Risk factors for the need for advanced care among prescription and over-the-counter drug overdose patients.

Aim: Prescription drug and over-the-counter (OTC) drug overdose is a major problem in emergency departments in Japan, and some need advanced care which is more than observation. We aimed to identify the prehospital risk factors for the need of advanced care among overdose patients. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. We included overdoses patients of prescription drugs or OTC drugs, who admitted to our hospital between 2016 and 2021. We grouped them into advanced care and non-advanced care. The main outcome was the need for advanced care. We performed a multiple logistic regression analysis, calculated the PAV score (Paracetamol use, Alcohol use, abnormal Vital signs on scene) and performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: There were 229 subjects. The logistic regression analysis revealed that alcohol, paracetamol, and the abnormal vital signs on scene were associated with advanced care (alcohol-odds ratio [OR]: 2.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-6.75; paracetamol-OR: 5.47; 95% CI: 2.18-13.71; abnormal vital signs-OR: 4.61, 95% CI: 2.07-10.27). The rate of advanced care in the high PAV score (2 and 3) group was statistically higher than that in the low PAV score (0-1) group (p = 0.04). Area under the ROC curve of the PAV score was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80). Conclusion: Alcohol, paracetamol use and abnormal vital signs on scene might be risk factors for advanced care among prescription drugs or OTC drugs overdose patients, and the PAV score may predict the need for advanced care.

Utility of a Compatibility Chart for Continuous Infusions in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit (ICU), multiple intravenous drugs are often administered through the same catheter line, greatly increasing the risk of drug incompatibility. We previously developed a compatibility chart including 27 drugs and have used it to avoid drug incompatibilities in the ICU. This retrospective study evaluated the utility of this chart by analyzing prescriptions and incidents of incompatibilities in an ICU. METHODS: We analyzed 257 ICU prescriptions of two or more continuous infusions on the same day during the period between March 2016 and February 2017 and investigated the rate of compliance with the compatibility chart. Drug combinations were classified as "compatible," "tolerable compatible," "incompatible," and "no data." For all combinations, the compliance rate was defined as the ratio of compatible and tolerable compatible combinations. Additionally, using our hospital incident report database, we analyzed 27,117 injections administered in the ICU between March 2016 and February 2017 and investigated incidents related to incompatibility. RESULTS: Three hundred infusion combinations were identified in the prescriptions. The compliance rate was 97% (n = 293). Of the 113 combinations judged to be tolerable compatible, 98% (n = 111) consisted of three or more continuous medications injected through the same intravenous line. Of the two incidents related to incompatibility in the incident report database, the combination "nicardipine and furosemide" was defined as incompatible in the compatibility chart. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of compliance with the compatibility chart suggested it was useful in preventing drug incompatibility.

Blood concentration of levetiracetam after bolus administration in patients with status epilepticus.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the blood concentration of levetiracetam (LEV), as a second-line drug, in patients with status epilepticus (SE) in an emergency clinical setting. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 20 consecutive patients with SE admitted to our department between July 2017 and July 2019. LEV (2500 mg) was administered via bolus infusion after diazepam infusion, followed by 500 mg every 12 h for 48 h and then 500 mg orally. The primary outcomes were LEV blood concentration 15 min, 12 h, 48 h, and 96 h after administration and the proportion of patients showing trough LEV concentration within the therapeutic range. The secondary outcomes were the discontinuation of apparent convulsive seizure, epileptic wave on electroencephalogram, tracheal intubation, adverse events related to blood parameters, and abnormal findings in vital signs examination. RESULTS: Median blood LEV (2500 mg) concentration at 15 min after administration was 81.6 µg/mL. The median trough concentration after 12, 48, and 96 h was 28.8, 10.5, and 9.1 µg/mL, respectively. Moreover, 95% of patients had trough concentration above the lower limit of the therapeutic blood concentration (>12 µg/mL) after 12 h. Regarding secondary outcomes, endotracheal intubation, seizure suppression, and abnormal electroencephalogram findings were observed in approximately 40%, 90%-95%, and 41% of patients, respectively. No abnormal findings were noted in blood tests and vital sign examination, although the AST/ALT levels increased in 10% of the patients. CONCLUSION: After bolus administration of 2500 mg, the blood LEV concentration reached the therapeutic window in patients with early-stage SE.

Physical Compatibility of Nafamostat with Analgesics, Sedatives, and Muscle Relaxants for Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may require continuous administration of analgesics, sedatives, and muscle relaxants. Nafamostat has recently been reported as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19. However, there is a lack of information on the compatibility of nafamostat with the aforementioned drug classes. This study evaluated the physical compatibility of nafamostat with these drug classes. METHODS: Nafamostat was combined with 1-3 target drugs (fentanyl, morphine, midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and rocuronium). Fifteen physical compatibility tests were conducted. Nafamostat was dissolved in 5% glucose solution; the final concentration was 10 mg/mL. All other medications were diluted in 0.9% sodium chloride to obtain clinically relevant concentrations. The power of hydrogen (pH) of all medications was measured during each test. Compatibility tests were conducted with 4 test solutions in which nafamostat and the target drugs were compounded at equal volume ratios (1:1, 1:1:1, or 1:1:1:1). Visual appearance, turbidity, and pH were evaluated immediately after mixing and at 1 and 3 hours. Physical incompatibilities were defined as gross precipitation, cloudiness, appearance of the Tyndall effect, or a turbidity change of ≥0.5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) based on nafamostat. RESULTS: The mean pH of nafamostat was 3.13 ± 0.03. The combination of nafamostat, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine had the highest pH (3.39 ± 0.01; 3 hours after mixing). All drugs were compatible with nafamostat until 3 hours after admixture, with a mean turbidity value of ≤0.03 NTU. CONCLUSIONS: Infusions combining nafamostat with the tested sedatives, analgesics, and muscle relaxants could be safely administered.