Clevidipine: a short-acting intravenous dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker for the management of hypertension.

Drugs used to acutely lower blood pressure have specific indications and precautions for use. Clevidipine is a third-generation parenteral dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker that received United States Food and Drug Administration approval in August 2008 for blood pressure reduction when oral therapy is not feasible or desirable. Formulated as an injectable oil-in-water emulsion, the drug is a short-acting arterial-selective vasodilator. Clinical efficacy and safety trials of clevidipine have primarily focused on blood pressure management during cardiac surgery and in patients with acute severe hypertension (in intensive care units and emergency departments). In phase III trials, clevidipine demonstrated efficacy in blood pressure lowering, with a relatively low occurrence of adverse events. Reflex tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, and acute renal failure were observed in these studies and merit additional analysis. The lack of specific clinical outcomes documenting improved morbidity and mortality rates as compared with other agents, the small numbers of treated patients, and concerns regarding the lipid formulation necessitate further investigation to help define the therapeutic role of clevidipine.

Analysis of infusion-site reactions in renal transplant recipients receiving peripherally administered rabbit antithymocyte globulin as compared with basiliximab.

Antithymocyte globulin rabbit (r-ATG) has been used for the treatment and prevention of acute rejection in renal transplant recipients (RTR). Current manufacturer recommendations for r-ATG dictate the need for administration through a high-flow vein (central line). Previous studies have shown peripheral administration of r-ATG to be safe; however, these studies suggest the co-administration of heparin and hydrocortisone and did not compare the infusion-site reaction rates to a control group. A retrospective analysis was conducted of adult RTR receiving r-ATG or basiliximab between January 2004 and October 2006. Each agent was administered through a dedicated peripheral line. The primary endpoint was the incidence of infusion-site reactions. Other endpoints included the need to replace the intravenous catheter and the incidence of systemic thrombosis within 1 month of transplantation. During the study period, 152 peripheral infusions of r-ATG and 92 peripheral infusions of basiliximab were administered. No difference in infusion-site reactions was noted between the groups. There was also no difference either in the need for peripheral line replacement or the rates of systemic thrombosis. Peripheral administration of r-ATG is safe and can be infused without concomitant heparin and hydrocortisone. This method of r-ATG infusion was shown to be as safe as peripherally administered basiliximab.

Medication errors recovered by emergency department pharmacists.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the impact of emergency department (ED) pharmacists on reducing potentially harmful medication errors. METHODS: We conducted this observational study in 4 academic EDs. Trained pharmacy residents observed a convenience sample of ED pharmacists' activities. The primary outcome was medication errors recovered by pharmacists, including errors intercepted before reaching the patient (near miss or potential adverse drug event), caught after reaching the patient but before causing harm (mitigated adverse drug event), or caught after some harm but before further or worsening harm (ameliorated adverse drug event). Pairs of physician and pharmacist reviewers confirmed recovered medication errors and assessed their potential for harm. Observers were unblinded and clinical outcomes were not evaluated. RESULTS: We conducted 226 observation sessions spanning 787 hours and observed pharmacists reviewing 17,320 medications ordered or administered to 6,471 patients. We identified 504 recovered medication errors, or 7.8 per 100 patients and 2.9 per 100 medications. Most of the recovered medication errors were intercepted potential adverse drug events (90.3%), with fewer mitigated adverse drug events (3.9%) and ameliorated adverse drug events (0.2%). The potential severities of the recovered errors were most often serious (47.8%) or significant (36.2%). The most common medication classes associated with recovered medication errors were antimicrobial agents (32.1%), central nervous system agents (16.2%), and anticoagulant and thrombolytic agents (14.1%). The most common error types were dosing errors, drug omission, and wrong frequency errors. CONCLUSION: ED pharmacists can identify and prevent potentially harmful medication errors. Controlled trials are necessary to determine the net costs and benefits of ED pharmacist staffing on safety, quality, and costs, especially important considerations for smaller EDs and pharmacy departments.

Observations on the use of ready-to-use and point-of-care activated parenteral products in automated dispensing cabinets in U.S. hospitals.

PURPOSE: The use of ready-to-use (RTU) and point-of-care (POC) activated parenteral products and their storage in automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) in U.S. hospitals were evaluated. METHODS: A survey on the use of RTU and POC activated parenteral products, including storage and dispensing of the products, was developed and sent electronically to hospital pharmacy administrators. Survey respondents were identified using the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists' member database. RESULTS: Of the 4070 surveys sent, 965 (23.7%) were completed and returned. Most pharmacy administrators (94.7%) reported that their institution used some form of RTU and POC activated parenteral product, with 74% using ADCs to dispense these products. Efficiency was the most common reason cited for storage of RTU and POC activated products in ADCs. Facilities varied on reasons for not implementing this technology, with 47 facilities citing implementation costs, limited number of RTU and POC activated products on the hospital's formulary, lack of available pediatric formulations, and safety concerns as the main reasons. More than half of respondents noted space limitations as the greatest challenge to adding RTU and POC activated products to ADCs. CONCLUSION: Nearly three fourths of survey respondents reported using RTU and POC products in conjunction with ADCs; however, the approach to including these products in ADCs varied based on the characteristics, policies, and preferences of the individual facility. Advantages of RTU and POC products identified by respondents included enhanced safety benefits, increased dispensing efficiency, cost avoidance due to reduced waste, and improved compliance with federal and state regulations.