Twice-daily intravenous bolus tacrolimus infusion: A safe and effective regimen for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis.

Objective/background: Among patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, continuous intravenous (IV) tacrolimus infusion is frequently used for graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis. Twice-daily intermittent IV tacrolimus dosing may confer safety and convenience benefits.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 66 patients who received twice-daily IV bolus tacrolimus for GvHD prophylaxis.

Clinical Outcomes Using Mycophenolate and Tacrolimus for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant: A Single Institution Experience.

For recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus tacrolimus combination is mostly used in reduced-intensity (RIC), and nonmyeloablative conditioning (NMAC) whereas methotrexate and tacrolimus combination is preferred in myeloablative conditioning (MAC). We present single institution outcomes in patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT with both MAC and NMAC/RIC regimen using MMF and tacrolimus for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Data from all adult patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT from 2007 to 2017 was collected from Data Back to Centers web-based application of Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).

Cefepime versus ticarcillin and clavulanate potassium and aztreonam for febrile neutropenia therapy in high-dose chemotherapy patients.

An open labeled randomized trial comparing the efficacy and cost of empirically applied cefepime (C) as monotherapy versus combination therapy consisting of ticarcillin and clavulanate potassium and aztreonam (T/A) was performed in febrile neutropenic patients following high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) +/- radiation, with or without peripheral blood stem cell support. Over a 28-month period, 126 patients were screened and included in the study. Using afebrile status following 3 days of therapy as a primary endpoint, both regimens produced comparable clinical response rates (C = 55% vs.

Formulary management of colony-stimulating factors.

The outcome of a formulary interchange from filgrastim to sargramostim for the amelioration of neutropenia for outpatients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy was evaluated. The pharmacy department at the James Graham Brown Cancer Center of the University of Louisville Hospital implemented a therapeutic interchange program by following the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations performance methodology, incorporating four key elements: plan, do, check, and act. After the pharmacy and therapeutics committee agreed that filgrastim and sargramostim are therapeutically equivalent, the pharmacy initiated the interchange, with a commitment to collect outcomes data to analyze the impact of the program on patient outcomes.