Deterioration free discharge comparison of andexanet-alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor associated bleeds.

Given the paucity of comparative efficacy data and the difference in cost between andexanet-alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC), debates continue regarding optimal cost-effective therapy for patients who present with major bleeding associated with oral factor Xa inhibitors. Available literature comparing the cost-effectiveness of the reversal agents is limited, and the large difference in price between therapy options has led many health systems to exclude andexanet-alfa from their formularies. To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost of PCC compared to andexanet-alfa for patients with factor Xa inhibitor associated bleeds. We performed a quasi-experimental, single health system study of patients treated with PCC or andexanet-alfa from March 2014 to April 2021. Deterioration-free discharge, thrombotic events, length of stay, discharge disposition, and cost were reported. 170 patients were included in the PCC group and 170 patients were included in the andexanet-alfa group. Deterioration-free discharge was achieved in 66.5% of PCC-treated patients compared to 69.4% in the andexanet alfa-treated patients. 31.8% of PCC-treated patients were discharged home compared to 30.6% in the andexanet alfa-treated patients. The cost per deterioration-free discharge was $20,773.62 versus $5230.32 in the andexanet alfa and 4 F-PCC group, respectively. Among patients that experienced a bleed while taking a factor Xa inhibitor, there was no difference in clinical outcomes for patients treated with andexanet-alfa compared to PCC. Although there was no difference in the clinical outcomes, there was a significant difference in cost with andexanet-alfa costing approximately four times as much as PCC per deterioration-free discharge.

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.

Exogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 for hyperglycemia in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To review literature evaluating the safety and efficacy of exogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) for hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was queried (inception to September 3, 2011), using the search term glucagon-like peptide-1. The search was limited to studies published in English and conducted in humans. Regular and late-breaking abstracts from the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in 2009 and 2010 were also searched using the same search term. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All abstracts were screened for eligibility, which consisted of studies reporting the effects of intravenous GLP-1 administration on glycemic control in critically ill patients. Data extracted from eligible trials included study and population characteristics, measures of glycemic efficacy, and safety. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search resulted in the identification of 2105 potentially relevant articles; of those, 7 were reviewed. All included publications evaluated the use of intravenous GLP-1 (1.2-3.6 pmol/kg/min) compared with insulin or placebo infused for 4.5-72 hours in critically ill patients. The majority (n = 4) of studies included only patients from a surgical intensive care setting, and 71% (n = 5) of trials included those with a history of diabetes. Relative to insulin or placebo, GLP-1 therapy effectively lowered blood glucose concentrations in all trials. Out of 81 total study participants receiving GLP-1, only 4 had documented hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dL), 4 reported nausea, and 2 experienced vomiting. No other serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: All trials reviewed suggest that GLP-1 may be a promising agent for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients, regardless of diabetes status. Additional studies in more heterogeneous intensive care settings comparing GLP-1 with insulin, the current standard of care, are necessary. These studies should evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of GLP-1 therapy on morbidity and mortality outcomes in critically ill populations.

Evaluation of the selection of cerebrospinal fluid testing in suspected meningitis and encephalitis.

Diagnostic stewardship interventions can decrease unnecessary antimicrobial therapy and microbiology laboratory resources and costs. This retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated factors associated with inappropriate initial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing in patients with suspected community-acquired meningitis or encephalitis. In 250 patients, 202 (80.8%) and 48 (19.2%) were suspected meningitis and encephalitis, respectively. 207 (82.8%) patients had inappropriate and 43 (17.2%) appropriate testing. Any inappropriate CSF test was greatest in the immunocompromised (IC) group (n = 54, 91.5%), followed by non-IC (n = 109, 80.1%) and HIV (n = 44, 80%). Ordering performed on the general ward was associated with inappropriate CSF test orders (adjOR 2.81, 95% CI [1.08-7.34]). Laboratory fee costs associated with excessive testing was close to $300,000 per year. A stepwise algorithm defining empiric and add on tests according to CSF parameters and patient characteristics could improve CSF test ordering in patients with suspected meningitis or encephalitis.

