 mg once daily) followed by oral azithromycin (500 mg once daily), intravenous cefuroxime (750 mg every 8 hours), followed by oral cefuroxime axetil (500 mg twice daily), and erythromycin (500-1000 mg) intravenously or orally every 6 hours. Randomization was stratified by severity of illness and age. Patients who were immunosuppressed or residing in nursing homes were excluded. Conclusions: Treatment with azithromycin was as effective as cefuroxime plus erythromycin in the empirical management of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent patients who were hospitalized. Azithromycin was well tolerated.

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose After community transmission of the novel virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was detected in the State of Washington in February 2020, innovative measures, such as telehealth appointments, were needed to safely continue to provide optimal pharmaceutical care for patients with chronic conditions and cancer. Summary Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal regulations limited the scope of telehealth pharmacist services. However, enactment of the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, followed by guidance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Health and Human Services, allowed currently credentialed providers (including pharmacists) to continue to provide patient care services via telehealth with fewer restrictions. Our health system has numerous credentialed pharmacists across multiple ambulatory care clinics. In this article, we highlight our process of expediting the implementation of telehealth services. This process included obtaining authorization for the credentialed pharmacists to provide telehealth services, completion of training modules, implementation of new technology platforms, development of new workflows, and utilization of resources for providers and patients to facilitate successful completion of telehealth visits. We also highlight the consent and documentation components crucially important to the telehealth visit and share some of our successes, as well as identified limitations, in providing pharmacist services via telehealth. Conclusion In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, our institution was able to swiftly implement clinical pharmacist telehealth services for many patients, offering a safe and effective way to continue providing a high level of care. This article discusses our experience with and potential limitations of telehealth to assist other pharmacists seeking to implement and/or expand their telehealth services.

We previously have shown that vascular catheters made of silicone elastomer carry a greater risk of subcutaneous infection with Staphylococcus aureus than do polyurethane (PU), polyvinylchloride (PVC), or Teflon@ catheters. We further have shown that there is greater inflammation surrounding silicone catheters than there is surrounding catheters made of the other materials, suggesting that silicone produces a greater chemotactic gradient than do the other materials. This study used a functional complement opsonization assay and radioimmunoassays to compare the relative abilities of silicone, polyurethane, and polyvinylchloride to activate complement. Serum incubated in silicone catheters for 24 h had less than 30% of the opsonizing ability of fresh serum while 278% of the opsonizing ability remained with serum incubated in PU or PVC catheters. Measurement of C3a des Arg, C4a des Arg, C5a des Arg, and SC5b-9 demonstrated that the loss of opsonizing ability was due to 10-fold greater alternate pathway complement activation by silicone than by PU or PVC. This finding suggests that excessive complement activation by silicone may explain the greater inflammation seen around silicone catheters in viva and also might play a role in silicone's creating a greater risk of infection.

No abstract