Open-Label Randomized Trial of Early Clinical Outcomes of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections at Risk of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

INTRODUCTION: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) remain among the most common infectious processes seen in the clinical setting. For patients with complicated ABSSSIs deemed to require intravenous antibiotics, vancomycin remains the mainstay therapy. Ceftaroline has been shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin and may result in faster resolution of signs of infection. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized trial of ceftaroline versus vancomycin for the treatment of adult patients admitted for management of ABSSSIs from April 2012 to May 2016; 166 patients in the clinically evaluable (CE) group were needed to determine a 20% difference in primary outcome of clinical response at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics. Clinical response was defined as cessation of spread of lesion and improvement in systemic signs/symptoms of infection. A secondary outcome was a ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled in the intention-to-treat (ITT) group and 108 were CE. Among CE patients, 54 were randomized to ceftaroline and 54 to vancomycin. Baseline characteristics were similar except patients in the ceftaroline arm were older and had a non-significantly higher degree of comorbidities (median Charlson score 2 vs. 4, respectively). Cellulitis was the most common type of ABSSSI (85.2% vs. 79.6%, respectively). Rapid diagnostic testing of available cultures (n = 55) demonstrated high agreement with clinical microbiology for identification of Staphylococcus aureus (100%) and MRSA (100%). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of day 2 or 3 clinical response (50.0% vs. 51.9%). CONCLUSION: Early clinical response between vancomycin- and ceftaroline-treated ABSSSIs was similar. Patients with ABSSSIs rarely remained hospitalized for > 2-3 days, thus limiting our ability to critically assess clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02582203. FUNDING: Allergan plc.

Appropriateness of Bolus Antihypertensive Therapy for Elevated Blood Pressure in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: While moderate to severely elevated blood pressure (BP) is present in nearly half of all emergency department (ED) patients, the incidence of true hypertensive emergencies in ED patients is low. Administration of bolus intravenous (IV) antihypertensive treatment to lower BP in patients without a true hypertensive emergency is a wasteful practice that is discouraged by hypertension experts; however, anecdotal evidence suggests this occurs with relatively high frequency. Accordingly, we sought to assess the frequency of inappropriate IV antihypertensive treatment in ED patients with elevated BP absent a hypertensive emergency. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study from a single, urban, teaching hospital. Using pharmacy records, we identified patients age 18-89 who received IV antihypertensive treatment in the ED. We defined treatment as inappropriate if documented suspicion for an indicated cardiovascular condition or acute end-organ injury was lacking. Data abstraction included adverse events and 30-day readmission rates, and analysis was primarily descriptive. RESULTS: We included a total of 357 patients over an 18-month period. The mean age was 55; 51% were male and 93% black, and 127 (36.4%) were considered inappropriately treated. Overall, labetalol (61%) was the most commonly used medication, followed by enalaprilat (18%), hydralazine (18%), and metoprolol (3%). There were no significant differences between appropriate and inappropriate BP treatment groups in terms of clinical characteristics or adverse events. Hypotension or bradycardia occurred in three (2%) patients in the inappropriate treatment cohort and in two (1%) patients in the appropriately treated cohort. Survival to discharge and 30-day ED revisit rates were equivalent. CONCLUSION: More than one in three patients who were given IV bolus antihypertensive treatment in the ED received such therapy inappropriately by our definition, suggesting that significant resources could perhaps be saved through education of providers and development of clearly defined BP treatment protocols.

Relaxin: a novel agent for the treatment of acute heart failure.

Acute heart failure (AHF) is defined by a constellation of signs and symptoms that manifest when new or decompensated ventricular dysfunction is triggered by an acute precipitant such as excessive preload, afterload, or myocardial ischemia. Despite being one of the most frequent causes of hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality, little to no progress has been made over the last few decades to advance the treatment of AHF. Current mainstays of pharmacotherapy for AHF including diuretics, vasodilators, and inotropes can improve symptoms; however, no currently approved agent has been shown to provide lasting outcome benefit for patients with AHF. First discovered in pregnant women where it is known to help with growth of the cervix and assist with the maternal cardiovascular and renovascular responses to pregnancy, relaxin is an endogenous neurohormone that has novel vasoactive properties. In particular, relaxin is a potent vasodilator with a number of pleiotropic effects that may affect cardiac remodeling, making relaxin an attractive compound for use in the management of AHF. Indeed, in two randomized controlled trials, a single 48-hour infusion of relaxin relieved symptoms of AHF with no evidence of major adverse effects. A signal of mortality benefit at 180 days was noted in both trials, prompting a third trial of relaxin powered for 180-day mortality that is currently under way. The pharmacology that underscores the potential benefit of relaxin is discussed and insight is provided into future clinical application of this novel drug should it prove to be the first therapy capable of reducing mortality in AHF.

Implementation and outcomes of a pharmacy residency mentorship program.

PURPOSE: The implementation and outcomes of a pharmacy residency mentorship program are described. SUMMARY: The mentorship program at the Detroit Medical Center was formally implemented during the residency orientation period in 2013. Residents had up to two months after the start of the residency to choose a mentor, which we believed was an adequate amount of time to meet all members of the department of pharmacy. One year after implementation of the mentorship program, an anonymous survey was administered to all 16 residents to gather feedback about the mentorship program. Eleven (70%) of the 16 residents completed the survey. A majority agreed that having a mentor was a beneficial aspect of their residency training, often citing their mentor as integral in their career planning and helpful in balancing their personal and professional lives. Further, 91% (n = 10) of the respondents indicated that they planned on remaining in contact with their mentor after their residency. Nearly half of the residents met multiple times per month or weekly. All respondents stated that their mentor was available and accessible when needed. The year after program implementation, all residents were either offered a position for employment or matched to a residency before the completion of the residency. Although the mentors were not assessed with an anonymous survey, there continues to be overwhelming support for the continuation and improvement of the program as part of residency training. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a mentorship program during residency training was viewed as beneficial for personal and professional development by many of the residents.