Evaluation of a potential clinical interaction between ceftriaxone and calcium.

Midwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, USA.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (Impact Factor: 4.57). 04/2010; 54(4):1534-40. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01111-09
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In April 2009, the FDA retracted a warning asserting that ceftriaxone and intravenous calcium products should not be coadministered to any patient to prevent precipitation events leading to end-organ damage. Following that announcement, we sought to evaluate if the retraction was justified. A search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System was conducted to identify any ceftriaxone-calcium interactions that resulted in serious adverse drug events. Ceftazidime-calcium was used as a comparator agent. One hundred four events with ceftriaxone-calcium and 99 events with ceftazidime-calcium were identified. Adverse drug events were recorded according to the listed description of drug involvement (primary or secondary suspect) and were interpreted as probable, possible, unlikely, or unrelated. For ceftriaxone-calcium-related adverse events, 7.7% and 20.2% of the events were classified as probable and possible for embolism, respectively. Ceftazidime-calcium resulted in fewer probable embolic events (4%) but more possible embolic events (30.3%). Among cases that considered ceftriaxone or ceftazidime and calcium as the primary or secondary drug, one case was classified as a probable embolic event. That patient received ceftriaxone-calcium and died, although an attribution of causality was not possible. Our analysis suggests a lack of support for the occurrence of ceftriaxone-calcium precipitation events in adults. The results of the current analysis reinforce the revised FDA recommendations suggesting that patients >28 days old may receive ceftriaxone and calcium sequentially and provide a transparent and reproducible methodology for such evaluations.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Critically ill patients often receive multiple medications via continuous intravenous infusion. Coadministration of multiple medications through the same port of a venous access device often is necessary but requires an assessment of compatibility.OBJECTIVE:To describe the frequency of inappropriate coadministration of continuously infused medications via a Y-site and the use of intravenous catheters in patients in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) in a multicenter, cross-sectional observational study.METHODS:Data pertaining to medication compatibility via Y-site infusion (medication combinations known to be incompatible or not known to be compatible), frequency of specific medications administered via continuous infusion, and catheter use (median number, location, and types of venous catheters) were collected from medical records of 434 patients in the ICUs of 13 teaching hospitals in Canada.RESULTS:Forty-six percent of patients were receiving 2 or more medication infusions simultaneously. Forty episodes of inappropriate coadministration of these infusions were identified in 37 patients. The prevalence of inappropriate coadministration of drugs via a Y-site port in all patients was 8.5% (95% CI 5.8-11.2). The prevalence of incompatible combinations via Y-site in patients with 2 or more medication infusions was 18.7%. Twenty-five of these 37 patients could have had their drug schedules rearranged into acceptable combinations, leaving 12 patients who would have required additional intravenous access to facilitate appropriate medication infusions. Median (range) number of central and peripheral venous access devices inserted per patient were 1 (0-4) and 1 (0-5), respectively. Seventeen of 95 patients with 2 or more central venous catheters could have had their medication infusions rearranged to render 1 catheter idle.CONCLUSIONS:Inappropriate Y-site combinations of medications continuously infused in Canadian ICUs are common. Management of medication infusions could, however, have been optimized in most of these situations.
    Annals of Pharmacotherapy 04/2013; · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biological functions of antibiotics are not limited to killing. The most likely function of antibiotics in natural microbial ecosystems is signaling. Does this signaling function of antibiotics also extend to the eukaryotic - in particular mammalian - cells? In this review, the host modulating properties of three classes of antibiotics (macrolides, tetracyclines, and β-lactams) will be briefly discussed. Antibiotics can be effective in treatment of a broad spectrum of diseases and pathological conditions other than those of infectious etiology and, in this capacity, may find widespread applications beyond the intended antimicrobial use. This use, however, should not compromise the primary function antibiotics are used for. The biological background for this inter-kingdom signaling is also discussed.
    Frontiers in Microbiology 01/2013; 4:241. · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: In 1998, a multidisciplinary team of investigators initiated the Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports (RADAR) project, a post-marketing surveillance effort that systematically investigates and disseminates information describing serious and previously unrecognized serious adverse drug and device reactions (sADRs). OBJECTIVE: Herein, we describe the findings, dissemination efforts, and lessons learned from the first decade of the RADAR project. METHODS: After identifying serious and unexpected clinical events suitable for further investigation, RADAR collaborators derived case information from physician queries, published and unpublished clinical trials, case reports, US FDA databases and manufacturer sales figures. STUDY SELECTION: All major RADAR publications from 1998 to the present are included in this analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: For each RADAR publication, data were abstracted on data source, correlative basic science findings, dissemination and resultant safety information. RESULTS: RADAR investigators reported 43 serious ADRs. Data sources included case reports (17 sADRs), registries (5 sADRs), referral centers (8 sADRs) and clinical trial reports (13 sADRs). Correlative basic science findings were reported for ten sADRs. Thirty-seven sADRS were described as published case reports (5 sADRs) or published case-series (32 sADRs). Related safety information was disseminated as warnings or boxed warnings in the package insert (17 sADRs) and/or 'Dear Healthcare Professional' letters (14 sADRs). CONCLUSION: An independent National Institutes of Health-funded post-marketing surveillance programme can supplement existing regulatory and pharmaceutical manufacturer-supported drug safety initiatives.
    Drug Safety 04/2013; · 2.62 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014