School of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Westmead Hospital, Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Dec;56(6):106180. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106180. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
When performed according to best-practice principles, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can optimise anti-infective treatment and directly benefit clinical outcomes. We evaluated TDM performance and clinical decision-making for established anti-infective agents amongst Australian hospitals. A nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted between August and September 2019. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions regarding TDM of anti-infective agents in general as well as clinical vignettes specific to vancomycin, gentamicin and voriconazole. We sought to survey all Australian hospitals operating both in the public and private health sectors. Responses were captured from 85 unique institutions, from all Australian states and territories. Regarding guidelines, 26% of hospitals did not have endorsed guidelines to advise on the ordering, sampling and interpretation of TDM for any anti-infective agent. Admitting teams were predominantly responsible for ordering TDM (85%) and interpreting results (76%). Only 51% of hospitals had access to dose prediction software, with access generally better amongst principal referral (69%) (P = 0.01) and children's hospitals (100%) (P = 0.04). Whenever a laboratory-derived minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was not available to guide dosing decisions, a surrogate target MIC was assumed in 77% of hospitals. This was based on a 'worst-case' scenario infection in 11% of hospitals. The rates of clinical practice consistent with current guideline recommendations across all aspects of TDM were demonstrated to be 0% for vancomycin, 4% for gentamicin and 35% for voriconazole. At present, there is significant institutional variability in the clinical practice of TDM for anti-infective agents in Australia for established TDM drugs.
当按照最佳实践原则进行操作时,治疗药物监测(TDM)可以优化抗感染治疗,并直接改善临床结果。我们评估了澳大利亚医院中常规抗感染药物的 TDM 性能和临床决策。2019 年 8 月至 9 月期间进行了一项全国性的横断面调查。该调查包括关于一般抗感染药物 TDM 的多项选择题,以及万古霉素、庆大霉素和伏立康唑的具体临床病例。我们试图调查所有在公共和私营卫生部门运营的澳大利亚医院。来自澳大利亚所有州和地区的 85 个不同机构对该调查做出了回应。关于指南,26%的医院没有认可的指南来指导任何抗感染药物的 TDM 订单、采样和解释。入院团队主要负责 TDM 的订单(85%)和结果的解释(76%)。只有 51%的医院可以使用剂量预测软件,主要转诊医院(69%)(P=0.01)和儿童医院(100%)(P=0.04)的使用情况较好。只要没有实验室衍生的最小抑菌浓度(MIC)来指导剂量决策,77%的医院就会假设一个替代目标 MIC。在 11%的医院中,这是基于一种“最坏情况”的感染情况。在 TDM 的所有方面,与当前指南建议一致的临床实践率在万古霉素方面为 0%,在庆大霉素方面为 4%,在伏立康唑方面为 35%。目前,澳大利亚常规抗感染药物 TDM 的临床实践存在显著的机构差异。