Loading

Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases

Vancomycin Stewardship: Focus on the First Dose

Research Article | Open Access | Volume 8 | Issue 2

  • 1. Departments of Infection Prevention, Stamford Health, Stamford, Connecticut, USA
  • 2. Departments of Pharmacy, Stamford Health, Stamford, Connecticut, USA
  • 3. Departments of Infectious Diseases, Stamford Health, Stamford, Connecticut, USA
  • 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Michael F Parry, Departments of Infectious Diseases, Stamford Health, Stamford, CT; Division of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA
Abstract

Background: It is widely appreciated that vancomycin use is excessive. A drug use evaluation of intravenous vancomycin orders at our hospital showed that 48% were inappropriate. This finding was surprising because our stewardship program required Infectious Disease (ID) approval for all vancomycin orders, although it allowed an emergency dose prior to approval.

Methods: After a comprehensive, hospital-wide educational program, all vancomycin orders were required to have ID pre-approval without exception.

Two months after the new pre-approval process began, vancomycin orders were again evaluated for appropriateness.

Results: After the intervention, there was a decrease in inappropriate prescribing from 48% to 22% of patients (p < 0.001), and a decrease in inappropriate days-on-therapy from 37% to 18% (p < 0.001). These improvements were due mainly to decreased prescribing of first dose, empiric use, in the Emergency Department (ED). No change was seen in clinical diagnosis, correctness of weight-based dosing, patient outcomes, or the rationale for vancomycin use. Common misconceptions amongst prescribers contributed to the overprescribing of vancomycin: (1) routinely adding vancomycin for empiric treatment of sepsis without risk factors for MRSA; (2) the false perception that vancomycin is necessary to “cover” various species of streptococci; (3) the need to treat a single positive blood culture growing coagulase-negative staphylococci; and (4) imprecision in assigning a diagnosis of “penicillin allergy”.

Conclusions: Eliminating the provision for single dose vancomycin administration without ID pre-approval resulted in more appropriate vancomycin prescribing, particularly in the ED. Education to improve prescribing habits and dispel misconceptions about the empiric role of vancomycin was enabled by the pre-approval process.

KEYWORDS
  • Vancomycin Utilization; Antibiotic Stewardship; Antibiotic Pre-Approval; Inappropriate Use of Antibiotics
CITATION

Zolla B, Michalowska-Suterska M, Shah AK, Parry MF (2024) Vancomycin Stewardship: Focus on the First Dose. Clin Res Infect Dis 8(2): 1069.

ABBREVIATIONS

ID: Infectious Diseases; ED: Emergency Department; MRSA: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus; MRSE: Methicillin- Resistant Staphylococcus Epidermidis; SSTI: Skin and Soft Tissue Infection; EMR: Electronic Medical Record; DUE: Drug Use Evaluation; PCR: Polymerase Chain Reaction; DOT: Days on Therapy 

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin is often reflexively prescribed for the treatment of sepsis, usually in combination with other agents, due to the perception that it will cover all gram-positive flora without exception. In addition, there is a belief that Methicillin-Resistant Staphyloccus Aureus (MRSA) is likely to be the offending pathogen in a wide variety of skin and Soft Tissue Infections (SSTI) and requires empiric treatment with vancomycin. These perceptions have led to the inappropriate prescribing of vancomycin in up to 70% of cases [1-6]. Furthermore, overprescribing vancomycin has led to the emergence of resistance in enterococci, threatens its role for the treatment of staphylococcal infections, and contributes to cases of nephrotoxicity in patients.

A review of 100 consecutive patients receiving therapeutic intravenous vancomycin at Stamford Hospital showed that 48% of orders were inappropriate, using previously published criteria [1-8]. 50% of these were single-dose orders and 64% of these were ordered by Emergency Department (ED) physicians. These findings were surprising given our active antimicrobial stewardship program that required Infectious Disease service (ID) approval of vancomycin, but the restrictions were poorly enforced and traditionally allowed an initial dose before obtaining approval. Therefore, we hoped to improve the appropriateness of vancomycin utilization by revising our stewardship intervention plan.

METHODS

Stamford Hospital is a 330-bed independent community teaching hospital in southwestern Connecticut. Most inpatient orders are written by an employed hospitalist service (medical, family practice and pediatric services) or resident team (medicine, family practice, surgery or obstetrics/gynecology). Emergency services are provided onsite by a contracted emergency medicine group. Our antimicrobial stewardship program evolved over the preceding 15 years and relied heavily on a limited formulary with restricted agents requiring approval by members of the ID service, supplemented by prepopulated orders and published practice guidelines. The inpatient ID practice was comprised of four board certified physicians; there were no fellows or residents involved. Historically, an initial dose or two of restricted antibiotic was usually allowed before obtaining ID service approval. Unless a formal ID consult was obtained as part of the approval process, patients on restricted agents were not routinely followed after initial approval was granted and there was no formal de- escalation policy.

