ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Intravenous (IV) push (IVP) is an alternative administration method for levetiracetam, but evidence evaluating it compared to IV piggyback (IVPB) for loading doses in acutely seizing patients is limited, particularly in patients with status epilepticus (SE). This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of IVP versus IVPB levetiracetam loading doses. METHODS: This was a single-center sequential retrospective study conducted in adult (≥18 years) patients who received an IV levetiracetam loading dose (>2000 mg or ≥20 mg/kg) for acute or suspected seizure. The primary outcome was time to administration, compared between doses given as IVP versus IVPB. Secondary outcomes included rates of adverse events (AEs), rescue benzodiazepine or antiseizure medication administration, intubation, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission between groups. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were included; 116 received IVP and 130 received IVPB loading doses. Median age was 56 years; most patients were male (62%) and White (60%) and had witnessed seizures (67%). Doses were administered for SE in 32 (27.5%) and 46 (35.4%) patients in the IVP and IVPB arms, respectively. Median time to administration was shorter in the IVP group (12 vs. 38 min, p < .001). Bradycardia (1.7% vs. 2.3%, p = .99), hypotension (7.8% vs. 12%, p = .30), sedation (6% vs. 12.3%, p = .09), intubation (10% vs. 8%, p = .37), ICU admission (32% vs. 39%, p = .31), and rescue medication administration (8.6% vs. 14.6% p = .10) were similar between groups. In SE patients, IVP was associated with shorter time to administration (12 vs. 44 min, p = .003) and lower odds of ICU admission after adjustment for age, dose, Status Epilepticus Severity Score, and seizure history (adjusted odds ratio = .23, 95% confidence interval = .06-.81). SIGNIFICANCE: IVP reduced time to levetiracetam administration versus IVPB and was not associated with more AEs. Rescue agent use, intubation, and ICU admission were similar between arms, but IVP may reduce ICU admissions in SE patients. Prospective studies should assess the effectiveness of IVP versus IVPB.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Luspatercept is approved for patients with very low-to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Dosing is based on pre-dose hemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements. This study aims to evaluate if a site with a pharmacist prospectively reviewing luspatercept doses achieves dose optimization, compared to a site that does not have a pharmacist prospectively reviewing doses. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review involving patients age ≥18 years or older with MDS at a major academic medical center main campus, which does not have a pharmacist prospectively review luspatercept doses, and a satellite campus infusion center, which has a pharmacist prospectively reviewing doses. Patients included received at least one dose of luspatercept between January 1, 2017 through August 31, 2022. The primary endpoint is the percentage of off-label luspatercept doses not consistent with prescribing information (PI) recommended dose adjustments. Results: The study included 17 patients. Of the 162 doses evaluated, 37 (23%) were off-label. Off-label dosing at the main campus was more common than at a satellite location (29.6% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.003). More patients achieved transfusion independence at the satellite compared to the main campus (83.3% vs. 27.3% p < 0.39). Conclusions: There was a higher percentage of off-label dosing at a center without a pharmacist's prospective review vs. a center with a pharmacist's prospective review. On-label dose optimization may lead to a higher percentage of patients achieving transfusion independence. Enhancements in the current ordering and review process can be improved with the involvement of a pharmacist's prospective involvement at both centers.