Evaluation of Medications Used for Hospitalized Patients With Sleep Disturbances: A Frequency Analysis and Literature Review.

PURPOSE: Poor sleep during hospitalization is common and implicated in worse patient outcomes. Despite implementation of non-pharmacologic techniques, medications are still frequently required. The study objective is to assess the frequency of new medications administered for sleep in hospitalized patients and to review literature evaluating these drug therapies in the inpatient setting. METHODS: This retrospective study included adult inpatients if they received a new medication for sleep during a 5-day period. Patients were excluded if the medication was continued from home or if sleep was not the documented indication. For the literature review, a MEDLINE search was conducted to identify studies pertaining to pharmacotherapy for sleep in hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Of 1,968 patient-days reviewed, a medication for sleep was given for 166 patient-days (8.4%) in 78 patients. Melatonin was most commonly received (70.5%), followed by benzodiazepines (9.6%). A review of antihistamines, benzodiazepines, melatonin, quetiapine, trazodone, and Z-drugs (non-benzodiazepine hypnotics) was conducted and 23 studies were included. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread use of pharmacotherapy for sleep, there is a paucity of data evaluating use in the inpatient setting. Although there is significant heterogeneity among studies, melatonin has the strongest evidence for use and is an attractive option given its lack of adverse reactions and drug interactions. Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs were also frequently utilized; however, their reduced clearance in the elderly and potential for compounded sedative effects should be weighed heavily against potential sleep benefits. Antipsychotic agents cannot be recommended for routine use due to limited data and the potential for significant adverse effects.

Adjusting vasopressin availability and formulation: A cost-savings initiative.

PURPOSE: The increase in vasopressin price has required many healthcare systems to consider cost-saving strategies. To combat rising medication costs, our institution changed formulations from 50 units/250 mL to 20 units/100 mL and removed vasopressin from automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs). METHODS: This retrospective review occurred at a 545-bed academic medical center with 97 adult intensive care unit beds. Adult patients receiving a continuous vasopressin infusion were included with no exclusion criteria. A 1-month period was assessed before and after changing the formulation (pre and post groups, respectively). Duplicate bags compounded by pharmacy and bedside teams were also assessed in the pre group. The primary outcome was the estimated annual cost savings due to formulation change with a secondary outcome of estimated annual cost savings due to removal of vasopressin from ADCs. Each 20-unit vial of vasopressin cost $183.21 (wholesale acquisition cost) at the time of the study. RESULTS: In the pre group, 39 patients requiring a vasopressin infusion were allocated an average of 2 bags each costing $1,099.26 per patient. In the post group, 41 patients required an average of 4 bags each costing $732.84 per patient. With respect to the primary outcome, a savings of $366.42 per patient and an average of 40 patients per month would lead to an annual cost savings of $175,881.60. Secondary outcome analysis identified 9 duplicate bags prepared in the pre group; therefore, removal of vasopressin from ADCs is estimated to provide additional cost savings of $59,360.04. The estimated annual cost savings from both initiatives is $235,241.64. CONCLUSION: Changing the vasopressin formulation and removing it from ADCs resulted in a significant cost savings to the health system.