Probiotics are living microorganisms which have demonstrated many benefits in prevention, mitigation, and treatment of various disease states in critically ill populations. These diseases include antibiotic-associated diarrhea, Clostridium difficile diarrhea, ventilator-associated pneumonia, clearance of vancomycin-resistant enterococci from the GI tract, pancreatitis, liver transplant, major abdominal surgery, and trauma. However, their use has been severely limited due to a variety of factors including a general naïveté within the physician community, lack of regulation, and safety concerns. This article focuses on uses for probiotics in prevention and treatment, addresses current concerns regarding their use as well as proposing a protocol for safe use of probiotics in the critically ill patient.

Purpose: As health care progresses toward pay for performance reimbursement models and focus is placed on the patient as a consumer, health care systems must adapt by initiating new programs and services. This institution responded by implementing a “Meds 2 Beds” program integrating clinical services with dispensing and medication delivery during transitions of care. This study evaluates outcomes relevant to patients, health care providers, pharmacists, and administrators. Methods: This observational chart review evaluated the effectiveness of a “Meds 2 Beds” program from May 1, 2014, through December 1, 2015. Patients who participated in this program were matched 1:1 with controls who did not. The primary outcome was 30-day hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes included 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, patient satisfaction, and financial impact. Results: In this sample, 185 “Meds 2 Beds” patients were matched to 185 controls. Thirty day readmission occurred in 16 (8.7%) “Meds 2 Beds” cases and 19 (10.3%) controls ( P = .71). Rates of 30-day ED visits were nonsignificantly reduced in cases (22 [11.9%] vs 33 [18.1%]; odds ratio = 0.62, P = .11) and occurred significantly later (11 vs 7 days, P = .03). Conclusions: This study showcases a creative medication delivery and discharge counseling program. The program provides financial benefit to the institution creating a direct revenue stream from prescription dispensing while highlighting a potential for reduced readmissions and ED visits (although a statistically significant difference was not demonstrated in this analysis). A similar model can be adopted by other health care institutions to improve the quality of patient care.

BackgroundHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment guidelines recommend using a regimen that contains three fully active antiretroviral agents in patients with drug resistance mutations. However, some evidence suggests that protease inhibitor (PI) based regimens containing less than three fully active drugs may be as efficacious in achieving viral suppression (VS) as a three-drug regimen in the presence of a M184V mutation. The purpose of this study was to identify current prescribing practices and determine if VS can be achieved with regimens containing less than three fully active agents in patients with a M184V mutation.MethodsA single-center retrospective chart review was conducted on patients receiving treatment at the 550 Clinic from January 2003 to July 2016. Patients were screened for a M184V mutation. Patients were excluded for lack of a genotype and inadequate documentation of viral load (VL) prior to initiating or changing therapy. Regimens were characterized as containing three fully active agents or less and evaluated for VS success (VL less than 200 copies/mL). Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and Fischer’s exact tests.ResultsA M184V mutation was identified in 100 of the 754 patients screened for inclusion. 90% of the 167 regimens evaluated contained less than three fully active drugs. PI-based regimens (n = 86) and integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens (n = 25) were the most commonly prescribed regimens containing less than three fully active drugs. VS was achieved with 72% of regimens containing less than three fully active agents compared with 69% of those containing three fully active agents (P = 0.108). In patients with a baseline VL greater than 100,000 copies/mL, VS was achieved with 80% of INSTI-based regimens compared with 21% of PI-based regimens (P = 0.040). VS was achieved with 85% of INSTI-based regimens and 78% of PI-based regimens in those with a baseline VL less than 100,000 copies/mL (P = 0.513).ConclusionRegimens containing less than three fully active drugs may be as efficacious as regimens containing three fully active drugs in those with a M184V mutation. In those with a high baseline VL, INSTI-based regimens may have better efficacy compared with PI-based regimens.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

No abstract

No abstract