From September to October 2022, 100 consecutive patients receiving therapeutic vancomycin were analyzed by retrospective Electronic Medical Record (EMR) review as part of our routine stewardship Drug Use Evaluation process (DUE). Patients were selected from the pharmacy administration records, having received at least one dose of intravenous vancomycin. Patients receiving prophylactic vancomycin use were excluded. Practitioner decision making was assessed by detailed review of progress notes in the EMR. “Appropriateness” of vancomycin prescribing was determined according to four criteria, based on prior guidelines [1-8]: (1) proven MRSA or MRSE infection; (2) suspected serious systemic infection with a positive MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening test or past history of documented MRSA infection; (3) Seriously ill patient with infection where MRSA or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis was a reasonably suspected pathogen and a risk factor was present (diabetes mellitus, intravenous drug use, living in congregate housing, homeless, post-surgery infection); (4) patient with β-lactam allergy with proven or suspected infection due to vancomycin susceptible gram-positive pathogen. In options 2 and 3, “appropriateness” included an order to de- escalate within 48 hours if culture information was available. Only inpatient treatment was assessed (treatment started in the ED was included). Alternate MRSA treatment options (e.g., daptomycin, ceftaroline or oral therapies) were not considered in determining vancomycin appropriateness and a history of β-lactam allergy was accepted at face value, realizing that many of these patients were probably not truly allergic.

After analyzing the initial 100 consecutive cases, in December 2022 new stewardship interventions were implemented. Providers underwent formal education on appropriate vancomycin prescribing and all vancomycin orders required ID approval before prescribing (single doses without pre-approval were permitted only between 11 pm. and 6 am). This plan was conceived based on the high prevalence of single-dose orders; it was felt that to focus on de-escalation would not achieve the intended goals. Approval to prescribe vancomycin was to be documented by the ID specialist in the progress notes or pharmacist in the medication administration record. Two months after implementation of the new stewardship initiative, from February to March 2023, a second 100 consecutive patients receiving intravenous vancomycin were reviewed to assess the impact of the change.

Medical records were independently reviewed by an infection preventionist and a senior board-certified infectious disease physician not concurrently involved in any of the inpatient vancomycin prescribing or vancomycin approval activity. Prescribing data and provider narratives were retrieved from the EMR (Meditech®, Sunnyvale, Ca) and internal IT programmers who created reports (Tableau® Software, Seattle, WA) for pharmacy medication administration and Days-On-Therapy (DOT). In-hospital mortality was recorded without regard to attribution and 30-day readmission rates were calculated according to CMS guidelines, then analyzed as to cause (non- infectious cause for readmission, infectious disease cause for readmission, and vancomycin-susceptible infectious disease cause for readmission). The DUE used an interrupted time series methodology, 2x2 contingency tables (Graphpad® Software, La Jolla, CA), and 2-tailed Fisher’s exact test for statistical significance. P-values were judged significant at a P value < 0.05.

RESULTS

Therapeutic vancomycin treatment in the baseline group of 100 patients totaled 252 DOT. Median duration of treatment was 2 days, range 1-12 days. Principal diagnoses were suspected skin and soft tissue infection (34), lower respiratory tract infection (14), bone and joint infection (11), urinary tract infection (9), primary bacteremia, including endocarditis (7) and other (13). 30 patients were clinically septic and 12 had no infectious diagnosis listed. 66 patients had a formal infectious diseases consultation. The initial vancomycin dose was judged appropriate in 64% (15- 25 mg/kg) and suboptimal in 32% (< 15 mg/kg).

Baseline assessment of the pre-intervention group showed that 48% (48/100) of vancomycin orders were inappropriate. 50% of these were single dose orders, and of these, 64% were ordered by ED physicians. 7 of 52 patients deemed initially appropriate failed to de-escalate despite available culture results. As a result, a total of 37% of DOT (94/252 days) were deemed inappropriate. Vancomycin use in the 52 patients judged clinically appropriate was justified according to the criteria enumerated above and shown in (Table 1).

Table 1: Clinical criteria for appropriate vancomycin use by clinicians before and after the stewardship intervention.

