Major Publications in the Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature: 2021.

To summarize the most impactful articles relevant to the pharmacotherapy of critically ill adult patients published in 2021. DATA SOURCE: PubMed/MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, prospective studies, or systematic review/meta-analyses of adult critical care patients assessing a pharmacotherapeutic intervention and reporting clinical endpoints published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. DATA EXTRACTION: Candidate articles were organized by clinical domain based on the emerging themes from all studies. A modified Delphi process was applied to obtain consensus on the most impactful publication within each clinical domain based on overall contribution to scientific knowledge and novelty to the literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search revealed 830 articles, of which 766 were excluded leaving 64 candidate articles for the Delphi process. These 64 articles were organized by clinical domain including: emergency/neurology, cardiopulmonary, nephrology/fluids, infectious diseases, metabolic, immunomodulation, and nutrition/gastroenterology. Each domain required the a priori defined three Delphi rounds. The resultant most impactful articles from each domain included five randomized controlled trials and two systematic review/meta-analyses. Topics studied included sedation during mechanical ventilation, anticoagulation in COVID-19, extended infusion beta-lactams, interleukin-6 antagonists in COVID-19, balanced crystalloid resuscitation, vitamin C/thiamine/hydrocortisone in sepsis, and promotility agents during enteral feeding. CONCLUSIONS: This synoptic review provides a summary and perspective of the most impactful articles relevant to the pharmacotherapy of critically ill adults published in 2021.

Comparison of Ceftriaxone and Antipseudomonal ß-Lactam Antibiotics Utilized for Potential AmpC ß-Lactamase-Producing Organisms.

Background: Induction of antibiotic resistance is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in AmpC ß-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae. The use of ceftriaxone is controversial for treatment of these organisms due to concerns for inducible resistance. This study was designed to compare treatment failure rates between ceftriaxone and antipseudomonal ß-lactam antibiotics when used as definitive therapy for organisms most commonly associated with chromosomal AmpC ß-lactamase production. Methods: A retrospective, single-center cohort study was performed enrolling patients hospitalized with monomicrobial Enterobacter, Citrobacter, or Serratia spp. infections. The primary objective compared proportion of treatment failure between groups. All patients received either ceftriaxone or an antipseudomonal ß-lactam alone within 24 hours of culture finalization, and with a duration of at least 72 hours for definitive treatment. Treatment failure was defined as either clinical failure (abnormal white blood cell count or temperature on day 7 or 14 post-antibiotics) or microbiologic failure (regrowth of the same organism at same site within 14 or 21 days). Results: Of 192 total patients, treatment failure was observed in 24/71 patients (34%) receiving ceftriaxone and in 42/121 patients (35%) receiving antipseudomonal ß-lactam (P = .98). No difference was observed between clinical or microbiologic failure rates between groups. The ceftriaxone group had significantly more patients undergoing treatment for urinary tract infections (51% vs 17%, P < .001), but treatment failure rates remained similar between groups when comparing infections of all other sources. Conclusion: Ceftriaxone has comparable treatment failure rates to antipseudomonal ß-lactams for susceptible Enterobacteriaceae infections and may be considered as a therapeutic option. Further, prospective research is needed to validate optimal dosing and application in all sites of infection.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Extended-Infusion Cefepime in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: A Prospective, Open-Label Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate extended-infusion (EI) cefepime pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamic target attainment in critically ill patients receiving continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) or continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD). DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, PK study. SETTING: Intensive care units at a large, academic, tertiary-care medical center. PATIENTS: Ten critically ill adults who were receiving cefepime 2 g intravenously every 8 hours as a 4-hour infusion while receiving CVVH (eight patients) or CVVHD (two patients). INTERVENTION: Two sets of five serum cefepime concentrations were collected for each patient to assess pharmacokinetics before and during presumed steady state. Concurrent serum and CRRT effluent samples were collected at hours 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 after the first cefepime dose and after either the fourth, fifth, or sixth (steady-state) cefepime doses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography was used to determine free cefepime concentrations. PK analyses included CRRT clearance, half-life, and sieving coefficient or saturation coefficient. Cefepime peak (4 hrs) concentrations, trough (8 hrs) concentrations (Cmin ), and minimum inhibitory concentration breakpoint of 8 µg/ml for the pathogen (MIC8 ) were used to evaluate attainment of pharmacodynamic targets: 100% of the dosing interval that free drug remains above MIC8 (100% fT > MIC8 ), 100% fT > 4 × MIC8 (optimal), percentage of time fT > 4 × MIC8 (%fT > 4 × MIC8 ) at steady state, and ratio of Cmin to MIC8 (fCmin /MIC8 ). Total CRRT effluent flow rate was a mean ± SD of 30.1 ± 5.4 ml/kg/hr, CRRT clearance was 39.6 ± 9.9 ml/min, and half-life was 5.3 ± 1.7 hours. Sieving coefficient or saturation coefficient were 0.83 ± 0.13 and 0.69 ± 0.22, respectively. First and steady-state dose Cmin were 23.4 ± 10.1 µg/ml and 45.2 ± 14.6 µg/ml, respectively. All patients achieved 100% fT > MIC8 on first and steady-state doses. First and steady-state dose 100% fT > 4 × MIC8 were achieved in 22% (2/9 patients) and 87.5% (7/8 patients) of patients, respectively. The mean %fT > 4 × MIC8 at steady state was 97.5%. The fCmin /MIC8 was 2.92 ± 1.26 for the first dose and 5.65 ± 1.83 at steady state. CONCLUSION: Extended-infusion cefepime dosing in critically ill patients receiving CRRT successfully attained 100% fT > MIC8 in all patients and an appropriate fCmin /MIC8 for both first and steady-state doses. All but one patient achieved 100% fT > 4 × MIC8 at steady state. No significant differences were observed in PK properties between first and steady-state doses among or between patients. It may be reasonable to initiate an empiric or definitive regimen of EI cefepime in critically ill patients receiving concurrent CRRT who are at risk for resistant organisms. Further research is needed to identify the optimal dosing regimen of EI cefepime in this patient population.

Recognition, Assessment, and Pharmacotherapeutic Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in the Intensive Care Unit.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a complex neurologic disorder that develops after an acute reduction in or cessation of chronic alcohol consumption that alters neurotransmitter conduction. The incidence of AWS in the intensive care unit varies, but has been associated with poor outcomes. This is primarily driven by downregulation of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) leading to autonomic excitability and psychomotor agitation. No clinical assessment tools have been validated to assess for AWS in the intensive care unit, particularly for patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol Scale, Revised, may be considered to gauge the extent of withdrawal, but is not particular with acute presentations in this population. Symptom-triggered use of GABA agonist such as benzodiazepines remains the mainstay of pharmacotherapeutic intervention. Nonbenzodiazepine GABA agonists such as barbiturates and propofol as well as non-GABA adjunctive agents such as dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and antipsychotic agents may help reduce the need for symptom-triggered benzodiazepine dosing, but lack robust data. Agent selection should be based on patient-specific factors such as renal and hepatic metabolism, duration of action, and clearance. Institution-specific protocols directing GABA-acting medications and adjunctive medications for excitatory, adrenergic, and delirium assessments could be considered to improve patient outcomes and caregiver satisfaction.