Purpose Beta-lactam antibiotics are among the most common and widely used antibiotics. However, reported allergy to this class of antibiotics is also common, leading to the use of alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics by healthcare providers. This has led to the emergence of various negative health outcomes. The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of using alternative antibiotics secondary to a beta-lactam allergy among U.S. veterans who have otherwise multiple comorbidities. Methods This retrospective observational analysis was conducted over a 5-year period (January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2016) at the Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). Admitted patients with a documented beta-lactam allergy were categorized to preferred or non-preferred status based on initial antibiotic therapy antibiotic, allergy history, published guidelines, and local antibiogram. Preferred therapy was defined as the optimal antibiotic treatment for a given indication based on patient allergy history, published Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines, and local antibiogram of Memphis VAMC. The therapy was classified as “non-preferred” if it did not satisfy the preferred therapy criteria. Non-preferred treatments were further assessed for appropriateness based on indication and patient-specific factors. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were conducted to find a difference in rates of negative sequelae among patients receiving preferred vs. non-preferred treatments and appropriate vs. inappropriate treatments. Findings Of the 1806 admissions identified, data were collected on 95 unique patients with 147 different antibiotic regimens. There were 68 (52%) preferred treatment regimens and 64 (48%) non-preferred treatment regimens. Of the 64 non-preferred treatments, 43 (67%) were inappropriate. There was a statistically significant decrease in the number of adverse drug events and in the combined negative sequelae outcome among patients receiving preferred therapy vs. non-preferred therapy (2 vs. 12; P < .01 and 11 vs. 23; P < .01, respectively). Implications The receipt of non-preferred antibiotic therapy among veterans with a recorded beta-lactam allergy may be associated with an increased risk of developing negative outcomes. Among military personnel, removing unnecessary beta-lactam allergies would improve readiness with optimal antibiotic choices and avoidance of unnecessary risks, expediting return to full duty.

Background: Apixaban is eliminated by the kidneys and in acute kidney injury (AKI) there is potential for an increase in apixaban exposure and bleeding events. In one instance, data have shown higher than normal bleed risk in patients with AKI, unless calibrated anti-factor Xa monitoring is used, which is not widely available. Objective: To evaluate bleeding with apixaban administration to hospitalized patients with an AKI in an unmonitored real-world scenario. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted to a large urban academic teaching hospital from April 2015 to March 2022, who received apixaban for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The primary outcome evaluated major bleeding when apixaban was administered to patients with or without an AKI. Results: A total of 232 patients were evaluated (116 per group). Most patients (79.7%) were on apixaban for NVAF, 32.7% had chronic kidney disease, 58.2% were on a medication increasing bleed risk, and HAS-BLED score was a median of 2 in both groups. No differences were noted between groups for bleeding (AKI group 7.8% vs non-AKI 3.4%; P = 0.15), and on regression analysis, coadministration of a P2Y12 inhibitor was predictive of major bleeding (odds ratio = 5.9; 95% confidence interval = 1.4-23.6). Conclusion and Relevance: Although no differences between groups were noted, apixaban use in the AKI group resulted in a higher than normally reported incidence of apixaban-associated major bleeding, and concomitant antiplatelet use increased bleed risk as well. Cautious use of apixaban and further investigation with larger studies are warranted in this area.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: In 2016, the FDA issued a warning for saxagliptin and alogliptin regarding an increased risk of heart failure (HF), potentially limiting the use of effective medications in type 2 diabetes. Current data and guideline recommendations regarding HF risk are conflicting, especially with alogliptin. In March 2019, the Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center made a formulary change from saxagliptin to alogliptin, creating an opportunity to evaluate a large number of patients receiving alogliptin. Objective: To evaluate the risk of HF with alogliptin use in type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients prescribed alogliptin was performed. The primary outcome was the composite number of HF hospital admissions and ED visits. Secondary outcomes included exacerbation rates among established HF patients, incidence of new-onset HF, incidence of alogliptin discontinuation due to HF, comparison of HF exacerbations between saxagliptin and alogliptin in patients with prior saxagliptin use, and evaluation of concomitant cardiotoxic medications. Results: 455 patients were included. A composite of 28 hospital admissions and ED visits occurred for a HF exacerbation. Fourteen patients (26.4%) of 53 patients with established HF had an exacerbation, whereas 5 patients (1.2%) of 402 patients with no history of HF had an exacerbation. Eight patients (2%) developed new-onset HF. Alogliptin was discontinued in 4 patients (0.9%) due to HF. No statistically significant difference in HF exacerbations was found between patients on alogliptin who previously received saxagliptin (4.8% vs 4.2%, P = 0.726). Conclusions: Alogliptin may increase the risk of HF exacerbation in patients with established HF.