COVID-19 Treatments: Then and Now.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19.

Population pharmacokinetics and target attainment analyses to identify a rational empirical dosing strategy for cefepime in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify rational empirical dosing strategies for cefepime treatment in critically ill patients by utilizing population pharmacokinetics and target attainment analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective and opportunistic pharmacokinetic (PK) study was conducted in 130 critically ill patients in two ICU sites. The plasma concentrations of cefepime were determined using a validated LC-MS/MS method. All cefepime PK data were analysed simultaneously using the non-linear mixed-effects modelling approach. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the PTA of cefepime at different MIC values following different dose regimens in subjects with different renal functions. RESULTS: The PK of cefepime in critically ill patients was best characterized by a two-compartment model with zero-order input and first-order elimination. Creatinine clearance and body weight were identified to be significant covariates. Our simulation results showed that prolonged 3 h infusion does not provide significant improvement on target attainment compared with the traditional intermittent 0.5 h infusion. In contrast, for a given daily dose continuous infusion provided much higher breakpoint coverage than either 0.5 h or 3 h intermittent infusions. To balance the target attainment and potential neurotoxicity, cefepime 3 g/day continuous infusion appears to be a better dosing regimen than 6 g/day continuous infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion may represent a promising strategy for cefepime treatment in critically ill patients. With the availability of institution- and/or unit-specific cefepime susceptibility patterns as well as individual patients' renal function, our PTA results may represent useful references for physicians to make dosing decisions.

Evaluation of Empirical Dosing Regimens for Meropenem in Intensive Care Unit Patients Using Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Target Attainment Analysis.

In the present study, population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis was performed based on meropenem data from a prospective study conducted in 114 critically ill patients with a wide range of renal functions and various disease conditions. The final model was a one-compartment model with linear elimination, with creatinine clearance and continuous renal replacement therapy affecting clearance, and total bodyweight impacting the volume of distribution. Our model is a valuable addition to the existing meropenem population PK models, and it could be particularly useful during implementation of a therapeutic drug monitoring program combined with Bayesian forecasting. Based on the final model developed, comprehensive Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the probability of target attainment (PTA) of 16 different dosing regimens. Simulation results showed that 2 g administered every 8 h with 3-h prolonged infusion (PI) and 4 g/day by continuous infusion (CI) appear to be two empirical dosing regimens that are superior to many other regimens when both target attainment and potential toxicity are considered and renal function information is not available. Following a daily CI dose of 6 g or higher, more than 30% of the population with a creatinine clearance of <60 mL/min is predicted to have neurotoxicity. With the availability of institution- and/or unit-specific meropenem susceptibility patterns, as well as an individual patient's renal function, our PTA results may represent useful references for physicians to make dosing decisions.

External Validation and Comparison of Clostridioides difficile Severity Scoring Systems.

BACKGROUND: Many models have been developed to predict severe outcomes from Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). These models are usually developed at a single institution and largely are not externally validated. Our aim in this study was to validate previously published risk scores in a multicenter cohort of patients with CDI. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on 4 inpatient cohorts with CDI from 3 distinct sites: the universities of Michigan (2010-2012 and 2016), Chicago (2012), and Wisconsin (2012). The primary composite outcome was admission to an intensive care unit, colectomy, and/or death attributed to CDI within 30 days of positive testing. Both within each cohort and combined across all cohorts, published CDI severity scores were assessed and compared to each other and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guideline definitions of severe and fulminant CDI. RESULTS: A total of 3646 patients were included for analysis. Including the 2 IDSA guideline definitions, 14 scores were assessed. Performance of scores varied within each cohort and in the combined set (mean area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AuROC], 0.61; range, 0.53-0.66). Only half of the scores had performance at or better than IDSA severe and fulminant definitions (AuROCs of 0.64 and 0.63, respectively). Most of the scoring systems had more false than true positives in the combined set (mean, 81.5%; range, 0%-91.5%). CONCLUSIONS: No published CDI severity score showed stable, good predictive ability for adverse outcomes across multiple cohorts/institutions or in a combined multicenter cohort.

From natural disaster to pandemic: A health-system pharmacy rises to the challenge.

