Practices and Outcomes Associated With Sublingual Buprenorphine Use in a Critically Ill Population.

IMPORTANCE: Buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) is commonly used in the outpatient setting with increasing use in hospitalized patients. However, there is limited literature describing its use in critically ill populations. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to report the practices of buprenorphine prescribing among ICU teams. We also assessed the effect of a novel initiation strategy on opioid requirements in the ICU and the incidence of precipitated withdrawal. DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, retrospective, descriptive study of patients receiving buprenorphine in the ICU. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was to describe the use of buprenorphine in ICU patients through indication, initiation strategy, dosing information, and time from ICU admission to the first dose. We also detailed the incidence of precipitated withdrawal overall and the difference in opioid requirements before and after a low-dose induction strategy (buprenorphine initiated while receiving full agonist opioids [5-d titration from 150 µg to 4 mg four times daily]). RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included. Most patients (86.3%) received buprenorphine for treatment of OUD. Of the 75 patients taking buprenorphine before admission, 46 (61%) had it restarted within 24 hours of ICU admission. Among 95 patients requiring buprenorphine induction, 57 (60%) underwent standard induction and 38 (40%) underwent low-dose induction, with only one instance of precipitated withdrawal. Median morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) of concomitant full agonist opioids in patients completing low-dose induction decreased from 1057.5 mg to 262.5 mg in the 24 hours before initiation compared with the 24 hours after target buprenorphine dose was reached (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of sublingual buprenorphine was most often in patients with OUD. Timely continuation of home buprenorphine in the ICU was suboptimal. Both standard and low-dose induction strategies appear to be safe with a low risk of precipitating withdrawal. When implemented appropriately, low-dose buprenorphine induction may lead to significant reduction in full agonist opioids in critically ill patients.

Evaluation of hydroxocobalamin use for the treatment of suspected cyanide toxicity secondary to smoke inhalation.

Hydroxocobalamin is used for cyanide toxicity after smoke inhalation, but diagnosis is challenging. Retrospective studies have associated hydroxocobalamin with acute kidney injury (AKI). This is a retrospective analysis of patients receiving hydroxocobalamin for suspected cyanide toxicity. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients meeting predefined appropriate use criteria defined as ≥1 of the following: serum lactate ≥8 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg, new-onset seizure, cardiac arrest, or respiratory arrest. Secondary outcomes included incidence of AKI, pneumonia, resolution of initial neurologic symptoms, and in-hospital mortality. Forty-six patients were included; 35 (76%) met the primary outcome. All met appropriate use criteria due to respiratory arrest, 15 (43%) for lactate, 14 (40%) for SBP, 12 (34%) for cardiac arrest. AKI, pneumonia, and resolution of neurologic symptoms occurred in 30%, 21%, and 49% of patients, respectively. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients meeting criteria, 49% vs. 9% (95% CI 0.16, 0.64). When appropriate use criteria were modified to exclude respiratory arrest in a post-hoc analysis, differences were maintained, suggesting respiratory arrest alone is not a critical component to determine hydroxocobalamin administration. Predefined appropriate use criteria identify severely ill smoke inhalation victims and provides hydroxocobalamin treatment guidance.

Multicenter study evaluating target attainment of anti-Factor Xa levels using various enoxaparin prophylactic dosing practices in adult trauma patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Enoxaparin is standard of care for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in adult trauma patients, but fixed-dose protocols are suboptimal. Dosing based on body mass index (BMI) or total body weight (TBW) improves target prophylactic anti-Xa level attainment and reduces VTE rates. A novel strategy using estimated blood volume (EBV) may be more effective based on results of a single-center study. This study compared BMI-, TBW-, EBV-based, and hybrid enoxaparin dosing strategies at achieving target prophylactic anti-Factor Xa (anti-Xa) levels in trauma patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective review. DATA SOURCE: Electronic health records from participating institutions. PATIENTS: Adult trauma patients who received enoxaparin twice daily for VTE prophylaxis and had at least one appropriately timed anti-Xa level (collected 3 to 6 hours after the previous dose after three consecutive doses) from January 2017 through December 2020. Patients were excluded if the hospital-specific dosing protocol was not followed or if they had thermal burns with > 20% body surface area involvement. INTERVENTION: Dosing strategy used to determine initial prophylactic dose of enoxaparin. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was percentage of patients with peak anti-Xa levels within the target prophylactic range (0.2-0.4 units/mL). MAIN RESULTS: Nine hospitals enrolled 742 unique patients. The most common dosing strategy was based on BMI (43.0%), followed by EBV (29.0%). Patients dosed using EBV had the highest percentage of target anti-Xa levels (72.1%). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated EBV-based dosing was significantly more likely to yield anti-Xa levels at or above target compared to BMI-based dosing (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.29-5.62, p < 0.001). EBV-based dosing was also more likely than hybrid dosing to yield an anti-Xa level at or above target (aOR 2.30, 95% CI 1.33-3.98, p = 0.003). Other pairwise comparisons between dosing strategy groups were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: An EBV-based dosing strategy was associated with higher odds of achieving anti-Xa level within target range for enoxaparin VTE prophylaxis compared to BMI-based dosing and may be a preferred method for VTE prophylaxis in adult trauma patients.

