Clinical Pharmacist-Led Impact on Inappropriate Albumin Use and Costs in the Critically Ill.

Background:Optimal albumin use in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains challenging with inappropriate use approaching 50%. No published reports have described clinical pharmacist impact aimed at mitigating inappropriate albumin use in the ICU. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of a clinical pharmacist-led intervention strategy targeting inappropriate albumin in the ICU. Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated all adult (≥18 years) ICU patients administered albumin at an academic medical center over a 2-year period. Institutional guidelines were developed with clinical pharmacists targeting inappropriate albumin use. The primary end point was to compare inappropriate use of albumin administered before and after pharmacist intervention implementation. Secondary analyses compared the overall albumin use between study periods. In-hospital mortality, length of stay, and albumin-related costs between study periods were also compared. Results: A total of 4419 patients were identified, with 2448 (55.4%) critically ill patients included. The pharmacist-led strategy resulted in a 50.9% reduction of inappropriate albumin use (P < 0.001). The rate of inappropriate albumin use was 44.3 ± 10.5 and 5.5 ± 2.9 g per patient-day in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively (P < 0.001). Costs associated with overall and inappropriate albumin use in the ICU decreased by 34.8% and 87.1%, respectively. Total annual cost-savings was $355 393 in the ICUs. No differences in clinical outcomes were found. Conclusion and Relevance: Clinical pharmacist-led interventions reduced overall and inappropriate albumin use and costs without negatively affecting clinical outcomes.

Comparison of acute kidney injury risk associated with vancomycin and concomitant piperacillin/tazobactam or cefepime in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate AKI incidence with concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) compared to vancomycin and cefepime (FEP) in critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, cohort study was conducted in adult critically ill patients from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017. The primary aim was to compare the incidence of AKI during concomitant therapy or until hospital discharge. Secondary analyses included AKI severity, time to AKI as well as recovery, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 333 patients were evaluated. The AKI rate in the vancomycin/PTZ group and vancomycin/FEP group were similar (19.5% vs. 17.3%, respectively, p = .612). Renal replacement therapy (RRT) was initiated in 10.0% and 3.8% administered vancomycin/PTZ and vancomycin/FEP groups, respectively (p = .04). Multivariate regression found vancomycin/PTZ was not associated with an increased risk of developing AKI although the presence of shock was identified as an independent risk factor (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.66-6.26). No significant differences in hospital or ICU length of stay or in-hospital mortality were observed between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant PTZ and vancomycin in ICU patients was not associated with an increased risk of developing AKI compared to FEP and vancomycin combinations. More patients administered vancomycin/PTZ received RRT.

Impact of a clinical pharmacist stress ulcer prophylaxis management program on inappropriate use in hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: Appropriate utilization of stress ulcer prophylaxis should be limited to high-risk, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use among all hospitalized patients remains a concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of a novel pharmacist-managed stress ulcer prophylaxis program in ICU and general ward patients. METHODS: This retrospective, pre- and poststudy design was conducted in adult ICU and general ward patients at a large academic medical center between January 1, 2011 and January 31, 2012 to compare the rates of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after the implementation of a pharmacist-led stress ulcer prophylaxis management program. RESULTS: A total of 1134 unique patients consisting of 16,415 patient days were evaluated. The relative reduction in the rate of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis days after program implementation in ICU and general ward patients was 58.3% and 83.5%, respectively (P < .001). The rates of ICU patients inappropriately continued on stress ulcer prophylaxis upon hospital discharge in the pre- and postimplementation groups were 29.9% and 3.6%, respectively (P < .001), whereas general ward patients significantly decreased from 36.2% to 5.4% in the pre- and postimplementation groups, respectively (P < .001). Total inpatient costs associated with all stress ulcer prophylaxis administered was $20,052.70 in the pre- and $3280.49 in the postimplementation group (P < .001), resulting in an estimated cost savings of > $200,000 annually. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a pharmacist-managed stress ulcer prophylaxis program was associated with a decrease in inappropriate acid suppression rates during hospitalization and upon discharge, as well as significant cost savings.

Apparent lack of cross-reactivity for infusion-related reactions between two forms of lipid-based amphotericin B.

PURPOSE: The case of a patient who experienced probable infusion-related reactions to amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) but tolerated continued amphotericin B therapy after a switch to an alternative lipid-based formulation is reported. SUMMARY: A 28-year-old immunocompromised man with pneumonia, respiratory failure, and neutropenic fever was initiated on ABLC and other antibiotics for suspected invasive aspergillosis. Due to the patient's deteriorating renal function, the use of amphotericin B was deemed preferable to the standard therapy for invasive aspergillosis (voriconazole) even though he had experienced likely infusion-related reactions to ABLC on two prior occasions. During the infusion of ABLC, significant increases in the man's temperature, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed. Although those symptoms were suspected to be infusion related, it was decided that continuing amphotericin B therapy with an alternative lipid-based form of the drug was the best course of action. After the patient was switched to liposomal amphotericin B one day later, no further infusion-related adverse reactions were noted for the duration of therapy. While this case suggests that adverse reactions to one type of amphotericin B might not occur with the use of an alternative formulation, further research is needed to better define the potential for cross-reactivity among various forms of amphotericin B and related safe-infusion practices. CONCLUSION: A patient with invasive aspergillosis who experienced likely infusion- related reactions to ABLC was able to tolerate continued amphotericin B therapy after a switch to the liposomal formulation.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of ambrisentan.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a life-threatening and progressive disease characterized by increasing pulmonary vascular resistance leading to right ventricular failure and premature death. Current therapies target three major pathways involving endothelin, prostacyclin and NO. Ambrisentan is an oral, once daily, selective endothelin receptor antagonist. AREAS COVERED: This review focuses on, and critically appraises, the clinical efficacy and safety of ambrisentan as well as its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The article also gives an expert perspective on the role of ambrisentan in the management of PAH. EXPERT OPINION: Ambrisentan is an effective and safe treatment which is, in the authors' opinion, a valuable addition to the armamentarium against PAH. Ambrisentan offers a relative lack of drug interactions, once daily dosing and reassuring liver safety, offering safety and convenience advantages over bosentan. Presently, there is a lack of comparative studies between PDE5 inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonists and a lack of data comparing bosentan with ambrisentan. This is hindering data-based conclusions regarding relative efficacy and further studies are needed to define the role of ambrisentan in the management of PAH.

Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors in management of pulmonary hypertension: safety, tolerability, and efficacy.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive disease that causes severe disability and has no cure. Over the past 20 years, a variety of treatment options have evolved for the management of PAH. With an expanded therapeutic armamentarium come more complex decisions regarding treatment options. Agent selection depends upon several factors including efficacy, side effect profile, and cost, as well as convenience of administration. We have undertaken a review of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors in PAH with a focus on efficacy and safety. A literature search was conducted using the Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases (1966-February 2010) for relevant randomized clinical studies. Overall, 10 studies met our inclusion criteria. Sildenafil was the most commonly studied agent, followed by tadalafil and vardenafil. Most trials found that the PDE-5 inhibitors significantly improved exercise capacity and lowered pulmonary pressures. However, there were conflicting results regarding these agents' impact on improving cardiac function and functional class. Overall, these medications were effective and well tolerated with a relatively benign side effect profile. The PDE-5 inhibitors are an important option in treating PAH. While most of the published clinical data involved sildenafil, the other PDE-5 inhibitors show promise as well. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal doses of this therapeutic drug class, as well as its effects as adjunctive therapy with other agents in PAH.