The risk of worsening of myasthenia by cardiovascular medication as reflected by reporting frequency.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Some groups of cardiovascular drugs (beta-blocking drugs, Ca antagonists, antiarrhythmics) are listed as potentially worsening myasthenia. An empirical basis for alternative recommendations for antihypertensive and antiarrhythmic therapy in myasthenia patients has not yet been provided. METHODS: From the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database, we retrieved total and myasthenia-related counts of adverse drug reactions for various groups of drugs used in cardiovascular disease and drugs with related mechanism of action used in other indications. We calculated the reporting odds ratio as a measure of a disproportional fraction of myasthenia-related events among all events. A 95% confidence interval of reporting odds ratio (ROR) >1 was taken as an indication for a higher risk. Because our approach involves a considerable number of tests, this situation is referred to as a signal that requires additional confirmation. RESULTS: A signal for an increased risk was noted for tizanidine, for alpha-blocking drugs, for beta-blocking drugs, and for Ca antagonists. ROR indicated a lower-than-average risk for salbutamol, angiotensin receptor antagonists, oral anticoagulants, thrombocytic function inhibitors, and heparins. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin receptor antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and diuretics seem to be safe in antihypertensive therapy. Surprisingly, and yet requiring confirmation by case reports, alpha receptor-blocking drugs seem to carry a risk of myasthenia worsening. Amiodarone seems to be a safe alternative in antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with myasthenia.

Worsening of myasthenia due to antiepileptic, antipsychotic, antidepressant, and sedative medication: An estimation of risk based on reporting frequency.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many drugs can worsen myasthenia symptoms. The clinician usually relies on cautionary lists compiled according to case reports. We intended to provide a quantitative basis for a risk comparison within the groups of antiepileptic, antidepressant, neuroleptic, and sedative drugs. METHODS: We extracted adverse drug reaction (ADR) counts (total and myasthenia related) for drugs from these groups and calculated the reporting odds ratio (ROR) within the drug groups from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database. For a given drug, the ROR was increased above 1 if the proportion of myasthenia-related ADRs for this drug was larger than the same proportion for the rest of drugs in that same group. If the 95% confidence interval of ROR was >1, this was taken as a signal for a higher risk of the given drug as compared to the average of the respective group. RESULTS: Gabapentin, sertraline, citalopram, lithium, and amisulpride had a signal for the ROR to be increased above 1 within their respective groups. Bupropion, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, and paroxetine had ROR values <1. For all other drugs, 1 was within the ROR confidence interval. CONCLUSIONS: For gabapentin and lithium, the analysis of RORs confirmed case reports and cautionary lists. For a number of antidepressant drugs associated with a higher-than-average risk, no case reports exist substantiating our results. For these drugs, special attention should be paid to this risk. The remarkable difference between citalopram and escitalopram could prompt experimental work to confirm differential influence of the two preparations on neuromuscular transmission.

Reduced prevalence of drug-related problems in psychiatric inpatients after implementation of a pharmacist-supported computerized physician order entry system - a retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: In 2021, a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system with an integrated clinical decision support system (CDSS) was implemented at a tertiary care center for the treatment of mental health conditions in Lübeck, Germany. To date, no study has been reported on the types and prevalence of drug-related problems (DRPs) before and after CPOE implementation in a psychiatric inpatient setting. The aim of this retrospective before-and-after cohort study was to investigate whether the implementation of a CPOE system with CDSS accompanied by the introduction of regular medication plausibility checks by a pharmacist led to a decrease of DRPs during hospitalization and unsolved DRPs at discharge in psychiatric inpatients. Methods: Medication charts and electronic patient records of 54 patients before (cohort I) and 65 patients after (cohort II) CPOE implementation were reviewed retrospectively by a clinical pharmacist. All identified DRPs were collected and classified based on 'The PCNE Classification V9.1', the German database DokuPIK, and the 'NCC MERP Taxonomy of Medication Errors'. Results: 325 DRPs were identified in 54 patients with a mean of 6 DRPs per patient and 151.9 DRPs per 1000 patient days in cohort I. In cohort II, 214 DRPs were identified in 65 patients with a mean of 3.3 DRPs per patient and 81.3 DRPs per 1000 patient days. The odds of having a DRP were significantly lower in cohort II (OR=0.545, 95% CI 0.412-0.721, p<0.001). The most frequent DRP in cohort I was an erroneous prescription (n=113, 34.8%), which was significantly reduced in cohort II (n=12, 5.6%, p<0.001). During the retrospective in-depth review, more DRPs were identified than during the daily plausibility analyses. At hospital discharge, patients had significantly less unsolved DRPs in cohort II than in cohort I. Discussion: The implementation of a CPOE system with an integrated CDSS reduced the overall prevalence of DRPs, especially of prescription errors, and led to a smaller rate of unsolved DRPs in psychiatric inpatients at hospital discharge. Not all DRPs were found by plausibility analyses based on the medication charts. A more interactive and interdisciplinary patient-oriented approach might result in the resolution of more DRPs.

