The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has evolved into an emergent global pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) can manifest on a spectrum of illness from mild disease to severe respiratory failure requiring intensive care unit admission. As the incidence continues to rise at a rapid pace, critical care teams are faced with challenging treatment decisions. There is currently no widely accepted standard of care in the pharmacologic management of patients with COVID‐19. Urgent identification of potential treatment strategies is a priority. Therapies include novel agents available in clinical trials or through compassionate use, and other drugs, repurposed antiviral and immunomodulating therapies. Many have demonstrated in vitro or in vivo potential against other viruses that are similar to SARS‐CoV‐2. Critically ill patients with COVID‐19 have additional considerations related to adjustments for organ impairment and renal replacement therapies, complex lists of concurrent medications, limitations with drug administration and compatibility, and unique toxicities that should be evaluated when utilizing these therapies. The purpose of this review is to summarize practical considerations for pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID‐19, with the intent of serving as a resource for health care providers at the forefront of clinical care during this pandemic.

Oral anticancer therapy is increasingly integrated into the care of patients with cancer. Recognition and management of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is critical to providing efficacious and safe anticancer treatment. DDIs with QTc-prolonging agents, anticoagulants, enzyme inducers and inhibitors, antidepressants, and acid suppressants are commonly encountered with anticancer therapies. Here, we review frequently observed DDIs and outline literature-supported suggestions for their management.

INTRODUCTION Data comparing sedatives in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are sparse. However, it is known that the ECMO circuit alters the pharmacokinetic properties of medications via drug sequestration of lipophilic agents and increased volume of distribution. OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the difference in days alive without delirium or coma and the sedative requirements in patients receiving fentanyl versus hydromorphone in ECMO patients. METHODS This single-center retrospective observational study evaluated adults receiving ECMO for more than 48 hours and continuous infusion of either fentanyl or hydromorphone for at least 6 hours. Of 148 patients evaluated, 88 received fentanyl and 60 received hydromorphone continuous infusion sedation. Outcomes included delirium-free and coma-free (DFCF) days, narcotic use, and sedative use. MAIN RESULTS There was an increase in the number of DFCF days in the hydromorphone group at day 7 (p=0.07) and day 14 (p=0.08) and a significant reduction in daily fentanyl equivalent exposure. Propensity score matching yielded 54 matched pairs. An 11.1% increase was observed in the proportion of ECMO days alive without delirium or coma in the hydromorphone group at 7 days (53.2% vs 42.1%, p=0.006). Patients in the hydromorphone group received significantly fewer narcotics with a median of 555 µg (interquartile range [IQR] 287-905 µg) of fentanyl equivalents per day compared with 2291 µg (IQR 1053-4023 µg) in the fentanyl group (p<0.005). CONCLUSION The use of hydromorphone-based sedation in ECMO patients resulted in more days alive without delirium or coma while significantly reducing narcotic requirements. KEY WORDS acute respiratory distress syndrome, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intensive care, sedation, delirium.

Data regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti-inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non-COVID-19 and COVID-19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed withthe Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow-up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS studies. The two non-COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation-free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.

IntroductionAspirin and clopidogrel are mainstays in secondary stroke prevention; however, some patients do not demonstrate optimal antiplatelet effects from these therapies.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to determine if pharmacist medication intervention paired with anti‐platelet medication monitoring with whole blood aggregometry improved responsiveness to antiplatelet treatment when compared with standard‐of‐care, alone in patients at risk of recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).MethodsThis retrospective chart review at an outpatient neurology practice examined patients treated post‐stroke or post‐TIA between 2005 and 2017. Patients were categorized as either having undergone platelet function testing (PFT) with pharmacist intervention and standard‐of‐care or standard‐of‐care alone. Patient populations for each group were matched based on age, sex, and ABCD2 risk scores. Pharmacotherapeutic management and interventions were assessed in each group.ResultsA total of 342 patients were included as two matched groups (n = 171 for each group) with parallel baseline characteristics. Drug‐drug interactions were identified (P < .0001), and counseling on adherence (P = .0008) occurred statistically significantly more often with a pharmacist involved in patient care. After pharmacist intervention and PFT, 83% of patients were considered responsive to their antiplatelet therapy compared with 27% at baseline in the pharmacist intervention group (P < .0001).ConclusionPharmacist interventions optimized secondary stroke/TIA prophylaxis therapy, decreased drug‐drug interactions, and increased adherence counseling. Patients who underwent PFT and pharmacist intervention transitioned from nonresponsive to responsive to their antiplatelet therapy regimen.

Background Currently, there is limited literature on the impact of the COVID-19 infection on medications and medical conditions in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first multicenter study to describe the prevalence of new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. Objective To determine the number of medical conditions and medications at hospital admission compared to at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. Methods Retrospective multicenter observational study (7 ICUs) evaluated new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU between March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Patient and hospital characteristics, baseline and hospital discharge medication and medical conditions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and Charlson comorbidity index were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and number and type of medical conditions and medications. Paired t-test was used to compare number of medical conditions and medications from hospital discharge to admission. Results Of the 973 COVID-19 ICU survivors, 67.4% had at least one new medical condition and 88.2% had at least one medication change. Median number of medical conditions (increased from 3 to 4, P < .0001) and medications (increased from 5 to 8, P < .0001) increased from admission to discharge. Most common new medical conditions at discharge were pulmonary disorders, venous thromboembolism, psychiatric disorders, infection, and diabetes. Most common therapeutic categories associated with medication change were cardiology, gastroenterology, pain, hematology, and endocrinology. Conclusion and Relevance Our study found that the number of medical conditions and medications increased from hospital admission to discharge. Our results provide additional data to help guide providers on using targeted approaches to manage medications and diseases in COVID-19 ICU survivors after hospital discharge.

No abstract

No abstract