BackgroundAppropriate utilization of vancomycin is important to attain therapeutic targets while avoiding clinical failure and the development of antimicrobial resistance. Our aim was to observe the use of vancomycin in an intensive care population, with the main focus on achievement of therapeutic serum concentrations (15–20 mg/l) and to evaluate how this was influenced by dose regimens, use of guidelines and therapeutic drug monitoring.MethodsA prospective observational study was carried out in the intensive care units at two tertiary hospitals in Norway. Data were collected from 83 patients who received vancomycin therapy, half of these received continuous renal replacement therapy. Patients were followed for 72 h after initiation of therapy. Blood samples were drawn for analysis of trough serum concentrations. Urine was collected for calculations of creatinine clearance. Information was gathered from medical records and electronic health records.ResultsLess than 40% of the patients attained therapeutic trough serum concentrations during the first 3 days of therapy. Patients with augmented renal clearance had lower serum trough concentrations despite receiving higher maintenance doses and more loading doses. When trough serum concentrations were outside of therapeutic range, dose adjustments in accordance to therapeutic drug monitoring were made to less than half.ConclusionThe present study reveals significant challenges in the utilization of vancomycin in critically ill patients. There is a need for clearer guidelines regarding dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin for patient subgroups.

pathogen inactivation, the SD treatment secures pathogen reduction. [2][3][4] Due to dilution and possible neutralization of the responsible antibodies, SD-plasma has a markedly lower rate of allergic/immunologic reactions including no reported cases of transfusion related acute lung injury (TRALI) despite over 10 million units transfused. 5,6 Further, SD-plasma can be regarded as a biopharmaceutical product with Si gnificant perioperative bleeding and transfusions of plasma, red blood cells (RBCs), and platelets are considered part of the normal clinical course of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT).1 By far the two most common plasma products available today are fresh frozen plasma (FFP) from single blood donors and solvent/detergent (SD)-treated pooled plasma. Whereas FFP does not undergo any kind of Background: Liver transplantation regularly requires transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), plasma, and platelets. Compared to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) from single blood donors, solvent/detergent-treated plasma (SD-plasma) pooled from several hundred blood donors has advantages with respect to pathogen reduction, standardized content of plasma proteins, and significantly reduced risk of transfusion related lung injury and allergic/ immunologic adverse reactions. However, SD-plasma has been suspected to increase the incidence of hyperfibrinolysis and thromboembolic events. Study Design and Methods:We investigated the transfusion practices, hyperfibrinolysis parameters, and thrombosis outcomes in 195 consecutive adult primary liver transplants in our center using SD-plasma (Octaplas) as the exclusive source of plasma.Results: Perioperatively, median (interquartile range) 4 (1 to 9) RBC-units, 10 (4 to 18) plasma-bags, and 0 (0 to 2) platelet-units were transfused. Hyperfibrinolysis defined as LY30 ≤ 7.5% was detected in 12/138 thrombelastography-monitored patients (9%). These patients received significantly more RBCs, plasma, and platelets than did patients without hyperfibrinolysis. Thrombotic graft complications were observed in three patients (2%). Pulmonary embolism was not observed in any patient. Conclusion:SD-plasma is a safe plasma product for liver transplant recipients, and the incidences of hyperfibrinolysis and thromboembolic events are not significantly different from those seen in centers using FFP.

Background Antiviral resistance in Norwegian influenza viruses is rare. Only one A(H1N1)pdm09 virus from May 2015 had been found resistant to oseltamivir since the introduction of these viruses in 2009. Objectives Surveillance of antiviral resistance is part of the Norwegian surveillance system, to rapidly detect the development of antiviral‐resistant viruses and spread in the community. We describe the spread of oseltamivir‐resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses in Norway in the 2016‐17 season, found as part of the routine surveillance. Methods Influenza H1N1 viruses were analysed for antiviral resistance by pyrosequencing, neuraminidase susceptibility assay and by Sanger sequencing of the HA and NA genes. Results During the 2015‐16 influenza season, 3% of all A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses screened for resistance in Norway were resistant to oseltamivir, possessing the H275Y substitution in the neuraminidase protein. In comparison, the overall frequency in Europe was 0.87%. Out of these, 37% (n = 10) were reported from Norway. Most cases in Norway were not related to antiviral treatment, and the cases were from several different locations of southern Norway. Genetic analysis revealed that resistant virus emerged independently on several occasions and that there was some spread of oseltamivir‐resistant influenza A(H1N1)6B.1 viruses in the community, characterised by a N370S substitution in the haemagglutinin and T48I in the neuraminidase. Conclusions Our findings emphasise the importance of antiviral resistance surveillance in the community, not only in immunocompromised patients or other patients undergoing antiviral treatment.

No abstract