Comparable Outcomes for Bebtelovimab and Ritonavir-Boosted Nirmatrelvir Treatment in High-Risk Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 During Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 BA.2 Omicron Epoch.

The effectiveness of bebtelovimab in real-world settings has not been assessed. In this retrospective cohort study of 3607 high-risk patients, bebtelovimab was used more commonly than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among older patients, immunosuppressed patients, and those with multiple comorbid conditions. Despite its use in patients with multiple comorbid conditions, the rate of progression to severe disease after bebtelovimab (1.4% [95% confidence interval, 1.2%-1.7%]) was not significantly different from that for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment (1.2% [.8%-1.5%]). Our findings support the emergency use authorization of bebtelovimab for treatment of COVID-19 during the Omicron epoch dominated by BA.2 and subvariants.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Bamlanivimab and Casirivimab-Imdevimab Among High-Risk Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of patients who received these therapies to identify factors associated with hospitalization and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients who received monoclonal antibody from 19 November 2020 to 11 February 2021 were selected and divided into those who received bamlanivimab (n = 2747) and casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 849). The 28-day all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalizations were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The population included 3596 patients; the median age was 62 years, and 50% were female. All had ≥1 medical comorbidity; 55% had multiple comorbidities. All-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization rates at 28 days were 3.98% and 2.56%, respectively. After adjusting for medical comorbidities, there was no significant difference in all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization rates between bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.4 [.9-2.2] and 1.6 [.8-2.7], respectively). Chronic kidney, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status were associated with higher likelihood of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study on the use of bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in high-risk patients showed similarly low rates of hospitalization. The number and type of medical comorbidities are associated with hospitalizations after monoclonal antibody treatment.

Pharmacist Impact on Ischemic Stroke Care in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The Froedtert Acute Stroke Team (FAST) is composed of various health professionals who respond to stroke calls, but it does not formally include a pharmacist at this time. However, emergency department (ED) pharmacists have been actively involved in patient evaluation and facilitation of i.v. recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) preparation and administration in the ED. ED pharmacists are qualified to dose and prepare rtPA, as well as screen for contraindications to therapy. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the accuracy of rtPA dosing, mean door-to-rtPA time, and identification of contraindications to rtPA therapy when a pharmacist was present vs. absent in the ED. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 105 patients who received rtPA for acute ischemic stroke in the ED at a comprehensive stroke center from January 1, 2008 to October 1, 2012. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included in this study. Dosing accuracy was similar when a pharmacist was present vs. absent (96.6% vs. 95.6%; p = 0.8953). The median door-to-rtPA time when a pharmacist was present was statistically significantly shorter than when a pharmacist was absent (69.5 vs. 89.5 min; p = 0.0027). When a pharmacist was present, a door-to-rtPA time of < 60 min was achieved 29.9% of the time, as compared with 15.8% in the pharmacist-absent group (p = 0.1087). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist involvement on stroke teams may have a beneficial effect on door-to-rtPA time and patient care in the ED.

Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 treated with remdesivir across the continuum of care.

Introduction: During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), remdesivir was only approved for hospitalized patients. Our institution developed hospital-based, outpatient infusion centers for selected hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had clinical improvement to allow for early dismissal. The outcomes of patients who transitioned to complete remdesivir in the outpatient setting were examined. Methods: Retrospective study of all hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who received at least one dose of remdesivir from November 6, 2020, to November 5, 2021, at one of the Mayo Clinic hospitals. Results: Among 3029 hospitalized patients who received treatment with remdesivir for COVID-19, the majority (89.5%) completed the recommended 5-day course. Among them, 2169 (80%) patients completed treatment during hospitalization, whereas 542 (20.0%) patients were dismissed to complete remdesivir in outpatient infusion centers. Patients who completed the treatment in the outpatient setting had lower odds of death within 28 days (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.32, p < 0.001). However, their rate of subsequent hospital encounters within 30 days was higher (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.79, p = 0.002). Among patients treated with remdesivir only in the inpatient setting, the adjusted odds of death within 28 days were significantly higher among those who did not complete the 5-day course of remdesivir (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.45-2.95, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study describes the clinical outcomes of a strategy of transitioning remdesivir therapy from inpatient to outpatient among selected patients. Mortality was lower among patients who completed the 5-day course of remdesivir.

Amiodarone Pharmacovigilance Through an Intelligent Electronic Health Record Application.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone is the most effective and commonly used antiarrhythmic medication. Given its risk of toxicity, routine monitoring is recommended but is challenging to ensure in clinical practice. METHODS: We created an intelligent application, built within our electronic health record, that identified every living patient with an active outpatient prescription by a clinician in our health system. The application was designed to identify patients with lapses in recommended monitoring and facilitate scheduling of overdue testing. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with overdue monitoring tests decreased with use of the application, with greatest improvement in pulmonary function testing. DISCUSSION: Implementing a program to monitor and mitigate adverse reactions to amiodarone by using programable features of an electronic health record is feasible.

