Impact of opioids on P2Y12 receptor inhibition in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who are pre-treated with crushed ticagrelor: Opioids aNd crushed Ticagrelor In Myocardial infarction Evaluation (ON-TIME 3) trial.

AIMS: Platelet inhibition induced by P2Y12 receptor antagonists in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can be affected by concomitant use of opioids. The aim of this trial was to examine the effect of intravenous (iv) acetaminophen compared with iv fentanyl on P2Y12 receptor inhibition in patients with STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Opioids aNd crushed Ticagrelor In Myocardial infarction Evaluation (ON-TIME 3) trial randomized 195 STEMI patients who were scheduled to undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and were pre-treated with crushed ticagrelor to iv acetaminophen (N = 98) or iv fentanyl (N = 97) in the ambulance. The primary endpoint, consisting of the level of platelet reactivity units (PRU) measured immediately after primary PCI, was not significantly different between the study arms [median PRU 104 (IQR 37-215) vs. 175 (63-228), P = 0.18]. However, systemic levels of ticagrelor were significantly higher in the acetaminophen arm at the start of primary PCI [151 ng/mL (32-509) vs. 60 ng/mL (13-206), P = 0.007], immediately after primary PCI [326 ng/mL (94-791) vs. 115 ng/mL (38-326), P = 0.002], and at 1 h after primary PCI [488 ng/mL (281-974) vs. 372 ng/mL (95-635), P = 0.002]. Acetaminophen resulted in the same extent of pain relief when compared with fentanyl [reduction of 3 points on 10-step-pain scale before primary PCI (IQR 1-5)] in both study arms (P = 0.67) and immediately after PCI [reduction of 5 points (3-7); P = 0.96]. CONCLUSION: The iv acetaminophen in comparison with iv fentanyl was not associated with significantly lower platelet reactivity in STEMI patients but resulted in significantly higher ticagrelor plasma levels and was effective in pain relief.

Bedside Glucose Monitoring-Is it Safe? A New, Regulatory-Compliant Risk Assessment Evaluation Protocol in Critically Ill Patient Care Settings.

OBJECTIVES: New data have emerged from ambulatory and acute care settings about adverse patient events, including death, attributable to erroneous blood glucose meter measurements and leading to questions over their use in critically ill patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration published new, more stringent guidelines for glucose meter manufacturers to evaluate the performance of blood glucose meters in critically ill patient settings. The primary objective of this international, multicenter, multidisciplinary clinical study was to develop and apply a rigorous clinical accuracy assessment algorithm, using four distinct statistical tools, to evaluate the clinical accuracy of a blood glucose monitoring system in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Five international medical and surgical ICUs. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to critical care settings in the centers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Glucose measurements were performed on 1,698 critically ill patients with 257 different clinical conditions and complex treatment regimens. The clinical accuracy assessment algorithm comprised four statistical tools to assess the performance of the study blood glucose monitoring system compared with laboratory reference methods traceable to a definitive standard. Based on POCT12-A3, the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute standard for hospitals about hospital glucose meter procedures and performance, and Parkes error grid clinical accuracy performance criteria, no clinically significant differences were observed due to patient condition or therapy, with 96.1% and 99.3% glucose results meeting the respective criteria. Stratified sensitivity and specificity analysis (10 mg/dL glucose intervals, 50-150 mg/dL) demonstrated high sensitivity (mean = 95.2%, SD = ± 0.02) and specificity (mean = 95. 8%, SD = ± 0.03). Monte Carlo simulation modeling of the study blood glucose monitoring system showed low probability of category 2 and category 3 insulin dosing error, category 2 = 2.3% (41/1,815) and category 3 = 1.8% (32/1,815), respectively. Patient trend analysis demonstrated 99.1% (223/225) concordance in characterizing hypoglycemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent, clinical accuracy assessment algorithm demonstrated that the blood glucose monitoring system was acceptable for use in critically ill patient settings when compared to the central laboratory reference method. This clinical accuracy assessment algorithm is an effective tool for comprehensively assessing the validity of whole blood glucose measurement in critically ill patient care settings.