Clinical Response to Third-Line Angiotensin-II vs Epinephrine in Septic Shock: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate third-line vasopressor in septic shock patients receiving norepinephrine and vasopressin is unknown. Angiotensin-II (AT-II) offers a unique mechanism of action to traditionally used vasopressors in septic shock. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of third-line AT-II to epinephrine in patients with septic shock. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients was performed between April 1, 2019 and July 31, 2022. Propensity-matched (2:1) analysis compared adults with septic shock who received third-line AT-II to controls who received epinephrine following norepinephrine and vasopressin. The primary outcome was clinical response 24 hours after third-line vasopressor initiation. Additional efficacy and safety outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: Twenty-three AT-II patients were compared with 46 epinephrine patients. 47.8% of AT-II patients observed a clinical response at hour 24 compared with 28.3% of epinephrine patients (P = 0.12). In-hospital mortality (65.2% vs 73.9%, P = 0.45), cardiac arrhythmias (26.1% vs 26.1%, P = 0.21), and thromboembolism (4.3% vs 2.2%, P = 0.61) were not observed to be statistically different between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor agent in septic shock patients was not associated with significantly improved clinical response at hour 24 compared with epinephrine. Although underpowered to detect meaningful differences, the clinical observations of this study warrant consideration and further investigation of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor in septic shock.

Clinical characteristics and predictors of survival in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 receiving tocilizumab.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can progress to cytokine storm that is associated with organ dysfunction and death. The purpose of the present study is to determine clinical characteristics associated with 28 day in-hospital survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that received tocilizumab. This was a retrospective observational cohort study conducted at a five hospital health system in Michigan, United States. Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 that were admitted to the hospital and received tocilizumab for cytokine storm from March 1, 2020 through April 3, 2020 were included. Patients were grouped into survivors and non-survivors based on 28 day in-hospital mortality. Study day 0 was defined as the day tocilizumab was administered. Factors independently associated with in-hospital survival at 28 days after tocilizumab administration were assessed. Epidemiologic, demographic, laboratory, prognostic scores, treatment, and outcome data were collected and analyzed. Clinical response was collected and defined as a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status or discharged alive from the hospital. Of the 81 patients included, the median age was 64 (58-71) years and 56 (69.1%) were male. The 28 day in-hospital mortality was 43.2%. There were 46 (56.8%) patients in the survivors and 35 (43.2%) in the non-survivors group. On study day 0 no differences were noted in demographics, clinical characteristics, severity of illness scores, or treatments received between survivors and non-survivors. C-reactive protein was significantly higher in the non-survivors compared to survivors. Compared to non-survivors, recipients of tocilizumab within 12 days of symptom onset was independently associated with survival (adjusted OR: 0.296, 95% CI: 0.098-0.889). SOFA score ≥8 on day 0 was independently associated with mortality (adjusted OR: 2.842, 95% CI: 1.042-7.753). Clinical response occurred more commonly in survivors than non-survivors (80.4% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001). Improvements in the six-point ordinal scale and SOFA score were observed in survivors after tocilizumab. Early receipt of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 was an independent predictor for in-hospital survival at 28 days.

An electronic tool for health systems to assess and communicate discharge medication access.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe how the discharge medication cost inquiry (DMCI) consult order and workflow were created and used to communicate transition of care needs and medication access barriers before discharge. SUMMARY: Health-system pharmacists collaborated with the information technology department to develop the DMCI consult order and workflow. This institutional review board-approved retrospective case study evaluated use of the DMCI consult order throughout the health system. Outcomes that could not be retrieved electronically were collected for every third patient encounter using manual chart review. The DMCI consult order was used at each hospital in the health system. Physicians placed the most DMCI consult orders; however, pharmacists at the large academic tertiary hospital utilized the DMCI consult order the most. The DMCI consult order was sent most frequently for anticoagulants. Although most medications were covered by insurance, the tool and workflow identified barriers to medication access. Almost 90% of the patients with a DMCI consult order had at least one prescription generated on discharge. CONCLUSION: The DMCI consult order is a novel electronic tool to aid in communicating discharge medication needs. When incorporated into care transition planning, the DMCI consult order and workflow provide a model to ensure patients have access to medications. It can also be used to document and evaluate the role of pharmacy in transitions of care in the health system.