Continuous-Infusion Labetalol vs Nicardipine for Hypertension Management in Stroke Patients.

BACKGROUND: Labetalol and nicardipine are antihypertensives commonly used in the management of elevated blood pressure (BP) following an acute stroke, but there is limited evidence to suggest which agent as a continuous infusion should be used preferentially in this setting. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and ease of administration of continuous-infusion labetalol with continuous-infusion nicardipine following an acute stroke. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of patients with acute ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage included patients if they received either study agent within 24 hours of admission. The primary outcome was percent time spent at goal BP. Secondary outcomes included time to goal BP, the number of dose adjustments, and use of rescue antihypertensives. RESULTS: The analysis included 99 patients who received labetalol- (n = 34) or nicardipine- (n = 65) continuous infusions. Intracerebral hemorrhage was the most common stroke subset (n = 81) followed by acute ischemic stroke (n = 18). There was no statistical difference in time at goal BP (labetalol 68.0%, nicardipine 67.0%; P = .885), rescue antihypertensive use (labetalol 14.7%, nicardipine 24.6%; P = .2570), time spent 10% above or below mean systolic BP (labetalol 35.5%, nicardipine 33.5%; P = .885), time to goal BP (labetalol 81.4 minutes, nicardipine 56.3 minutes; P = .162), and mean number of dose adjustments (labetalol 5.9, nicardipine 6.9; P = .262). CONCLUSIONS: Labetalol- and nicardipine-continuous infusions were comparable in the studied safety and efficacy outcomes including time at goal and BP variability. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these safety and efficacy findings and to assess clinical outcomes.

Therapeutic drug monitoring and use of an adjusted body weight strategy for high-dose voriconazole therapy.

Objectives: A high-dose 12 mg/kg/day (6 mg/kg twice daily) voriconazole regimen was recommended by the CDC to treat patients injected with contaminated methylprednisolone acetate that caused a multi-state fungal outbreak in 2012-13. Therapeutic drug monitoring results of this unique regimen are unknown, as is the most appropriate dosing weight for obese patients. We evaluated voriconazole trough measurements for this dosing scheme, as well as the use of adjusted body weight dosing for obese patients. Methods: Voriconazole trough levels were analysed in obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 ) and non-obese (BMI <35 kg/m 2 ) patients who were given initial therapy with 12 mg/kg/day. Results: Of 138 patients, the first steady-state voriconazole troughs were supratherapeutic (>5 mg/L) in 65 (47%) patients, therapeutic (2-5 mg/L) in 57 (41%) patients and subtherapeutic (<2 mg/L) in 16 (12%) patients. Twenty-three patients had pre-steady-state dose decreases due to supratherapeutic levels, with subsequent first steady-state troughs in the therapeutic ( n = 17) and subtherapeutic ( n = 6) categories. Voriconazole doses >11 and >8 mg/kg/day produced mainly first steady-state supratherapeutic troughs in 44 obese and 94 non-obese patients, respectively. An initial 12 mg/kg/day was progressively lowered to a median maintenance dose of 8.5 mg/kg/day in the obese and 8.6 mg/kg/day in the non-obese. Conclusions: A high-dose voriconazole regimen produced initial supratherapeutic troughs that required dose adjustment downward by nearly 30%. Adjusted body weight dosing in obese patients resulted in a similar maintenance dose to total body weight dosing in the non-obese, and appears to be a sensible dosing strategy for these patients.

Clinical and economic outcomes from a community hospital's antimicrobial stewardship program.

BACKGROUND: Data from community antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are limited. We describe clinical and economic outcomes from the first year of our hospital's ASP. METHODS: The ASP team comprised 2 infectious disease physicians and 3 intensive care unit pharmacists. The team prospectively audited the new starts and weekly use of 8 target antimicrobials: aztreonam, caspofungin, daptomycin, ertapenem, linezolid, meropenem, tigecycline, and voriconazole. Using administrative data, outcomes from the first year of the program, including death within 30 days of hospitalization, readmission within 30 days of discharge, and development of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), were compared with outcomes from a similar period before institution of the program. RESULTS: A total of 510 antimicrobial orders were reviewed, of which 323 (63%) were appropriate, 94 (18%) prompted deescalation, 61 (12%) were denied, and 27 (5%) led to formal consultation with an infectious disease physician. On multivariate analysis, implementation of the ASP was associated with an approximate 50% reduction in the odds of developing CDI (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.82). The ASP was not associated with decreased mortality at 30 days after discharge or readmission rate. The antimicrobial cost per patient-day decreased by 13.3%, from $10.16 to $8.81. The antimicrobial budget decreased by 15.2%, resulting in a total savings of $228,911. There was a 25.4% decrease in defined daily doses of the target antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ASP was associated with significant reductions in CDI rate, antimicrobial use, and pharmacy costs.