Association of Neutralizing Antispike Monoclonal Antibody Treatment With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization and Assessment of the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score performs consistently better in identifying the need for monoclonal antibody infusion throughout each "wave" of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant predominance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and that the infusion of contemporary monoclonal antibody treatments is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment compared with that of no monoclonal antibody treatment in symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status during different periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The study was conducted on patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from November 19, 2020, through May 12, 2022. Results: Of the included 118,936 eligible patients, hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis occurred in 2.52% (456/18,090) of patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment and 6.98% (7,037/100,846) of patients who did not. Treatment with monoclonal antibody therapies was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization when using stratified data analytics, propensity scoring, and regression and machine learning models with and without adjustments for putative confounding variables, such as advanced age and coexisting medical conditions (eg, relative risk, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.14-0.17). Conclusion: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, including those who have been vaccinated, monoclonal antibody treatment was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission during each wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rates of Severe Outcomes After Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab and Casirivimab-Imdevimab Treatment of High-Risk Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk persons. There has been no study comparing their clinical efficacy. In this retrospective study of 681 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 during a period dominated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 wild-type and alpha variants, 25 patients (3.7%) had progression to a severe outcome requiring hospitalization and oxygen supplementation within 30 days after monoclonal antibody infusion. Severe outcome was significantly higher among the 181 patients who were treated with casirivimab-imdevimab when compared with the 500 patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (21 [6.6%] vs 13 [2.6%]; P=.01). Patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab had higher odds of severe outcomes compared with those who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.17 to 6.06). The demographic and clinical characteristics, and the time to monoclonal antibody infusion, of the 2 treatment cohorts were not significantly different. The reason behind this significant difference in the clinical outcomes is unclear, but our observations emphasize potential efficacy differences among antispike monoclonal antibodies against COVID-19. Further clinical studies using larger cohorts of patients are needed to confirm or refute these observations.

Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Bebtelovimab and Sotrovimab Treatment of High-risk Persons With Coronavirus Disease 2019 During the Omicron Epoch.

Background: Antispike monoclonal antibodies are recommended for early treatment of high-risk persons with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical outcomes of their use during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron wave are limited. Methods: This is a descriptive retrospective study of high-risk adult patients who received treatment with sotrovimab (January 1-March 20, 2022) or bebtelovimab (March 21-April 30, 2022). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe outcome within 30 days after receiving antispike-neutralizing monoclonal antibody infusion. Results: A total of 3872 high-risk patients (median age, 62.7 years; 41.1% male) with mild to moderate COVID-19 received sotrovimab (n = 2182) or bebtelovimab (n = 1690). Among sotrovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were an immunosuppressed condition (46.7%), hypertension (38.2%), and diabetes (21.2%). The rates of severe outcome, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality were 2.2%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively, after sotrovimab infusion. Among bebtelovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were hypertension (42.7%), diabetes (17.1%), and an immunosuppressed condition (17.0%). The rates of severe disease, ICU admission, and mortality were 1.3%, 0.5%, and 0.2%, respectively, after bebtelovimab infusion. Older age, immunosuppressed status, and several comorbidities were associated with severe disease progression, while COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk. No anaphylaxis was reported during monoclonal antibody infusion. Conclusions: This real-world analysis of a large cohort of high-risk patients demonstrates low rates of severe disease after treatment with sotrovimab during the era dominated by Omicron B.1.1.529 and after treatment with bebtelovimab during the era dominated by BA.2 and Omicron subvariants.

Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies in Preventing Severe COVID-19 With Emergence of the Delta Variant.

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies have proven invaluable in preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. The rise of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant begs the question of whether monoclonal antibodies maintain similar efficacy now as they had when the alpha and beta variants predominated, when they were first assessed and approved. We used a retrospective cohort to compare rates of severe outcomes in an epoch in which alpha and beta were predominant compared with delta. A total of 5356 patients were infused during the alpha/beta variant-predominant (n=4874) and delta variant-predominant (n=482) era. Overall, odds of severe infection were 3.0% of patients in the alpha/beta-predominant era compared with 4.9% in the delta-predominant cohort. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was higher for severe disease in the delta era (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.89), particularly when adjusted for Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.08). The higher odds of severe infection could be due to a more virulent delta variant, although the possibility of decreased anti-spike monoclonal antibody effectiveness in the clinical setting cannot be excluded. Research into the most effective strategies for using and improving anti-spike monoclonals for the treatment of emerging variants is warranted.

