Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting 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 The University of Oklahoma College of Pharmacy (OUCOP) implemented an individualized residency research committee and skill development program to facilitate completion and publication of research projects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes the program had on project publication rates and subsequent publications after graduation for postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) residents. Methods This study included OUCOP PGY1 and PGY2 residents from classes graduating from 2011 through 2019. Literature searches for all resident projects and subsequent publications were performed. Data collection included residency type (PGY1 vs PGY2), initial position after residency, and project type. The primary objective was to identify the publication rate of research projects. Secondary objectives included a comparison of the number of publications after residency graduation between residents who did and did not publish their residency project and analysis of factors associated with subsequent publications. Zero-inflated Poisson regression was utilized to analyze subsequent publication status controlling for other factors. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS/STAT with an a priori P value of <0.05. Results Eighty-two projects were completed by 73 residents. Forty-three of 82 projects were published (52.4%) by 39 of 73 residents (52.1%). After residency graduation, 54 residents (74.0%) had a subsequent publication. Factors associated with subsequent publications were initial position in an academic role and completion of additional training after residency. Conclusion After implementation of the program, the majority of residents published their projects and had subsequent publications. Future efforts should be taken to identify opportunities to foster independence in research and scholarship for residents.

Objective: To provide a review of 3 novel antimicrobial agents—ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, and imipenem/cilastatin-relebactam—regarding treatment of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (KPC). Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed and OVID (MEDLINE) was performed up to March 2020 using the following search terms: Vabomere, meropenem-vaborbactam, vaborbactam, RPX7009, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, KPC, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, CRE, relebactam, imipenem-relebactam, MK-7655, ceftazidime-avibactam. Abstracts from conferences, article bibliographies, and product information were also reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Articles were first screened by English language, then title, then abstract, and finally by review of the full article. Fifty-five clinical and preclinical studies were included. Data Synthesis: These 3 novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations have shown considerable improvement in safety and efficacy as compared with traditional polymyxin-based combination therapy for the treatment of KPC infections. While meropenem-vaborbactam has not shown improved activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, it has shown decreased rates of resistance to KPC versus ceftazidime-avibactam. Conclusions: With increasing incidence of KPC infections on a global scale, pharmacists should be aware of the notable similarities and differences between these 3 agents, and the current data supporting their use. Pharmacists may want to consider meropenem-vaborbactam over ceftazidime-avibactam for KPC infections due to decreased likelihood of resistance.

Background: Outpatient antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is managed by a variety of teams, but primarily through an infectious disease clinic. At our medical center, OPAT monitoring is performed telephonically by pharmacists through a collaborative practice agreement under the supervision of an infectious disease physician. The effect of telephonic monitoring of OPAT by pharmacists on patient outcomes is unknown. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted between July 2017 and July 2018 at a 350-bed academic medical center and included adult patients discharged home on IV antibiotics or oral linezolid. The experimental group comprised patients discharged with a consultation for the OPAT management program, whereas the control group comprised patients discharged home without a consultation. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission. Results: In total, 399 patients were included: 243 patients in the OPAT management program group and 156 patients in the control group. The 30-day readmission rates were similar in each cohort (20% vs 19%; P = .8193); however, the 30-day readmission rates were lower in the OPAT management program for patients discharged on vancomycin (19.4% vs 39.1%; P = .004). Conclusions: We did not find a difference in 30-day readmissions between patients receiving pharmacy-driven OPAT management services and those who did not. Patients receiving vancomycin via OPAT had lower 30-day readmissions when included in the pharmacist-driven OPAT management program. Institutions with limited resources may consider reserving OPAT management services for patients receiving antimicrobials that require pharmacokinetic dosing and/or close monitoring.