After standard dosage of piperacillin plasma concentrations of drug are subtherapeutic in burn patients.

Infections are a major problem in patients with burn diseases. Mortality is high despite antibiotic therapy as studies are controversial concerning drug underdosing. The aims of this prospective, observational study were to monitor plasma concentrations of piperacillin during standard piperacillin/tazobactam treatment in 20 burn patients and 16 controls from the intensive care unit (ICU) and to optimize doses by in silico analyses. Piperacillin/tazobactam (4/0.5 g, tid) was administered over 0.5 h. Blood samples were taken at 1, 4, and 7.5 h after the end of the infusion. Free piperacillin plasma concentrations were determined. Pharmacokinetic parameters and in silico analysis results were calculated using the freeware TDMx. The primary target was defined as percentage of the day (fT>1xMIC; fT>4xMIC) when piperacillin concentrations exceeded 1xMIC/4xMIC (minimum inhibitory concentration), considering a MIC breakpoint of 16 mg/L for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In an off-label approach, two burn patients were treated with 8/1 g piperacillin/tazobactam, 3 h qid. fT>1xMIC (55 ± 22% vs. 77 ± 24%) and fT>4xMIC (17 ± 11% vs. 30 ± 11%) were lower in burn than in ICU patients after 4/0.5 g, 0.5 h, tid. In silico analyses indicated that fT>1xMIC (93 ± 12% burn, 97 ± 4% ICU) and fT>4xMIC (62 ± 23% burn, 84 ± 19% ICU) values increase by raising the piperacillin dosage to 8/1 g qid and prolonging the infusion time to 3 h. Off-label treatment results were similar to in silico data for burn patients (84%fT>1xMIC and 47%fT>4xMIC). Standard dosage regimens for piperacillin/tazobactam resulted in subtherapeutic piperacillin concentrations in burn and ICU patients. Dose adjustments via in silico analyses can help to optimize antibiotic therapy and to predict respective concentrations in vivo. Trial registration: NCT03335137, registered 07.11.2017, retrospectively.

Antibiotic Stewardship-Visiten: Zeitverschwendung oder Qualitätssteigerung?

INTRODUCTION: One of the core strategies to optimize antiinfective therapy is to review antibiotic prescriptions. Therefore, Antibiotic Stewardship (ABS) team members either attend ward rounds or perform a chart review to provide feedback to and discuss with the attending physician. Acceptance and effectiveness of both options are discussed in this article. METHODS: Attending physicians were asked to complete a questionnaire evaluating ABS activities. The modality of the reviewing process and its effectiveness, as well as the feasibility of recommendations was assessed. As the degree of implementation of ABS recommendations decreased on a trauma ward, the reviewing process was changed from chart review to attending the daily ward rounds. In this setting, the duration of the reviewing process and the consumption of antiinfectives in recommended daily doses/100 patient days (RDD/100PT) were assessed, comparing the two intervention modalities. RESULTS: Attending physicians predominantly appreciated the modality and extent of ABS currently offered to them by the ABS team, rating it relevant and effective. Implementation of ABS recommendations was increased on the trauma ward by academic detailing during the daily ward round; the consumption of broad spectrum antibiotics was reduced. DISCUSSION: ABS team members with formal authority and dedicated time for antibiotic stewardship activities effectively optimize antiinfective therapies by reviewing antibiotic prescriptions. The interaction of ABS experts and attending physicians contributes fundamentally to the effectiveness and degree of implementation of ABS interventions.