Indication for vancomycin use

Baseline (%)

After intervention (%)

Proven MRSA or MRSE infection

23

22

Suspected infection with + history MRSA

12

13

Suspected infection with MRSA risk factor

48

51

Beta lactam allergy

17

14

After the stewardship intervention, vancomycin administration in the 100 patients totaled 306 DOT (Table 2).

Table 2: Outcome of stewardship intervention on appropriateness of vancomycin prescribing.

Vancomycin Drug Utilization Evaluation

Measure: Days on Therapy

Before Intervention (n = 252)

After Intervention (n = 306)

p -value

Days on Therapy Appropriate

158 (63%)

252 (82%)

p < 0.001

Days on Therapy Inappropriate

94 (37%)

54 (18%)

Measure: Patients

Before Intervention (n = 100)

After Intervention (n = 100)

p -value

Patients who received Appropriate treatment

52 (52%)

78 (78%)

p < 0.001

Patients who received Inappropriate treatment

48 (48%)

22 (22%)

Measure: ID Approval

Before Intervention (n = 100)

After Intervention (n = 100)

p -value

Vancomycin orders with ID consultation

66 (66%)

81 (81%)

p = 0.02

Vancomycin orders without ID consultation

34 (34%)

19 (19%)

Median duration of treatment was again 2 days, range 1-28 days. Inappropriate DOT decreased from 37% (94/252 days) to 18% (54 of 306 days) (p < 0.001). Similarly, there was a decrease in the proportion of inappropriate prescribing from 48% to 22% of patients (p < 0.001). All clinical services reduced inappropriate vancomycin use except for the hospitalists (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Inappropriateness of vancomycin prescribing according to clinical service, before and after the stewardship intervention.

Figure 1: Inappropriateness of vancomycin prescribing according to clinical service, before and after the stewardship intervention.

These improvements were due mainly to decreased prescribing of single doses in the ED which resulted in a slight increase in prescribing by the hospitalist service. 81% of patients had a formal infectious diseases consultation, increased from 66% (p < 0.02). The pre-approval process was documented by pharmacists in 82% of patients where vancomycin was prescribed after the intervention.

No change was seen in the reasons for vancomycin use, patients’ clinical diagnosis, correctness of weight-based dosing, or patient outcomes. Principal diagnoses did not differ significantly from the baseline group: suspected skin and soft tissue infection (35), lower respiratory tract infection (10), bone and joint infection (12), urinary tract infection (7), primary bacteremia, including endocarditis (20), other (12) and no infection (4). The appropriateness of vancomycin dosing was not addressed by the stewardship intervention and was unchanged from baseline (30% of dosing was suboptimal at < 15 mg/kg). Patient outcomes were not significantly different before and after the change in stewardship program. Inpatient mortality (10% versus 7%), 30- day readmission (18% versus 13%), and 30-day readmission for infection that justified vancomycin treatment (5% versus 4%) were no different in the post-intervention group compared to the baseline group (all P values > 0.5).

Practitioner misconceptions were apparent from our chart reviews both before and after the stewardship intervention. Themes were grouped as follows: (1) overestimating the prevalence of MRSA; (2) routinely adding vancomycin for empiric treatment of sepsis without risk factors for MRSA; (3) the false perception that vancomycin is necessary to “cover” various species of streptococci; (4) the need to use vancomycin for coverage of single blood cultures growing coagulase-negative staphylococci; and (5) imprecision in assigning a diagnosis of “penicillinallergy”. Due to the small number of total cases and the imprecision of practitioner documentation, the themes could not be easily quantified

DISCUSSION

We evaluated vancomycin use at Stamford Hospital as an antibiotic stewardship initiative. We found widespread misconceptions about the role of vancomycin and deemed its use inappropriate 48% of the time based on previously established criteria [1-8]. These percentages are compatible with findings published elsewhere [1-9]. Since the first multi-society consensus guideline for therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious MRSA infections was published in 2009, most vancomycin stewardship initiatives have focused on the appropriateness of vancomycin levels, dosing algorithms and pharmacokinetics [10] rather than the decision to initiate vancomycin treatment. Even when stewardship initiatives have addressed the clinical decision to prescribe vancomycin, most of the focus has been on de-escalation rather than pre-emptive approval [2-11].

It was clear from analyzing the pre-intervention group at our hospital that most of the correctible excess vancomycin use was due to single dose therapy for presumed sepsis, often, but not exclusively, in the ED. De-escalation offered less of an opportunity. In fact, only 10 vancomycin DOT judged to be inappropriate (4.0%) could have been saved by intervening to de-escalate. Therefore, we elected to require pre-approval for all vancomycin doses. After the pre-approval process was implemented, we achieved a 54% reduction in inappropriate orders and 43% reduction in inappropriate DOT.