PURPOSE: This report describes a health-system pharmacy's response to a natural disaster while staff members simultaneously prepared for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. By detailing our experience, we hope to help other institutions that are current facing or could encounter similar crises. SUMMARY: In early March 2020, a tornado destroyed the health system's warehouse for storage of most clinical supplies, including personal protective equipment and fluids. The pharmacy purchasing team collaborated with suppliers and manufacturers to recover losses and establish alternative storage areas. Days later, the pharmacy department was forced to address the impending COVID-19 pandemic. Key elements of the COVID-19 response included reducing the potential for virus exposure for patients and staff; overcoming challenges in sourcing of staff, personal protective equipment, and medications; and changing care delivery practices to maintain high-quality patient care while maximizing social distancing. The pharmacy department also created distance learning opportunities for 70 pharmacy students on rotations. After an initial plan, ongoing needs include adjustment in patient care activities if significant staff losses occur, when and how to resume clinical activities, and how to best utilize the resources accumulated. Elements of practice changes implemented to reduce COVID-19 threats to patients and pharmacy personnel have proven beneficial and will be further evaluated for potential continuation. CONCLUSION: The pharmacy department's efforts to respond to a natural disaster and unprecedented pandemic have proven successful to this point and have illuminated several lessons, including the necessity of cohesive department communication, staff flexibility, prioritization of teamwork, and external collaboration.

The Emperor's New Clothes: PRospective Observational Evaluation of the Association Between Initial VancomycIn Exposure and Failure Rates Among ADult HospitalizEd Patients With Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections (PROVIDE).

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is the most commonly administered antibiotic in hospitalized patients, but optimal exposure targets remain controversial. To clarify the therapeutic exposure range, this study evaluated the association between vancomycin exposure and outcomes in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter (n = 14), observational study of 265 hospitalized adults with MRSA bacteremia treated with vancomycin. The primary outcome was treatment failure (TF), defined as 30-day mortality or persistent bacteremia ≥7 days. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI). The study was powered to compare TF between patients who achieved or did not achieve day 2 area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) thresholds previously found to be associated with lower incidences of TF. The thresholds, analyzed separately as co-primary endpoints, were AUC/MIC by broth microdilution ≥650 and AUC/MIC by Etest ≥320. RESULTS: Treatment failure and AKI occurred in 18% and 26% of patients, respectively. Achievement of the prespecified day 2 AUC/MIC thresholds was not associated with less TF. Alternative day 2 AUC/MIC thresholds associated with lower TF risks were not identified. A relationship between the day 2 AUC and AKI was observed. Patients with day 2 AUC ≤515 experienced the best global outcomes (no TF and no AKI). CONCLUSIONS: Higher vancomycin exposures did not confer a lower TF risk but were associated with more AKI. The findings suggest that vancomycin dosing should be guided by the AUC and day 2 AUCs should be ≤515. As few patients had day 2 AUCs <400, further study is needed to define the lower bound of the therapeutic range.

Commonly used fluoroquinolones cross-react with urine drug screens for opiates, buprenorphine, and amphetamines.

OBJECTIVES: Fluoroquinolone antibiotics are commonly used in the treatment of infections and have previously been confirmed to cross-react with previous generations of opiates immunoassays. In this work we evaluated the cross-reactivity of the three fluoroquinolones in use at our institution with a panel of 10 urine drug screens. DESIGN AND METHODS: Drug preparations of levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and moxifloxacin that were designed for intravenous delivery were added to drug-free urine at varying concentrations. Spiked urine samples were screened for illicit and therapeutic drugs on an Abbott Architect c16000 automated chemistry analyzer. Percent cross-reactivity was calculated. RESULTS: Levofloxacin displayed clinically relevant cross-reactivity with the Abbott MULTIGENT opiates and Thermo CEDIA® buprenorphine immunoassays but did not cross-react with the Abbott MULTIGENT oxycodone or methadone immunoassays. Moxifloxacin displayed clinically relevant cross-reactivity only with the Abbott MULTIGENT amphetamine/methamphetamine assay. Ciprofloxacin did not cross-react with any of the 10 immunoassays. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that levofloxacin cross-reacts with modern immunoassays for two related opioids (buprenorphine and morphine) and moxifloxacin cross-reacts with the amphetamine/methamphetamine assay. Urine concentrations of these fluoroquinolones that are consistent with therapeutic use produced results above commonly used-cutoffs for positivity. This underscores the necessity of confirmatory testing of presumptively positive urine drug screens.