//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfileReplies









Loading...
Excited to share an article that I've long awaited to share seeking to answer: What is the right dose of cephalexin/cefadroxil for SSTIs? We reviewed clinical studies & conducted PTA sims to elucidate this #IDSky @absteward.bsky.social accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
New on Vumedi: Dr. Jeffrey Freiberg discusses findings from the STOP-Vanc trial and the role of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in guiding vancomycin de-escalation for ICU patients with suspected pneumonia. Watch Now: www.vumedi.com/video/de-esc... #InfectiousDiseases #AntimicrobialStewardship
Thank you! I agree, it would have been great to know PCR + rate across whole study population. We discussed this idea but ultimately felt it might not be ethical to do a test solely for research purposes and not report the results in a study done under a waiver of consent.
The lower MRSA PCR + rate in the 30 control pts w/ test results is interesting and we are not exactly sure why. Since a provider had to choose to order the test in that arm, perhaps tests were ordered more often in pts w/o MRSA risk factors when providers just wanted reassurance before d/c'ing vanc?
Good observations! Unfortunately, use of the EHR's own randomization algorithm resulted in uneven groups.  MRSA infx rates were similar although slightly ⬆️ in int arm (7% v 4%). The 19% vs 7% MRSA PCR + rate likely reflects that it was not random which pts in the control arm got PCR tests