Curbing the Delta Surge: Clinical Outcomes After Treatment With Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab, Casirivimab-Imdevimab, or Sotrovimab for Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the clinical outcomes of bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.617.2 Delta surge. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 between August 1, 2021, and December 1, 2021. Rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and death were assessed. RESULTS: Among 10,775 high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the Delta surge, 287 patients (2.7%) developed severe disease that led to hospitalization, oxygen supplementation, or death within 30 days after treatment. The rates of severe disease were low among patients treated with bamlanivimab-etesevimab (1.2%), casirivimab-imdevimab (2.9%), and sotrovimab (1.6%; P<.01). The higher rate of severe outcomes among patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab may be related to a significantly lower COVID-19 vaccination rate in that cohort. Intensive care unit admission was comparable among patients treated bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab (1.0%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: This real-world study of a large cohort of high-risk patients shows low rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality after treatment with bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 Delta surge.

Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulant Reversal Agents in Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) has high morbidity and mortality. The safety and outcome data of DOAC reversal agents in ICH are limited. Objective: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of DOAC reversal agents among patients with ICH. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through April 29, 2022. Study Selection: The eligibility criteria were (1) adult patients (age ≥18 years) with ICH receiving treatment with a DOAC, (2) reversal of DOAC, and (3) reported safety and anticoagulation reversal outcomes. All nonhuman studies and case reports, studies evaluating patients with ischemic stroke requiring anticoagulation reversal or different dosing regimens of DOAC reversal agents, and mixed study groups with DOAC and warfarin were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and abstracted data. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion with anticoagulation reversed. The primary safety end points were all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events after the reversal agent. Results: A total of 36 studies met criteria for inclusion, with a total of 1832 patients (967 receiving 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate [4F-PCC]; 525, andexanet alfa [AA]; 340, idarucizumab). The mean age was 76 (range, 68-83) years, and 57% were men. For 4F-PCC, anticoagulation reversal was 77% (95% CI, 72%-82%; I2 = 55%); all-cause mortality, 26% (95% CI, 20%-32%; I2 = 68%), and thromboembolic events, 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%; I2 = 41%). For AA, anticoagulation reversal was 75% (95% CI, 67%-81%; I2 = 48%); all-cause mortality, 24% (95% CI, 16%-34%; I2 = 73%), and thromboembolic events, 14% (95% CI, 10%-19%; I2 = 16%). Idarucizumab for reversal of dabigatran had an anticoagulation reversal rate of 82% (95% CI, 55%-95%; I2 = 41%), all-cause mortality, 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%, I2 = 0%), and thromboembolic events, 5% (95% CI, 3%-8%; I2 = 0%). A direct retrospective comparison of 4F-PCC and AA showed no differences in anticoagulation reversal, proportional mortality, or thromboembolic events. Conclusions and Relevance: In the absence of randomized clinical comparison trials, the overall anticoagulation reversal, mortality, and thromboembolic event rates in this systematic review and meta-analysis appeared similar among available DOAC reversal agents for managing ICH. Cost, institutional formulary status, and availability may restrict reversal agent choice, particularly in small community hospitals.

Engagement of hospital pharmacists and technicians to optimize staffing schedules.

Challenges exist in developing work schedules for hospital pharmacy staff due to the need to meet around the clock patient care requirements. Work-life integration and reduced burnout are increasingly important considerations in staff schedules. However, information regarding methods to systematically improve scheduling satisfaction is currently lacking. Hospital pharmacist scheduling surveys were reviewed for solutions in a retreat setting to address growing concerns at our institution. All hospital pharmacists and technicians were surveyed to understand opportunities to improve their schedules. Subsequently, pharmacists participated in a retreat to identify opportunities to share work, prioritize for scheduling improvements, and develop a staffing restructure proposal. Out of 172 pharmacists, 84% completed surveys, whereas 55% of 196 technicians responded. The highest ranked scheduling improvement was a more consistent schedule for both pharmacists and technicians. Several solutions identified during the pharmacist retreat were incorporated into a proposal including decreased weekend staffing frequency (every 3rd to a mix of every 3rd and every 4th), improved scheduling consistency and reduced evenings. Negotiation was among the methods used to identify scheduling solutions. Engagement of frontline staff to lead staffing restructure is expected to ensure success of scheduling changes. Future directions include measuring pharmacist burnout and staff satisfaction before and after change implementation. If successful, the retreat and technician-developed proposal can be used for implementing technician schedule improvements.

Association of Intravenous Bamlanivimab Use with Reduced Hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and Mortality in Patients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is needed. METHODS: 2,335 patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020 to February 17, 2021 were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2,335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21 and 28. RESULTS: The median age of the population was 63; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were ≥65 years; 49.3% were female. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), body mass index ≥35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs 3.5%; Odds Ratio [OR], 0.38), 21 (1.9% vs 3.9%; OR, 0.46), and 28 (2.5% vs 3.9%; OR, 0.61). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs 1%; OR, 0.12), 21 (0.25% vs 1%; OR: 0.24) and 28 (0.56% vs 1.1%; OR: 0.52), and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs 0.4%; OR,0.08) and 28 (0.11% vs 0.44%; OR, 0.01). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19/2355, most commonly fever (n=6), nausea (n=5), and lightheadedness (n=3). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization compared with usual care. FUNDING: Mayo Clinic.