Low-dose Initiation of Buprenorphine in Hospitalized Patients on Full Agonist Opioid Therapy: A Retrospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine can be challenging to initiate in hospitalized patients with opioid dependence because of difficulty tolerating an opioid-free period for buprenorphine induction. The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of low-dose initiation of buprenorphine in hospitalized patients receiving full agonist opioids. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, at an academic tertiary care center and affiliated community hospital. Participants included adult patients at least 18 years old receiving scheduled full agonist opioids who were given sublingual buprenorphine 0.5 mg or less with the intent of increasing to at least 4 mg daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reaching a target dose of at least 4 mg total per day. The secondary endpoints included the incidence of precipitated opioid withdrawal based on documentation of symptoms and change in morphine milligram equivalents before and after low-dose buprenorphine initiation. RESULTS: A total of 76 low-dose initiation attempts were performed in 71 predominantly male (68%) patients (some patients had multiple attempts). Most patients received low-dose initiation because of history of opioid use disorder (83%). Low-dose initiation was completed in 54 of 71 patients (76%) after 76 attempts. Precipitated withdrawal was identified in 2 patients (2.8%). Median morphine milligram equivalents excluding buprenorphine 24 hours before low-dose initiation was 1000 mg (interquartile range, 303.5-1720.5 mg) compared with 37.5 mg (interquartile range, 0-254 mg) after reaching target dose ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine was safely initiated using low-dose initiation in hospitalized patients. This was associated with significant reduction in full agonist opioids.

A Review of the Most Impactful Published Pharmacotherapy-Pertinent Literature of 2019 and 2020 for Clinicians Caring for Patients With Thermal or Inhalation Injury.

Keeping abreast with current literature can be challenging, especially for practitioners caring for patients sustaining thermal or inhalation injury. Practitioners caring for patients with thermal injuries publish in a wide variety of journals, which further increases the complexity for those with resource limitations. Pharmacotherapy research continues to be a minority focus in primary literature. This review is a renewal of previous years' work to facilitate extraction and review of the most recent pharmacotherapy-centric studies in patients with thermal and inhalation injury. Sixteen geographically dispersed, board-certified pharmacists participated in the review. A MeSH-based, filtered search returned 1536 manuscripts over the previous 2-year period. After manual review and exclusions, only 98 (6.4%) manuscripts were determined to have a potential impact on current pharmacotherapy practices and included in the review. A summary of the 10 articles that scored highest are included in the review. Nearly half of the reviewed manuscripts were assessed to lack a significant impact on current practice. Despite an increase in published literature over the previous 2-year review, the focus and quality remain unchanged. There remains a need for investment in well-designed, high impact, pharmacotherapy-pertinent research for patients sustaining thermal or inhalation injuries.

Specialization within pharmacy education: A survey of curricular track or concentration offerings.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this national survey was to determine what constitutes a curricular track or concentration within colleges and schools of pharmacy. Additionally, for programs not currently offering curricular tracks or concentrations, this survey sought to identify barriers to implementation. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed and piloted. It was distributed electronically via SurveyMonkey to members of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Curriculum Special Interest Group (SIG) contact list, along with academic affairs contacts for the balance of programs not included on the SIG contact list, as obtained via a targeted website search. RESULTS: Sixty-five of 134 programs responded to the survey (48.5%). Sixteen programs currently offer 38 curricular tracks or concentrations. On average, tracks or concentrations contained 10.6 didactic credits, with 4.6 elective and six required didactic credits; 0.7 introductory pharmacy practice experience (IPPE) credits; and 5.3 advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) credits, with 2.8 elective and 2.5 required APPE credits. Most tracks did not require a summative project (n = 13), while some required completion of a project individualized by interest/needs (n = 7). Forty-nine programs do not currently offer curricular tracks, most frequently due to logistics of faculty, oversight, or the curriculum structure. Of these programs not currently offering curricular tracks or concentrations, 38.8% are currently considering implementation. CONCLUSION: Existing tracks or concentrations are highly variable in their composition. Many colleges and schools of pharmacy are considering implementation of curricular tracks or concentrations; this report provides guidance for appropriate rigor and development considerations.