A Comparison of Injectable Diazepam and Lorazepam in the Goal-Directed Management of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are the gold standard for treatment of alcohol withdrawal, yet the selection of a preferred benzodiazepine is limited due to a lack of comparative studies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of injectable lorazepam (LZP) and diazepam (DZP) in the treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit with a primary diagnosis of AWS. Subjects who received at least 12 LZP equivalent units (LEU) of injectable DZP or LZP within 24 hours of initiation of the severe AWS protocol were included. The primary outcome was time with Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-Ar) scores at goal over the first 24 hours of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were included (DZP n = 89, LZP n = 102). Time with CIWA-Ar scores at goal during the first 24 hours was similar between groups (DZP 12 hours [interquartile range, IQR, = 9-15] vs LZP 14 hours [IQR = 10-17]), P = 0.06). At 24 hours, LEU requirement was similar (DZP 40 [IQR = 22-78] vs LZP 32 [IQR = 18-56], P = 0.05). Drug cost at 24 hours was higher in the DZP group ($204.6 [IQR = 112.53-398.97] vs $8 [IQR = 4.5-14], P < 0.01). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: DZP or LZP are equally efficacious for the treatment of severe AWS. LZP may be preferred due to cost but both medications can be used interchangeably based on availability.

Cefepime Versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam for the Treatment of Intra-Abdominal Infections Secondary to Potential AmpC Beta-Lactamase-Producing Organisms.

Background: Recent studies have established cefepime as an effective treatment option for AmpC beta-lactamase (AmpC) Enterobacterales; however, the efficacy of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors is unclear. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if piperacillintazobactamis an appropriate alternative to cefepime for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) secondary to AmpC-producing organisms. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in hospitalized adults with an IAI caused by an AmpC-producing organism and received either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam for definitive treatment after a source control procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of surgical site infections, recurrent IAIs, or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the composite outcome, hospital length of stay (LOS), microbiologic failure, study antibiotic duration, time to clinical resolution, and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Results: This study included 119 patients. There was no difference in the primary outcome between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (35% vs 27%, P = 0.14). Microbiological failure was the only secondary outcome with an observed difference between groups (17% vs 0%, P = 0.01): hospital LOS (15 vs 13 days, P = 0.09), days of therapy (7 vs 7 days, P = 0.87), time to clinical resolution (7 vs 4 days, P = 0.30), and CDI (1% vs 2%, P = 0.58) were all similar.

A Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol for Deep Sedation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Requiring Neuromuscular Blocking Agents.

Purpose: The optimal agent for deep sedation in patients undergoing continuous infusion (CI) neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) use for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam in ARDS patients requiring CI NMBA. Methods: A multi-center, retrospective study was performed in mechanically ventilated (MV) adult patients requiring CI NMBA for management of ARDS. The primary outcome was to compare the time to liberation from MV in patients sedated with propofol vs midazolam. Results: In the 109 patients included, there was no difference in time to MV liberation with propofol as compared to midazolam (121 hr [Interquartile range (IQR) 67 195] vs 98 hr [IQR 48, 292], P = .72). Median time to sedation emergence after NMBA discontinuation was shorter in patients receiving propofol (12.9 hr [IQR 19.8, 72.5] vs 31.5 hr [IQR 6.4, 34.6], P < .01). There were no significant differences in time to therapeutic sedation, ICU stay, mortality, and adverse events. Conclusion: Propofol may be an effective and safe alternative to midazolam for patients undergoing CI NMBA for ARDS. Additionally, patients receiving propofol may have a quicker return to light sedation after NMBA discontinuation.

Perceptions regarding vasopressin use and practices in septic shock, and cost containment strategies.

Background: Clinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published. Objective: To assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use. Methods: A scenario-based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups. Results: Among 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045). Conclusion: Since vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

Effect of Body Weight on Hemodynamic Response in Patients Receiving Fixed-Dose Vasopressin for Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose vasopressin is an adjunctive therapy to norepinephrine (NE) to raise mean arterial pressure (MAP) and decrease NE requirements in patients with septic shock. It is unknown if weight affects hemodynamic response to vasopressin or if a weight-based vasopressin strategy is superior to fixed dosing. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate effect of body weight on response to vasopressin as measured by change in MAP 1 hour post-vasopressin initiation. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study was performed in patients with septic shock. Baseline characteristics, catecholamine and vasopressin requirement, response to therapy, and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: Forty patients were included who received a fixed-dose vasopressin in addition to catecholamine infusions. No correlation was found in the primary outcome of change in MAP at 1 hour after vasopressin initiation compared with vasopressin dose relative to patient weight or body mass index (BMI). Change in MAP at 6 and 12 hours was not significant. In the obese population (n = 9), there was a significant negative correlation between BMI and change in MAP at 6 hours (correlation coefficient r = -0.951; P = 0.0009). Linear regression analysis confirmed that vasopressin dose relative toweight was independently associated with change in MAP at 1, 6, and 12 hours, whereas changes in NE dosing were not. CONCLUSION: Increasing weight-based dosing of vasopressin did not correlate with change in MAP when used with catecholamine vasopressors in septic shock. However, fixed-dose vasopressin may not be sufficient in obese septic shock patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2).