A concern raised by clinicians during implementation of the pre-approval process was that outcome gains made in the treatment of sepsis through the Surviving Sepsis Campaign [12] and compliance with CMS National Hospital Inpatient Quality Measures [13] might be lost by delaying the antibiotic approval process. Clearly, the absence of available ID clinicians to discuss the case and grant antibiotic approval would have been problematic unless it was replaced by an electronic pre-approval process as has been done by some institutions [3-15]. In our hospital, the expectations of 24/7 ID consult availability were set prior to implementation of the process and has not been a problem. In fact, a 3-month report from our Sepsis Committee, monitoring the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Bundle, found no cases of delayed antibiotic initiation after implementation of the pre-approval process. Neither was there a negative impact on in-hospital mortality or 30-day readmissions for relapsing infection.

Further improvements in vancomycin stewardship require ongoing physician education to dispel misconceptions about the role of vancomycin. Practitioner misconceptions were apparent from our chart reviews both before and after the stewardship intervention. Overestimating the prevalence of MRSA has been noted by others [16], fostering the routine addition of vancomycin for empiric treatment of sepsis without risk factors for MRSA. We also found that clinicians falsely perceived that vancomycin was necessary to “cover” all gram-positive flora including various species of streptococci. Blood, body fluid, or tissue cultures growing gram-positive cocci in chains was not considered an appropriate use of the drug; and if enterococcus was considered possible, re-education on the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant strains is important. Additionally, the use of vancomycin for coverage of single blood cultures growing coagulase-negative staphylococci constitutes “low-hanging fruit” for vancomycin disapproval. Finally, there remains imprecision in assigning a diagnosis of “penicillin allergy”. Better clarification of the type of allergy (as could be built into EMR documentation) would allow safe beta-lactam use in many such cases. This has been a useful stewardship tool, as shown by others [17,18].

This is a relatively small DUE in a single community teaching hospital and our results may be limited in scope. They may not be applicable to larger urban or tertiary care facilities. The assessment of “inappropriateness” of therapy in a retrospective chart review, furthermore, is often subjective despite our best attempts to preemptively categorize cases based on established criteria. Our relative abundance of ID clinicians (albeit no fellows) who were motivated to participate and educate (but not required to provide formal consultation) resulted in a prompt response for consultation and drug approval or disapproval. Such may not be the case in many other institutions and electronic solutions may be better options. Finally, we were not able in this short time frame to assess the impact of our vancomycin use reduction on the prevalence of vancomycin resistance or vancomycin toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Most vancomycin stewardship initiatives have focused on the appropriateness of vancomycin levels, dosing algorithms and pharmacokinetics [10] rather than the decision to initiate vancomycin treatment in the first place. We found little opportunity for vancomycin sue reduction by addressing de- escalation or better dosing algorithms. However, eliminating the provision for vancomycin administration without ID pre-approval resulted in much more appropriate vancomycin prescribing, particularly in the ED. Education to improve prescribing habits and dispel misconceptions about the empiric role of vancomycin was enabled by the pre-approval process.

DECLARATIONS

Ethics approval and consent to participate:

This project was designed as a drug use evaluation as part of our antibiotic stewardship and quality improvement program. It was conducted under institutional auspices and exempt from Institutional Review Board Approval. No protected health information is included in the manuscript.

Availability of Data and Materials

Data accessed in this project were mined from the EMR and contain PHI. A limited dataset, redacted of PHI, can be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors Contributions

The project was designed by AKS and MFP. The stewardship program was administered by AKS and MM. The data were extracted from the EMR and analyzed by BZ and MFP. The first draft was written by BZ and MFP with revisions by MM and AKS. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement

We wish to acknowledge the many hours of uncompensated consultation provided by the infectious diseases clinicians, and the contributions of the antimicrobial stewardship team, the clinical pharmacists, infection preventionists and the microbiology laboratory.

