Effect modification of dosing strategy (AUC or trough) on AKI associated with vancomycin in combination with piperacillin/tazobactam or cefepime and meropenem.

Piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP), cefepime (FEP), or meropenem (MEM) and vancomycin (VAN) are commonly used in combination for sepsis. Studies have shown an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) with TZP and VAN compared to FEP or MEM. VAN guidelines recommend area under the curve (AUC) monitoring over trough (Tr) to minimize the risk of AKI. We investigated the association of AKI and MAKE-30 with the two VAN monitoring strategies when used in combination with TZP or FEP/MEM. Adult patients between 2015 and 2019 with VAN > 72 hours were included. Patients with AKI prior to or within 48 hours of VAN or baseline CrCl of ≤30 mL/min were excluded. Four cohorts were defined: FEP/MEM/Tr, FEP/MEM/AUC, TZP/Tr, and TZP/AUC. A Cox Proportional Hazard Model was used to model AKI as a function of the incidence rate of at-risk days, testing monitoring strategy as a treatment effect modification. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model MAKE-30. Overall incidence of AKI was 18.6%; FEP/MEM/Tr = 115 (14.6%), FEP/MEM/AUC = 52 (14.9%), TZP/Tr = 189 (26%), and TZP/AUC = 96 (17.1%) (P < 0.001). Both drug group [(TZP; P = 0.0085)] and monitoring strategy [(Tr; P = 0.0007)] were highly associated with the development of AKI; however, the effect was not modified with interaction term [(TZP*Tr); 0.085)]. The odds of developing MAKE-30 were not different between any group and FEP/MEM/AUC. The effect of VAN/TZP on the development of AKI was not modified by the VAN monitoring strategy (AUC vs trough). MAKE-30 outcomes were not different among the four cohorts.

To Block or Not: Updates in Neuromuscular Blockade in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Objective: To review and evaluate neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Data Sources: A literature search utilizing PubMed was performed (January 1991 to January 2020) using the following search terms: (neuromuscular blocking agents OR neuromuscular blockade OR cisatracurium OR rocuronium OR vecuronium OR pancuronium OR atracurium) AND *acute respiratory distress syndrome OR acute lung injury). Publications in English were evaluated. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant clinical studies in humans were considered. Data Synthesis: Although NMBAs have been used for decades in the setting of ARDS, questions regarding mortality benefit remain. Early NMBA, within 48 hours of lung injury, have been historically used in critically ill patients with ARDS to aid in increasing alveolar recruitment, improving patient-ventilator synchrony, and promoting oxygenation by the prevention of contraction of respiratory muscles. Until recently, the literature showed an improvement in 90-day adjusted mortality. However, recent literature has demonstrated the lack of a mortality benefit. The continued receipt of NMBAs, with no clear benefit, could potentially lead to increased costs, skin breakdown, corneal abrasions, venous thromboembolisms, intensive care unit acquired weakness, and awareness with inappropriate sedation. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review aims at discussing the preferred NMBA based on mechanism of action and reviews specific clinical trial data for the use of NMBAs in ARDS, clinical implications of these trial data, complications for the use of NMBAs, and needed future directions. Conclusions: The mortality benefit of NMBAs in ARDS has contradicting evidence with potentially serious adverse effects and notable controversies.

The immunomodulatory effects of opioids and implications for intensive care unit populations.

Analgesia within the intensive care unit (ICU) is often achieved via the utilization of opioids in alignment with current guidelines. Recent evidence has not only demonstrated the potential impact of opioids in suppression of immune function, but also the potential harm of immunosuppression of patients within the ICU. Despite the potential immunosuppression seen with opioids in this at-risk population, their use remains frequent. In this review, we highlight the potential immunomodulatory impact of opioids within the critically ill and considerations for their use.

Pharmacotherapy in Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Risk of Secondary Infections: A Single-Center Case Series and Narrative Review.

Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, immune modulators have been considered front-line candidates for the management of patients presenting with clinical symptoms secondary to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Although heavy emphasis has been placed on early clinical efficacy, we sought to evaluate the impact of pharmacologic approach to coronavirus disease 2019 within the ICU on secondary infections and clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (inception to March 2021) database search and manual selection of bibliographies from selected articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles relevant to coronavirus disease 2019, management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-associated respiratory failure, and prevalence of secondary infections with pharmacotherapies were selected. The MeSH terms "COVID-19," "secondary infection," "SARS-CoV-2," "tocilizumab," and "corticosteroids" were used for article identification. Articles were narratively synthesized for this review. DATA SYNTHESIS: Current data surrounding the use of tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for coronavirus disease 2019 management are limited given the short follow-up period and conflicting results between studies. Further complicating the understanding of immune modulator role is the lack of definitive understanding of clinical impact of the immune response in coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current available literature, we suggest prolonged trials and follow-up intervals for those patients managed with immune modulating agents for the management of coronavirus disease 2019.

A narrative review of pharmacologic de-resuscitation in the critically ill.

Despite evidence highlighting harms of fluid overload, minimal guidance exists on counteraction via utilization of diuretics in the de-resuscitation phase. While diuretics have been shown to decrease net volume and improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill, a lack of standardization surrounding selection of diuretic regimen or monitoring of de-resuscitation exists. Current monitoring parameters of de-resuscitation often rely on clinical signs of fluid overload, end organ recovery and other biochemical surrogate markers which are often deemed unreliable. The majority of evidence suggests that achieving a net-negative fluid balance within 72 h after shock resolution may be of benefit; however, approaches to such goal are uncertain. Loop diuretics are a widely available type of diuretic for removal of volume in patients with sufficient kidney function, with the potential for adjunct diuretics in special circumstances. At present, administration of diuretics within the broad critically ill population fails to find uniformity and often efficacy. Given the lack of randomized controlled trials in this susceptible population, we aim to provide a thorough therapeutic understanding of diuretic pharmacotherapy which is necessary in order to achieve desired goal of fluid balance and improve overall outcomes.