Evaluating the impact of severe sepsis 3-hour bundle compliance on 28-day in-hospital mortality: A propensity adjusted, nested case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) assesses antibiotic administration, lactate measurement, and blood culture collection within 3 h of severe sepsis onset. The impact of the SEP-1 3-hour bundle among patients with severe sepsis is not extensively described. This investigation aimed to describe the impact of 3-hour bundle compliance on 28-day in-hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, propensity adjusted, nested case-control study assessing the impact of compliance with a 3-hour sepsis bundle among patients with severe sepsis. SETTING: This study was conducted at a large, academic, tertiary care medical center in Detroit, Michigan from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019. PATIENTS: Cases were defined as those suffering 28-day in-hospital mortality. Controls were defined as those surviving at or discharged by 28 days. Patients were separated based on 3-hour bundle compliance or noncompliance. Nested and overall cohorts were assessed. Severe sepsis time zero was manually validated. Patients with shock, requiring vasopressors within 8 h of time zero, or those not meeting SEP-1 inclusion criteria were excluded. INTERVENTION: The primary outcome was the propensity adjusted odds of 28-day in-hospital mortality among 3-hour bundle compliant versus noncompliant patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality for individual bundle element compliance, progression to septic shock, and predictors of mortality according to logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 325 compliant and 325 noncompliant patients were included. The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was three in each group. There was no difference in propensity adjusted odds of mortality among those compliant versus noncompliant with the 3-hour bundle (odds-ratio [OR] 1.039; 95% CI: 0.721-1.497; p = 0.838) or with individual bundle elements. SOFA score and female sex were predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Three-hour bundle compliance did not impact 28-day in-hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis. Further research is needed to understand the impact of 3-hour bundle compliance on mortality in severe sepsis.

Indomethacin for treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension secondary to acute liver failure.

PURPOSE: Successful use of i.v. indomethacin for urgent management of elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) due to acute liver failure is reported. SUMMARY: A 42-year-old woman receiving intensive care for fulminant hepatic failure secondary to acetaminophen toxicity developed cerebral edema and intracranial hypertension refractory to standard pharmacotherapy and respiratory support measures. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the patient's head was ordered as part of an evaluation for liver transplantation, but the patient's severely elevated ICP precluded supine positioning for the CT study (throughout the hospital stay, the head of the patient's bed was kept at a 30° angle to optimize cerebral venous outflow). With administration of indomethacin 10 mg by i.v. injection, the ICP decreased from 29 to 13 mm Hg and remained at goal after the patient was placed in a fully supine position for a period long enough to permit the CT scan. Indomethacin was used a second time to facilitate CT imaging several days later. No adverse effects attributable to indomethacin use were documented. Although the patient underwent successful liver transplantation, her mental status and overall clinical status continued to deteriorate and she died on postoperative day 12. CONCLUSION: Despite the poor overall patient outcome in this case, i.v. indomethacin was successfully used to decrease ICP in order to facilitate CT imaging as part of a transplantation eligibility workup.

Assessment of the heart failure pharmacotherapy of patients with continuous flow left-ventricular assist devices.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to characterize the use of heart failure medications during the first year after left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS: All patients who received a HeartMate II at our institution between January 1, 2007, and August 1, 2009, and were followed by our multidisciplinary team for at least 6 months were eligible for inclusion. Use of heart failure medications, including dosages, was collected for each patient prior to LVAD implantation, at time of discharge, and at each subsequent monthly office visit for up to 1 year after implantation. The primary end point was the prescription rate for each medication class at discharge. Secondary end points included the use and dosage of these agents during follow up. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients were included (mean age = 50±11.5 years; sex 75% male; race 57.1% white; bridge-to-transplant rate 25%). There was a statistically significant decrease in use of digoxin (42.9% vs. 7.1%), spironolactone (50% vs. 17.9%), nitrates (39.3% vs. 7.1%), and milrinone (71.4% vs. 3.6%) postimplantation compared with baseline (p<0.05, for all comparisons). More than 50% of patients received vasodilators, beta-blockers, and hydralazine both preimplantation and postimplantation (p>0.05 for each class). Furthermore, more patients reached target doses of beta-blockers (0% vs. 28.6%; p=0.04) after LVAD implantation. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study shows consistent prescription of heart failure pharmacotherapy in LVAD patients at our institution, with more patients able to tolerate target doses of beta-blockers.