Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury Among Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Receiving Vancomycin With Either Piperacillin/Tazobactam or Cefepime.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether combination therapy with vancomycin and TZP is associated with a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with vancomycin with cefepime in infants admitted to the NICU. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included infants in the NICU who received vancomycin/cefepime or vancomycin/TZP for at least 48 hours. The primary outcome was incidence of AKI, which was defined by the neonatal modified Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes AKI criteria. RESULTS: Forty-two infants who received vancomycin with cefepime and 58 infants who received vancomycin with TZP were included in the analysis. The median gestational age at birth, birth weight, and dosing weight were lower in the TZP group, but other baseline characteristics were comparable, including corrected gestational age. Two patients (3%) receiving vancomycin/TZP versus 2 patients (5%) receiving vancomycin/cefepime met criteria for AKI during their antibiotic course (p = 1.00). There were no clinically significant changes in serum creatinine or urine output from baseline to the end of combination antibiotic treatment in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Among infants admitted to our NICU, AKI incidence associated with vancomycin and either TZP or cefepime therapy was low and did not differ by antibiotic combination.

Management of Calcium Channel Blocker Toxicity in the Pediatric Patient.

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications used in several disease states including hypertension, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. Inadvertent exposure or intentional overdose of CCBs may result in hypotension, bradycardia, dysrhythmias, conduction disturbances, and hyperglycemia. In the most severe cases, CCB toxicity can lead to rapid cardiovascular collapse. Given the risk of significant morbidity and mortality associated with CCB toxicity, it is important that health care professionals are able to recognize and treat patients who present with a potentially toxic ingestion. Due to the paucity of literature in managing pediatric patients with severe CCB toxicity, treatment strategies for pediatric patients are mostly limited to case reports and extrapolation from expert consensus recommendations for adults. All pediatric patients with a potentially toxic CCB ingestion should be evaluated in the emergency department. Activated charcoal may be considered for asymptomatic patients presenting within an hour of ingestion. Symptomatic patients should be placed under cardiac monitoring and treatments to stabilize the patient's hemodynamics should not be delayed. Traditional first-line IV therapies include small boluses of fluids, calcium, and vasopressors. High-dose insulin has been proposed to independently increase inotropy and improve CCB-induced hypoinsulinemia and insulin resistance that results from CCB inhibition of insulin release from pancreatic ß-islet cells. High-dose insulin is recommended as first-line therapy for adults and shows promising efficacy and safety in several pediatric case reports. Intravenous lipid emulsion may be considered in patients who are refractory to first-line therapies, although the data for pediatric patients are extremely limited.

Clinical Safety Outcomes in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation on Rivaroxaban and Diltiazem.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether diltiazem, a moderate cytochrome P450 enzyme (CYP3A4) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibitor, increases the incidence of bleeding events in combination with rivaroxaban, a CYP3A4 and P-gp substrate. OBJECTIVE: To assess major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding outcomes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) on rivaroxaban with concomitant diltiazem in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective case-cohort study included adult patients with NVAF prescribed both rivaroxaban and diltiazem for at least 30 days. Patients were matched 1:1 by age and baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl) to control patients taking rivaroxaban alone. The primary outcome was the composite of major and CRNM bleeding. Additional outcomes included bleeding events resulting in discontinuation of rivaroxaban, time to first bleeding event, and type of first bleed. RESULTS: A total of 143 cases and 143 controls were included. The mean age was 69 years and median baseline CrCl was 87 mL/min. Median follow-up time was 12.4 months for cases and 16.5 months for controls. There was no significant difference in proportion of patients experiencing a major and/or CRNM bleeding event between cases and controls: 23.1% versus 28.0%, respectively; 9 cases and 8 controls permanently discontinued rivaroxaban because of bleeding. Gastrointestinal/rectal bleeding and hematuria were the most frequently reported bleeding events in both groups. Conclusion and Relevance: This is the first study to assess major and CRNM bleeding outcomes in patients with NVAF on rivaroxaban and diltiazem. Diltiazem use was not associated with an increased rate of bleeding events.

Primary Immunization of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in the Pediatric Population: What Is the Verdict Now?

The safety and efficacy of a 2-dose series for the human papillomavirus vaccines rather than a 3-dose series in older children has not been well defined. This article reviews the literature summarizing the use of all 3 HPV vaccines (2vHPV, 4vHPV, 9vHPV) as a 2-dose series for females and 4vHPV and 9vHPV for males younger than 15 years. Six prospective trials evaluating immunogenicity of a 2-dose series of 2vHPV and/or 4vHPV, as well as an ongoing prospective clinical trial for 9vHPV, are discussed. The 2-dose series with Gardasil 9® in both males and females ages 9 to 14 years appears to be the most widely accepted recommendation. The exact time schedule between the 2 vaccines varies among studies, but it seems that they should be separated by 6 to 12 months. Federal and world-wide organizations' (ie, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and World Health Organization) opinions and recommendations on the appropriate scheduling of the vaccines are also highlighted.