Intravenous bamlanivimab use associates with reduced hospitalization in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.

Casirivimab-Imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced rates of hospitalization among high-risk patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19.

BACKGROUND: Real-world clinical data to support the use of casirivimab-imdevimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is needed. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of casirivimab-imdevimab treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 696 patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab between December 4, 2020 and April 9, 2021 was compared to a propensity-matched control of 696 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Primary outcome was rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21 and 28 after infusion. FINDINGS: The median age of the antibody-treated cohort was 63 years (interquartile range, 52-71); 45·5% were ≥65 years old; 51.4% were female. High-risk characteristics were hypertension (52.4%), body mass index ≥35 (31.0%), diabetes mellitus (24.6%), chronic lung disease (22.1%), chronic renal disease (11.4%), congestive heart failure (6.6%), and compromised immune function (6.7%). Compared to the propensity-matched untreated control, patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab had significantly lower all-cause hospitalization rates at day 14 (1.3% vs 3.3%; Absolute Difference: 2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-3.7%), day 21 (1.3% vs 4.2%; Absolute Difference: 2.9%; 95% CI: 1.2-4.7%), and day 28 (1.6% vs 4.8%; Absolute Difference: 3.2%; 95% CI: 1.4-5.1%). Rates of intensive care unit admission and mortality at days 14, 21 and 28 were similarly low for antibody-treated and untreated groups. INTERPRETATION: Among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was associated with a significantly lower rate of hospitalization. FUNDING: Mayo Clinic.

A Framework for Outpatient Infusion of Antispike Monoclonal Antibodies to High-Risk Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease-19: The Mayo Clinic Model.

The administration of spike monoclonal antibody treatment to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is very challenging. This article summarizes essential components and processes in establishing an effective spike monoclonal antibody infusion program. Rapid identification of a dedicated physical infrastructure was essential to circumvent the logistical challenges of caring for infectious patients while maintaining compliance with regulations and ensuring the safety of our personnel and other patients. Our partnerships and collaborations among multiple different specialties and disciplines enabled contributions from personnel with specific expertise in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, infection prevention and control, electronic health record (EHR) informatics, compliance, legal, medical ethics, engineering, administration, and other critical areas. Clear communication and a culture in which all roles are welcomed at the planning and operational tables are critical to the rapid development and refinement needed to adapt and thrive in providing this time-sensitive beneficial therapy. Our partnerships with leaders and providers outside our institutions, including those who care for underserved populations, have promoted equity in the access of monoclonal antibodies in our regions. Strong support from institutional leadership facilitated expedited action when needed, from a physical, personnel, and system infrastructure standpoint. Our ongoing real-time assessment and monitoring of our clinical program allowed us to improve and optimize our processes to ensure that the needs of our patients with COVID-19 in the outpatient setting are met.

Effect of a Statewide Controlled-Substance Monitoring Requirement on the Opioid Prescribing Practice for Treatment of Acute Pain.

BACKGROUND: The US government affirmed the opioid epidemic as a public health emergency in late 2017. Prior to that, as part of the Heroin, Opiate, Prevention, and Education (HOPE) Agenda, the state of Wisconsin enacted 2015 Wisconsin Act 266. This law, which went into effect April 1, 2017, requires prescribers to review data from the state's enhanced Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (ePDMP) before issuing an opioid prescription, in order to reduce inappropriate prescriptions and, ultimately, decrease opioid overuse. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 2015 Wisconsin Act 266 on opioid prescriptions for acute pain in Mayo Clinic Health System sites in northwest Wisconsin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective review included all eligible patients who were discharged from emergency or urgent care departments in the Mayo Clinic Health System at northwest Wisconsin sites during the study period. The quantity of opioids prescribed (measured in morphine milligram equivalents per patient encounter) and the total number of opioid prescriptions were compared for the periods May and June 2016 (prior to implementation of Act 266) versus May and June 2017 (post-implementation of Act 266). RESULTS: A 33% reduction occurred in the median opioid quantity prescribed per patient encounter in the post-implementation period vs the pre-implementation period (P <0.001). In addition, a 13% relative reduction occurred in the percentage of patient encounters that involved an opioid prescription (P <0.001). No difference was observed in opioid prescription agents between time periods, except for an increase in morphine prescriptions (P <0.001. CONCLUSION: The HOPE Agenda, specifically 2015 Wisconsin Act 266, appears to have had a positive effect on decreased opioid prescriptions for acute pain at Mayo Clinic Health System sites in northwest Wisconsin.