Evaluation of traditional initial vancomycin dosing versus utilizing an electronic AUC/MIC dosing program

ABSTRACT

Background: Area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) has been recommended by the 2020 updated vancomycin guidelines for dosing vancomycin for both efficacy and safety. Previously, AUC/MIC has been cumbersome to calculate so surrogate trough concentrations of 15-20 mg/dL were utilized. However, trough-based dosing is not a sufficient surrogate as AUC/MIC targets of 400-600 can usually be reached without achieving troughs of 15-20 mg/dL. Targeting higher trough levels may also lead to adverse events including acute kidney injury (AKI) and nephrotoxicity. Objective: To compare the mean total first day vancomycin dose in traditional trough-based dosing versus dosing recommended by an AUC/MIC dosing program. Methods: Adult inpatients who received at least 24 hours of IV vancomycin treatment were included in this single-center, retrospective cohort study. The primary endpoint was difference in mean total first day vancomycin dose in milligrams (mg) received between patients’ traditional trough-based dosing and recommended dose via AUC/MIC electronic dosing calculator. Patients served as their own control by analyzing both actual dose received and dose recommended by the electronic AUC/MIC program. Rates of vancomycin induced adverse events, including acute kidney injury, elevated steady-state trough concentrations, and Red Man’s syndrome were also compared between patients who received doses consistent with the AUC/MIC dosing recommendation versus those who did not. Results: 264 patients were included in this study. Initial 24-hour vancomycin exposure was significantly lower with the recommended AUC/MIC dose versus the dose received (2380.7; SD 966.6 mg vs 2649.6; SD 831.8 mg, [95% CI 114.7:423.1] p=0.0007). Conclusions: Utilizing an electronic AUC/MIC vancomycin dosing calculator would result in lower total first day vancomycin doses.

KEYWORDS

• Vancomycin
• Drug Monitoring
• Area Under Curve
• Microbial Sensitivity Tests
• Acute Kidney Injury
• Software
• Inpatients
• Retrospective Studies
• United States

Showing references and in-text citations exactly as published.

• DOI10.18549/PharmPract.2020.3.2024Copy

RELATED ARTICLES

Matched on section and article type within this issue of PP.

• Article · VOLUME 18, ISSUE 3Pharmacists' perception of their role during COVID-19: a qualitative content analysis of posts on Facebook pharmacy groups in JordanTareq L. MUKATTASH, Anan S. JARAB, Ibrahim MUKATTASH, Mohammad B. NUSAIR, Rana ABU FARHA, May BISHARAT, Iman A. BASHETI · pp. 1900Original ResearchSame type: Article
• Article · VOLUME 18, ISSUE 3A survey on feasibility of telehealth services among young Italian pharmacistsSimone Baldoni, Graziano Pallotta, Enea Traini, Getu G. Sagaro, Giulio Nittari, Francesco Amenta · pp. 1926Original ResearchSame type: Article
• Article · VOLUME 18, ISSUE 3The role of the community pharmacist in veterinary patient care: a cross-sectional study of pharmacist and veterinarian viewpointsMary E. Fredrickson, Hayley Terlizzi, Rikki L. Horne, Stanley Dannemiller · pp. 1928Original ResearchSame type: Article
• Article · VOLUME 18, ISSUE 3Applicability of American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) competencies to clinical pharmacy practice in EgyptMahmoud A. Elmaaty, Ahmed A. Elberry, Raghda R. Hussein, Doaa M. Khalil, Amani E. Khalifa · pp. 1951Original ResearchSame type: Article