Critical appraisal of machine learning prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: protocol for a systematic review.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an acute inflammatory disorder that is common, costly, and is increasing in incidence worldwide with over 300,000 hospitalizations occurring yearly in the United States alone. As its course and outcomes vary widely, a critical knowledge gap in the field has been a lack of accurate prognostic tools to forecast AP patients' outcomes. Despite several published studies in the last three decades, the predictive performance of published prognostic models has been found to be suboptimal. Recently, non-regression machine learning models (ML) have garnered intense interest in medicine for their potential for better predictive performance. Each year, an increasing number of AP models are being published. However, their methodologic quality relating to transparent reporting and risk of bias in study design has never been systematically appraised. Therefore, through collaboration between a group of clinicians and data scientists with appropriate content expertise, we will perform a systematic review of papers published between January 2021 and December 2023 containing artificial intelligence prognostic models in AP. To systematically assess these studies, the authors will leverage the CHARMS checklist, PROBAST tool for risk of bias assessment, and the most current version of the TRIPOD-AI. (Research Registry ( http://www.reviewregistry1727 .).

Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage With Tenecteplase vs Alteplase in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Comparative Effectiveness of Routine Tenecteplase vs Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke (CERTAIN) Collaboration.

Importance: Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) is a serious complication of stroke thrombolytic therapy. Many stroke centers have adopted 0.25-mg/kg tenecteplase instead of alteplase for stroke thrombolysis based on evidence from randomized comparisons to alteplase as well as for its practical advantages. There have been no significant differences in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) reported from randomized clinical trials or published case series for the 0.25-mg/Kg dose. Objective: To assess the risk of sICH following ischemic stroke in patients treated with tenecteplase compared to those treated with alteplase. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective observational study using data from the large multicenter international Comparative Effectiveness of Routine Tenecteplase vs Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke (CERTAIN) collaboration comprising deidentified data on patients with ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Data from more than 100 hospitals in New Zealand, Australia, and the US that used alteplase or tenecteplase for patients treated between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021, were included for analysis. Participating centers included a mix of nonthrombectomy- and thrombectomy-capacity comprehensive stroke centers. Standardized data were abstracted and harmonized from local or regional clinical registries. Consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke who were considered eligible and received thrombolysis at the participating stroke registries during the study period were included. All 9238 patients who received thrombolysis were included in this retrospective analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: sICH was defined as clinical worsening of at least 4 points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), attributed to parenchymal hematoma, subarachnoid, or intraventricular hemorrhage. Differences between tenecteplase and alteplase in the risk of sICH were assessed using logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, NIHSS score, and thrombectomy. Results: Of the 9238 patients included in the analysis, the median (IQR) age was 71 (59-80) years, and 4449 patients (48%) were female. Tenecteplase was administered to 1925 patients. The tenecteplase group was older (median [IQR], 73 [61-81] years vs 70 [58-80] years; P < .001), more likely to be male (1034 of 7313 [54%] vs 3755 of 1925 [51%]; P < .01), had higher NIHSS scores (median [IQR], 9 [5-17] vs 7 [4-14]; P < .001), and more frequently underwent endovascular thrombectomy (38% vs 20%; P < .001). The proportion of patients with sICH was 1.8% for tenecteplase and 3.6% for alteplase (P < .001), with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.30-0.58; P < .01). Similar results were observed in both thrombectomy and nonthrombectomy subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large study, ischemic stroke treatment with 0.25-mg/kg tenecteplase was associated with lower odds of sICH than treatment with alteplase. The results provide evidence supporting the safety of tenecteplase for stroke thrombolysis in real-world clinical practice.

A practice game changer: Impact of tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke in a multicenter quality improvement project.

PURPOSE: Tenecteplase is a thrombolytic that is more fibrin specific, has a longer half-life, and is easier to administer than alteplase for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). This article outlines the pharmacy experience and perspective on implementation of tenecteplase as the treatment of choice for AIS. SUMMARY: Tenecteplase has been of increasing interest for AIS and is currently being studied in several clinical trials. Although it is not indicated by the Food and Drug Administration for AIS, several published studies and an update to stroke guidelines from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association support its use in this setting. In January 2021, Cedars-Sinai Health System made the decision to add tenecteplase to the formulary for AIS in addition to keeping alteplase for patients who met the criterion of being outside the 4.5-hour window following stroke onset. Along with the added benefits of having tenecteplase on formulary come challenges of managing multiple thrombolytics for the same indication. Identifying key stakeholders and creating an interdisciplinary team are critical to ensure safe transitions. CONCLUSION: Institutions can safely transition from alteplase to tenecteplase as a thrombolytic of choice for AIS.

Tools and tactics for postdischarge medication management interventions.

PURPOSE: To identify interventions for organizational pharmacist-leaders and frontline pharmacy staff to optimize peri- and postdischarge medication management. SUMMARY: An evidence-based toolkit was systematically constructed on the basis of findings of 3 systematic overviews of systematic reviews. The interventions were reviewed by a technical expert panel and categorized as either tools or tactics. The identified tools are instruments such as diagrams, flow charts, lists, tables, and templates used in performing a distinct operation, whereas identified tactics reflect broader methods (eg, reduced dosing frequency). Tools and tactics were chosen on the basis of their potential to improve postdischarge medication management, with a focus on interventions led by pharmacy staff that may reduce hospital readmissions among older, sicker patients. Overall, 23 tools and 2 tactics were identified. The identified tools include items such as education, text messaging, and phone calls. The tactics identified are dose simplification and monetary incentives. Practical information has also been provided to facilitate implementation. CONCLUSION: Several tools and tactics are available to optimize peri- and postdischarge medication management. Organizational pharmacist-leaders and frontline pharmacy staff can implement these interventions to improve patient outcomes.

A multicenter quality improvement initiative on the impact of pharmacists' postdischarge follow-up to reduce medication-related acute care episodes.

PURPOSE: This multicenter quality improvement initiative aims to measure and quantify pharmacists' impact on reducing medication-related acute care episodes (MACEs) for high-risk patients at an increased risk for readmission due to drug-related problems (DRPs). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter quality improvement initiative conducted at 9 academic medical centers. Each participant implemented a standardized methodology for evaluating MACE likelihood to demonstrate the impact of pharmacist postdischarge follow-up (PDFU). The primary outcome was MACEs prevented, and the secondary outcome was DRPs identified and resolved by pharmacists. During PDFU, pharmacists were responsible for identification and resolution of DRPs, and cases were reviewed by physicians to confirm whether potential MACEs were prevented. RESULTS: A total of 840 patients were contacted by 9 participating academic medical centers during a 6-week data collection period. Of these, 328 cases were identified as MACEs prevented during PDFU by pharmacists, and physician reviewers confirmed that pharmacist identification of DRPs during PDFU prevented 27.9% of readmissions. Pharmacist identified 959 DRPs, 2.8% (27) of which were identified as potentially life threatening. Potentially serious or significant DRPs made up 56.6% (543) of the DRPs, and 40.6% (389) were identified as having a low capacity for harm. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that PDFU of high-risk patients reduces DRPs and prevents MACEs based on physician confirmation. Implementation of MACE methodology provides health-system pharmacy departments the ability to demonstrate pharmacists' value in transitions of care and assist in expanding pharmacist services.