Crouch and Ng co primary author.

Purpose Conducting well designed pharmacy resident research projects has inherent challenges including inadequate sample size, a lack of time, decreased generalizability, and inadequate research support. A way to overcome these barriers is through conducting multicenter research projects. However, this approach may also bring new challenges. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a general approach for pharmacy preceptors and leaders on implementation of multicenter residency research. Summary This article includes a general approach to conducting multicenter research from experienced individuals based upon their successes and failures. A timeline-based format is presented to lay the groundwork for implementation of this approach. Key topics in this paper include establishing a research overview committee, research question development, Institutional Review Board considerations, site recruitment, authorship discussions, resident coordination, protocol development, data collection, manuscript development, and considerations after residency. The approach maintains a critical focus on the individual residents ability to achieve American Society of Health-System Pharmacists accreditation standards for conducting research while operating in a collaborative manner. Conclusion Conducting multicenter residency research projects requires a team-based approach and advanced planning. This approach has the potential to improve pharmacy resident project quality.

Background: Norepinephrine remains the first-line option to manage patients with circulatory shock. Limited evidence exists evaluating noncatecholamine compounds as first-line monotherapy for managing noncardiogenic shock. Objective: To compare vasopressin monotherapy with norepinephrine monotherapy for reversal of distributive and hemorrhagic shock. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including adult patients who were diagnosed with hypovolemic or septic shock, received fluids, and received norepinephrine or vasopressin monotherapy for at least 1 hour. Patients excluded lacked a clear diagnosis, were initiated on 2 or more vasopressors at once, or underwent cardiac surgery. The primary outcome was time to shock reversal. Secondary outcomes included mortality, lengths of stay, and safety end points. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was performed incorporating baseline and treatment variables. Results: A total of 85 and 160 patients were treated with vasopressin and norepinephrine, respectively. A decrease in time to shock reversal was observed in the vasopressin group (58.32 hours [95% CI, 50.88-66.00] vs 74.64 hours [95% CI, 60.96-88.32], P = 0.004). Mortality was lower in the vasopressin group (25% vs 41%, P = 0.01), and intensive care unit length of stay was longer (13 days [interquartile range, IQR = 7-19] vs 7 days [IQR = 5-9], P = 0.006). Remaining secondary outcomes were similar. The multivariable analysis revealed no difference in time to shock reversal. Conclusion and Relevance: First-line vasopressin exhibited faster time to distributive shock reversal in the unadjusted analysis but failed to maintain this difference in the multivariable analysis. These findings support safe use of vasopressin as first-line therapy or as an alternative to norepinephrine in distributive shock.

Dosing of enoxaparin for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis in acutely burned patients has been shown to result in anti‐Xa levels below target range. We describe the first case report, to our knowledge, of a severely burned patient who, despite prophylactic dosing of enoxaparin 30 mg subcutaneously twice daily, developed an acute DVT that required high‐dose enoxaparin (100 mg [1.5 mg/kg] subcutaneously every 8 hours) to maintain anti‐Xa levels within the therapeutic range (0.6–1 IU/ml). Pharmacokinetic evaluations were performed using anti‐Xa levels measured throughout the patient's hospital stay to validate the appropriateness of this high‐dose regimen based on established therapeutic anti‐Xa level ranges. These results suggest that routine anti‐Xa level monitoring, regardless of enoxaparin dosing, is necessary for burn patients who are receiving enoxaparin given their hypermetabolic state following injury.