Cefepime pharmacokinetics in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on the pharmacokinetics/dynamics (PK/PD) of beta-lactam antibiotics have not been well studied in general, but cefepime specifically has the least amount of data. We aimed to investigate whether ECMO alters the PK of cefepime in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective case-control study evaluated cefepime therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) results from ECMO patients that were matched 1:1 with TDM results in non-ECMO patients for drug regimen and renal function. The primary outcome was the difference in PK/PD of cefepime in ECMO compared with non-ECMO ICU patients. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, treatment failure, superinfection, bacterial resistance, and survival to discharge. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were included with 44 matched cefepime concentrations in each group. ECMO patients had higher free maximum concentrations (fCmax) (p = 0.003), lower free minimum concentration (fCmin)/1x minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratios (p = 0.040), and lower attainment of free Cmin/4x MIC (p = 0.010). There were no differences between the groups for free Cmin, time above 1xMIC or 4x MIC, and pharmacokinetic parameters (ke, half-life, and Vd). Of those who survived to discharge, hospital length of stay was longer in the ECMO group (p < 0.001). Patients on ECMO were more likely to experience treatment failure (p = 0.036). The incidence of bacterial resistance, superinfection, or survival were similar among the groups. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that more aggressive empiric dosing may be warranted in patients on ECMO. Therapeutic drug monitoring and future prospective studies would provide more evidence to guide decision making regarding dose adjustments.

Utility of the 4Ts score in excluding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in lung transplant recipients.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic complication following heparin exposure. Data is limited on the incidence of HIT and validity of 4Ts score in the solid organ transplant population. This retrospective observational cohort included patients who underwent lung transplant between August 2015 and June 2018 and had a clinical suspicion of HIT with heparin-PF4 testing. The 4Ts score was correlated with the heparin-PF4 antibody and serotonin release assay (SRA) results, with positive SRA considered confirmed HIT. Of 146 patients evaluated, the overall incidence of HIT was low (2(1%)). Fifty-one patients had heparin-PF4 testing and were included in the cohort; 5 (10%) had positive heparin-PF4 and 1 (2%) had confirmed HIT. The median 4Ts score was 3 (3-4). Thirty (59%), 17 (33%), and 4 (8%) patients had low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. The intermediate/high risk group compared to the low risk group had a higher use of alternative non-heparin anticoagulation [13 (62%) vs 7 (23%); p = 0.0086)] and a higher incidence of thrombosis [13 (62%) vs 1 (3%); p < 0.0001]. No patient with a low 4Ts score had confirmed HIT, supporting the utility of low 4Ts score to exclude HIT diagnosis in lung transplant recipients.

Pulmonary hypertension in eosinophilic versus noneosinophilic COPD.

BACKGROUND: The eosinophilic COPD phenotype is associated with greater airway remodelling, exacerbation risk and steroid responsiveness. However, little is known about the prevalence and characteristics of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in this patient population. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of COPD patients with right heart catheterisation (RHC) data at a university hospital between January 2011 and May 2019 and compared the pulmonary vascular profile and prevalence of PH between eosinophilic and noneosinophilic patients using a definition of eosinophilic COPD as at least three blood eosinophil values ≥300 cells·µL-1. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association between eosinophilic COPD and various PH categories adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (%), smoking status and use of supplemental oxygen. RESULTS: Among 106 COPD patients with RHC data and at least three blood eosinophil values, 25% met the definition of eosinophilic COPD. Fewer patients among the eosinophilic group required long-term oxygen therapy (69% versus 93%, p=0.001) and total lung capacity was significantly lower in the eosinophilic group (p=0.006). This group had higher mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) (median (interquartile range) 30 (27-41) mmHg versus 25 (22-30) mmHg, p=0.001) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (4 (2.8-5.1) Wood units versus 2.9 (2.1-4.1) Wood units, p=0.018). On multivariable logistic regression analyses, eosinophilic phenotype was associated with PH (adjusted (a)OR 6.5, 95% CI 1.4-30.7; p=0.018) and pre-capillary PH (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1-9; p=0.027), but not severe PH (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 0.6-7.2; p=0.219). CONCLUSION: Eosinophilic COPD was associated with higher mPAP and PVR and increased likelihood of PH. More studies are needed to further explore this finding.

Recommendations for the clinical management of patients receiving macitentan for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH): A Delphi consensus document.

In patients treated with macitentan (Opsumit®, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Basel, Switzerland) for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), prevention and/or effective management of treatment-related adverse events may improve adherence. However, management of these adverse events can be challenging and the base of evidence and clinical experience for macitentan is limited. In the absence of evidence, consensus recommendations from physicians experienced in using macitentan to treat PAH may benefit patients and physicians who are using macitentan. Consensus recommendations were developed by a panel of physicians experienced with macitentan and PAH using a modified Delphi process. Over three iterations, panelists developed and refined a series of statements on the use of macitentan in PAH and rated their agreement with each statement on a Likert scale. The panel of 18 physicians participated and developed a total of 118 statements on special populations, add-on therapy, drug-drug interactions, warnings and precautions, hospitalization and functional class, and adverse event management. The resulting consensus recommendations are intended to provide practical guidance on real-world issues in using macitentan to treat patients with PAH.