The effect of potassium supplementation and concomitant medications on potassium homeostasis for hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: Hospitalized patients receive potassium (K+) supplementation for hypokalemia, with clinicians often estimating a rise in serum K+ levels of 0.1 mEq/L per 10 mEq delivered. However, there is limited evidence to support this expectation. Patients also concomitantly take medications that may alter K+ levels, and it is not known to what degree these may impact interventions to correct K+ levels via supplementation. The objective of this study was to identify the impact of oral and/or intravenous K+ supplementation on serum K+ levels, including the influence of selected concomitant medications, in adult hospitalized patients. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective descriptive study of adult hospitalized patients receiving K+ supplementation at a tertiary hospital between 2021 and 2022 was conducted. Patients were included if they received at least one dose of potassium chloride while admitted to the general medicine ward. The primary outcome was the daily median change in serum K+, normalized per 10 mEq of supplementation administered. The secondary outcome was the impact of selected concomitant medication use on supplement-induced changes in serum K+. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients and 1,291 daily episodes of K+ supplementation were evaluated. The sample was approximately 53% women, was 78% white, and had a median age of 68 years. The overall daily median change in serum K+ level was 0.05 mEq/L per 10 mEq of supplementation delivered. Patients received a median of 40 mEq of supplementation per day, primarily via the oral route (80.6%). Among the concomitant medications assessed, loop diuretics significantly dampened the impact of K+ supplementation. CONCLUSION: Supplementation of K+ in non-critically ill hospitalized patients is variable and dependent on concomitant medication use.

Pharmacist and Student Knowledge and Perceptions of Herbal Supplements and Natural Products.

We aimed to collect parallel perspectives from pharmacists and pharmacy students on their use, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about herbal supplements/natural products. Two cross-sectional descriptive survey questionnaires-one focusing on pharmacists and the other focusing on pharmacy students-were administered from March to June 2021 via Qualtrics. The surveys were sent out to preceptor pharmacists and pharmacy students currently enrolled at a single U.S. school of pharmacy. The questionnaires were composed of five main sections, including (1) demographics; (2) attitudes/perceptions; (3) educational experience; (4) resource availability; and (5) objective knowledge of herbal supplements/natural products. Data analysis primarily utilized descriptive statistics with relevant comparisons across domains. A total of 73 pharmacists and 92 pharmacy students participated, with response rates of 8.8% and 19.3%, respectively. A total of 59.2% of pharmacists and 50% of pharmacy students stated they personally used herbal supplements/natural products. Most respondents (>95% for both groups) considered vitamins/minerals safe, although a lower percentage agreed on this for herbal supplements/natural products (60% and 79.3% for pharmacists and pharmacy students, respectively). Patient inquiries in the pharmacy setting were most seen for vitamin D, zinc, cannabidiol, and omega-3. A total of 34.2% of pharmacists reported having training in herbal supplements/natural products as a required part of their Pharm.D. training, and 89.1% of pharmacy students desired to learn more. The median score on the objective knowledge quiz was 50% for pharmacists and 45% for pharmacy students. Ultimately, herbal supplements/natural products are recognized by pharmacists/pharmacy students as a consistent and embedded part of pharmacy practice, although there is a need to enhance knowledge and skills in this area.

Safety and efficacy of cefiderocol for off-label treatment indications: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Cefiderocol is a siderophore cephalosporin recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hospital- and ventilator-acquired bacterial pneumonia and complicated urinary tract infections. However, there is potential for cefiderocol utility for a variety of other infections. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify literature examining the safety and efficacy of cefiderocol for off-label indications. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were utilized for reporting. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, from inception to September 2021. Manuscripts describing cefiderocol off-label use in clinical settings were included. Exclusion criteria were studies focused on labeled indications, animal studies, pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic studies, in vitro or laboratory studies, and manuscripts in languages other than English or Arabic. Each stage of review utilized two independent investigators, with conflicts resolved and critical appraisal performed. Data regarding presentation, clinical course, and infection characteristics were extracted and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: The search identified a total of 985 records, narrowed to a final set of 27 studies. Among studies included were 18 (66.7%) case reports, 8 (29.6%) case series, and 1 (3.7%) phase 3 clinical trial. Cefiderocol was most frequently used off-label for bacteremia/sepsis with or without an identified source in 51 (67.1%) out of a total of 76 included patients. Among case series/reports with available data, 43 of 53 patients (81.1%) received combination antibiotic therapy. The most common pathogens identified included multi/extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and/or Acinetobacter baumannii. Various clinical end points were reported, while microbiological end points were reported in 18 (66.7%) studies. Cefiderocol-related side effects were uncommon and rarely use-limiting. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review depicts relative clinical effectiveness of off-label cefiderocol, most commonly for P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii infections as combination antibiotic therapy. Further study is needed to elucidate the safety and efficacy of cefiderocol across an expanded set of patients and indications.

Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban and Apixaban in Patients with Increased Body Mass: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Rivaroxaban and apixaban are direct oral anticoagulants increasing in popularity as convenient alternatives to warfarin. However, current guidelines recommend against use in patients with a BMI > 40 kg/m2 or bodyweight > 120 kg unless drug-specific levels are measured, which may not be feasible across all clinical practices. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to broadly examine literature evaluating the clinical outcomes of rivaroxaban and/or apixaban in patients with increased body mass. METHODS: A systematic literature review (guided by PRISMA) was performed through January 27, 2021 using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Key search term clusters included drug and weight-related concepts (overweight/obese, body mass index [BMI], waist circumference). DistillerSR was utilized to review and process search results. Studies met inclusion if they analyzed the risk of bleeding and/or thrombosis in patients with increased body mass (i.e., via BMI or other criteria) receiving rivaroxaban or apixaban. Clinical guidelines, case reports/series, pharmacokinetic/dynamic analyses, and commentaries were excluded. Bias was examined qualitatively across studies. RESULTS: After duplicates were removed, the original search rendered 1822 abstracts and 200 full-texts for screening, ultimately providing a final set of 24 studies for qualitative review. Of these studies, 13 (54.2%) enabled comparisons between patients of increased versus normal body mass, while 11 (45.8%) reported outcomes only for patients of increased body mass. The working definition of 'increased body mass' varied amongst the studies, including 11 (45.8%) studies that utilized BMI, seven (29.2%) with a combination of BMI and body measurement, two (8.3%) that relied on body weight alone, and four (16.7%) that identified obesity-related ICD codes. All 13 comparative studies found similar or reduced rates of safety and efficacy outcomes with rivaroxaban and apixaban. CONCLUSION: The literature reports similar or lower bleeding and thrombotic risk for rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients of increased body mass compared to patients of normal body mass. Future prospective controlled studies are needed to further define guidelines for use in this population.

Prevalence and characteristics of self-reported kratom use in a representative US general population sample.

BACKGROUND: Reports of kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) use, a medicinal plant widely found in Southeast Asia, are on the rise in the US. However, the prevalence and characteristics of individuals who use kratom in the US is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate lifetime prevalence of, and descriptive characteristics associated with, kratom use in a sample of the US general population. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered online by Qualtrics® research panel aggregator. Utilizing quota-based sampling, data was collected from a US sample aged 18-59 years, representative to age, geographic region, ethnicity, income, and education level. Data was collected regarding respondent demographic/clinical characteristics, as well as frequency/patterns of kratom and other drug use. RESULTS: Among 1,842 respondents, 112 (6.1%) reported use of kratom within their lifetime. Respondents who used kratom were largely between 25-44 years old, male, employed, and at higher educational levels. A total of 24.1% to 47.3% of respondents indicated self-reported diagnoses for addiction, and 42.9% reported having previously received treatment for addiction. A total of 71.4% to 92% of respondents who used kratom also reported use of other drugs, including nicotine, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamine, and heroin. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this analysis provides the first estimate of kratom use in the general US population, providing insight on demographic/clinical characteristics of individuals reporting use.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor in the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a chronic, progressive, genetic disease affecting more than 30,000 people in the United States and 70,000 people globally. The goals of treatment are to slow disease progression, reduce pulmonary exacerbations, relieve chronic symptoms, and improve the patient's quality of life. Lumacaftor/ivacaftor is a new therapy for CF that has demonstrated good clinical outcomes, including improved absolute percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%). However, given the high cost of therapy, there is a need to evaluate the overall value of lumacaftor/ivacaftor in CF management. OBJECTIVES: To (a) conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of lumacaftor/ivacaftor to understand the overall effectiveness of the drug compared with its costs and (b) conduct a budget impact analysis (BIA) to understand the potential financial effect of introducing a new drug in a health plan. METHODS: Two static decision models were developed using Microsoft Excel to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of lumacaftor/ivacaftor over a 1-year time frame from a payer perspective. Model inputs included drug costs (wholesale acquisition costs), drug monitoring schedules (package inserts), drug monitoring costs (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid physician fee schedule and published literature), FEV1% predicted and pulmonary exacerbation values (clinical trials), and cost to treat pulmonary exacerbations (published literature). The outcomes in the CEA included total cost of therapy; average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), defined as cost per FEV1% predicted; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in the ratio of cost per FEV1% predicted of lumacaftor/ivacaftor and placebo. Outcomes in the BIA included total budget impact; cost per member per month (PMPM), defined as total budget impact per hypothetical plan population; and cost per treated member per month (PTMPM), defined as total budget impact per target CF population. All costs were adjusted to 2016 dollars, and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness given uncertainty in model inputs and study assumptions. RESULTS: The annual cost of therapy per patient for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $379,780. The ACER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $151,912, while the ICER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor compared with placebo was $95,016 per FEV1% predicted. The annual total budget impact due to the inclusion of lumacaftor/ivacaftor on the health plan formulary was $266,046. The PMPM cost was $0.02 and the PTMPM cost was $6.21. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CF, lumacaftor/ivacaftor has demonstrated better clinical effectiveness compared with placebo alongside an increased drug acquisition cost. However, the therapy may be a viable alternative to existing standard therapy over a short time horizon. Health care payers, both private and public, need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the financial effect when considering expansion of new drug coverage in CF management. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Covvey and Kamal have received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Covvey, Giannetti, and Kamal have received research funding from the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. Kamal serves as a consultant to the Lynx Group (Cranbury, NJ) and Manticore Consulting Group (Scottsdale, AZ). Mukherjee has nothing to disclose. A related poster abstract was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.