背景:建议实施替考拉宁(TEIC)的负荷剂量。然而,包装插页中的剂量设置与之间存在显着差异,在准则中,日本的实际负荷剂量状况尚不清楚。此外,TEIC作为副作用引起肝损伤。虽然发展肝损伤的风险没有报告后,负荷剂量根据指南增加,大量人口缺乏报告。因此,我们评估了负荷剂量的趋势以及影响TEIC给药疗效和安全性的因素.
方法:本研究使用日本行政索赔数据库。在2010年至2019年期间,在接受TEIC治疗的目标人群中评估了负荷剂量的趋势。根据负荷剂量的指南组(总剂量3天>1,600mg)和非指南组(≤1,600mg),通过倾向评分匹配调整患者特征。最后,采用单变量和多变量条件logistic回归分析评估影响30天死亡率和肝损伤的因素.
结果:根据这些标准选择了10,030名患者。基于推荐指南的负荷剂量比例随着时间的推移而增加,无论是否实施治疗药物监测(TDM),但尤其是在实施TDM的情况下,负荷剂量按照指南的建议给药.条件logistic回归分析显示药物管理与指导费用之间存在关系(优势比[OR]:0.45,95%置信区间[CI]:0.36-0.55),表明药剂师干预的报销,减少30天死亡率。此外,基于推荐指南的负荷剂量对肝损伤没有影响,和其他因素与肝损伤发生率的增加没有显着相关。
结论:因此,这项研究暗示了药物管理和指导费用所表明的药物管理的益处,并支持根据TEIC给药指南实施负荷剂量.
BACKGROUND: The loading dose of teicoplanin (TEIC) is recommended for implementation. However, there is significant discrepancy between the dose settings in the package insert and, in the guidelines, and the actual status of loading doses in Japan is unclear. Furthermore, TEIC causes liver injury as side effect. Although the risk of developing liver injury has not been reported to be increased following a loading dose based on the guidelines, there is a lack of reports in large populations. Therefore, we evaluated the trend in the loading dose and factors affecting the efficacy and safety of TEIC administration.
METHODS: A Japanese administrative claims database was used in this study. Trends in loading doses were evaluated in target populations administered TEIC between 2010 and 2019. Patient characteristics were adjusted by propensity score matching based on the guideline group (total dose of 3 days > 1,600 mg) and non-guideline group (≤ 1,600 mg) of the loading dose. Finally, univariable and multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors affecting 30-day mortality and liver injury.
RESULTS: A total of 10,030 patients were selected based on these criteria. The proportion of loading doses based on the recommended guidelines showed an increase over time, regardless of the implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), but especially so in cases where TDM was implemented, the loading doses were administered in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines. Conditional logistic regression analysis showed a relationship between drug management and guidance fees (odds ratio [OR]: 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36‒0.55), a reimbursement indicating pharmacist intervention, and a reduction in 30-day mortality. In addition, loading doses based on the recommended guidelines had no influence on liver injury, and other factors were not significantly associated with increased incidence of liver injury.
CONCLUSIONS: Thus, this study implies the benefits of pharmacological management as indicated by drug management and guidance fee and supports the implementation of loading doses based on the guideline on TEIC administration.