Multidisciplinary Authorship Among Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines: Examining the Contributions of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists

Pharmacist authors of emergency medicine organization work products pertaining to pharmacotherapy

PURPOSE

Despite the expertise that emergency medicine (EM) pharmacists bring to multidisciplinary teams in the emergency department (ED) setting, they are not commonly present on writing groups for guidelines, policies, or task forces pertaining to EM pharmacotherapy. The purpose of this article is to quantify EM pharmacist involvement on author bylines of guidelines, position statements, and other official documents that specifically encompass EM pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

Official work products released between January 1, 2010, and May 1, 2021, were collected from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), and American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and the table of contents of the following journals: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Academic Emergency Medicine, and Journal of Emergency Medicine. A modified Delphi approach was used to gain consensus amongst the authors on which work products to include in the initial review and which works pertained to pharmacotherapy. The primary endpoint was the percentage of pharmacists listed as authors on EM work products pertaining to pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 76 EM work products were identified. Forty-seven work products with a total of 248 authors contained at least 1 recommendation pertaining to pharmacotherapy. Of these 47 EM work products, 23 (49%) were from AAEM, 16 (34%) were from Annals of Emergency Medicine (published on behalf of ACEP), 5 (11%) were from Journal of Emergency Medicine (published on behalf of AAEM), and 3 (6%) were from SAEM. The median number of authors per work product was 4. There were 5 pharmacists listed on work products (2% of the total of 248 authors). Additionally, there were 9 nonpharmacist/nonphysician authors (4% of the total).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist inclusion on author lists of recently published EM work products pertaining to pharmacotherapy is extremely low. Given their unique knowledge pertaining to EM pharmacotherapy, an effort should be made to increase inclusion of pharmacists as authors of EM work products with recommendations that pertain to pharmacotherapy.

Is Three Company or a Crowd? Comparing and Contrasting U.S. and European Clostridioidesdifficile Clinical Practice Guidelines

In 2021, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), the Infectious Diseases Society of America in conjunction with the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (IDSA/SHEA), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of Clostridioides difficile infections. The differences, sometimes subtle, between these guideline recommendations have caused some debate among clinicians. This paper delves into select key recommendations from each respective CPG and analyzes the differences and evidence associated with each. One primary difference between the CPGs is the preference given to fidaxomicin over vancomycin for initial treatment in non-severe and severe disease endorsed by IDSA/SHEA and ESCMID guidelines, while the ACG-sponsored CPGs do not offer a preference. The emphasis on cost effective data was also a noticeable difference between the CPGs and thus interpretation of the available evidence. When using guidelines to help support local practice or institutional treatment pathways, clinicians should carefully balance CPG recommendations with local patient populations and feasibility of implementation, especially when multiple guidelines for the same disease state exist.

From Start to Finish: Examining factors associated with higher likelihood of publication among abstracts presented at an international infectious diseases scientific meeting

Background

The landscape of infectious diseases research by interprofessional teams continues to change in both scope and engagement. Limited information exists regarding publication metrics and factors associated with publication of abstracts presented at professional infectious diseases meetings.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational study evaluating abstracts presented at IDWeek in 2017 and 2018. The primary endpoint was the proportion of abstracts that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Factors associated with publication were evaluated and a description of publication metrics was reported.

Results

Of the 887 abstracts analyzed from the IDWeek meetings, 236 (26.6%) were published. Significantly more abstracts were published if they were presented as a platform presentation versus poster presentation (35% vs. 21%, p < 0.001). Inclusion of a PhD author significantly increased the likelihood of publication (p = 0.0014). Prospective studies, greater number of authors, and greater number of study subjects were more common among published abstracts. Median time to publication was 10.9 months and the majority were published in infectious diseases journals with an overall average impact factor of 7.7 across all journals.

Conclusion

Abstracts from IDWeek presented as oral platforms and those including a PhD author were more likely to be published. Large, diverse authorship teams were common among published abstracts. The high quality of resulting manuscripts is evident by the destination journals and their respective impact factors. These data may be used to inform and motivate clinicians and trainees engaging in infectious diseases related research.