REFERENCES
  1. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep. 1995; 44: 1-13. PMID: 7565541.
  2. Shebli Atrash, Katherine T Lusardi, Juan Carlos Rico, Rajesh Banderudrappagari, Angela Pennisi, Belal Firwana, et al. A quality improvement project to decrease overuse of vancomycin in an inpatient hematology/oncology service. J Clinical Oncol. 2016; 34: 15_suppl.e18167. Doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.34.
  3. Anglim AM, Klym B, Byers KE, Scheld WM, Farr BM. Effect of a vancomycin restriction policy on ordering practices during an outbreak of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157: 1132-1136. PMID: 9164379.
  4. Singer MV, Haft R, Barlam T, Aronson M, Shafer A, Sands KE. Vancomycin control measures at a tertiary-care hospital: impact of interventions on volume and patterns of use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998; 19: 248-253. doi: 10.1086/647803. PMID: 9605273.
  5. Thomas AR, Cieslak PR, Strausbaugh LJ, Fleming DW. Effectiveness of pharmacy policies designed to limit inappropriate vancomycin use: a population-based assessment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002; 23: 683-688. doi: 10.1086/501994. PMID: 12452297.
  6. Kim NH, Koo HL, Choe PG, Cheon S, Kim M, Lee MJ, et al. Inappropriate continued empirical vancomycin use in a hospital with a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015; 59: 811-817. doi: 10.1128/AAC.04523-14. Epub 2014 Nov 17. Erratum in: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015; 59: 2478. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00241-15. Choe, Pyeong Gyun [corrected to Choe, Pyoeng Gyun]; Kim, Moon Suk [corrected to Kim, Moonsuk]; Jung, Young Hee [corrected to Jung, Younghee]. PMID: 25403664; PMCID: PMC4335878.
  7. Drori-Zeides T, Raveh D, Schlesinger Y, Yinnon AM. Practical guidelines for vancomycin usage, with prospective drug-utilization evaluation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000; 21: 45-47. doi: 10.1086/501697. PMID: 10656356.
  8. Cieslak PR, Strausbaugh LJ, Fleming DW, Ling JM. Vancomycin in Oregon: who’s using it and why. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20: 557-560. doi: 10.1086/501669. PMID: 10466557.
  9. Roghmann MC, Perdue BE, Polish L. Vancomycin use in a hospital withvancomycin restriction. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20: 60-63. doi: 10.1086/501548. PMID: 9927270.
  10. Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, Levine DP, Bradley JS, Liu C, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: A revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020; 77: 835-864. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/ zxaa036. PMID: 32191793.
  11. Heather Glassman, Arif Ismail, Stephanie W Smith, Jackson J Stewart, Cecilia Lau, Dima Kabbani, et al. Appropriateness of intravenous vancomycin in a Canadian acute care hospital. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022; 9: 1414.
  12. Society for Critical Care Medicine. https://www.sccm.org/SurvivingSepsisCampaign/Guidelines/Adult-Patient. Accessed 9/18/2023.
  13. CMS. Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program. https://www. cms.gov/medicare/quality/initiatives/hospital-quality-initiative/ inpatient-reporting-program. Accessed 9/26/23.
  14. Shojania KG, Yokoe D, Platt R, Fiskio J, Ma’luf N, Bates DW. Reducing vancomycin use utilizing a computer guideline: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998; 5: 554-562. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1998.0050554. PMID: 9824802; PMCID:PMC61335.
  15. Katherine Lusardi, Brett Bailey, Ramez Awad, Mitchell Jenkins, Juan Carlos Rico Crescencio, Matthew Horak, et al. Leveraging EMR Alerts for vancomycin time outs. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022; 9: 1791.
  16. Chotiprasitsakul D, Tamma PD, Gadala A, Cosgrove SE. The Role of Negative Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Surveillance Swabs in Predicting the Need for Empiric Vancomycin Therapy in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 39: 290-296. doi: 10.1017/ice.2017.308. Epub2018 Jan 28. PMID: 29374504.
  17. Devchand M, Urbancic KF, Khumra S, Douglas AP, Smibert O, Cohen E, et al. Pathways to improved antibiotic allergy and antimicrobial stewardship practice: The validation of a beta-lactam antibiotic allergy assessment tool. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019; 7: 1063- 1065.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.07.048. Epub 2018 Aug 29. PMID:30172019; PMCID: PMC6395557.
  18. Mabilat C, Gros MF, Van Belkum A, Trubiano JA, Blumenthal KG, Romano A, et al. Improving antimicrobial stewardship with penicillin allergy testing: a review of current practices and unmet needs. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2022; 4: dlac116. doi: 10.1093/jacamr/dlac116. PMID: 36415507; PMCID: PMC9675589.

Zolla B, Michalowska-Suterska M, Shah AK, Parry MF (2024) Vancomycin Stewardship: Focus on the First Dose. Clin Res Infect Dis 8(2): 1069.

Received : 03 Sep 2024
Accepted : 19 Sep 2024
Published : 23 Sep 2024
Journals
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X