OBJECTIVES: Despite the established role of the critical care pharmacist on the ICU multiprofessional team, critical care pharmacist workloads are likely not optimized in the ICU. Medication regimen complexity (as measured by the Medication Regimen Complexity-ICU [MRC-ICU] scoring tool) has been proposed as a potential metric to optimize critical care pharmacist workload but has lacked robust external validation. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that MRC-ICU is related to both patient outcomes and pharmacist interventions in a diverse ICU population. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, observational cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-eight ICUs in the United States. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: Critical care pharmacist interventions (quantity and type) on the medication regimens of critically ill patients over a 4-week period were prospectively captured. MRC-ICU and patient outcomes (i.e., mortality and length of stay [LOS]) were recorded retrospectively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:A total of 3,908 patients at 28 centers were included. Following analysis of variance, MRC-ICU was significantly associated with mortality (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.11; p < 0.01), ICU LOS (β coefficient, 0.41; 95% CI, 00.37-0.45; p < 0.01), total pharmacist interventions (β coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.09; p < 0.01), and a composite intensity score of pharmacist interventions (β coefficient, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.28; p < 0.01). In multivariable regression analysis, increased patient: pharmacist ratio (indicating more patients per clinician) was significantly associated with increased ICU LOS (β coefficient, 0.02; 0.00-0.04; p = 0.02) and reduced quantity (β coefficient, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02; p < 0.01) and intensity of interventions (β coefficient, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.09 to -0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Increased medication regimen complexity, defined by the MRC-ICU, is associated with increased mortality, LOS, intervention quantity, and intervention intensity. Further, these results suggest that increased pharmacist workload is associated with decreased care provided and worsened patient outcomes, which warrants further exploration into staffing models and patient outcomes.

Background: Rib fractures account for more than one-third of blunt thoracic injuries and are associated with serious complications. Use of nonopioid adjunctive agents such as methocarbamol for pain control has increased considerably. Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of methocarbamol addition to the pain control regimen on daily opioid requirements for young adults with rib fractures. Methods: This observational, retrospective study included patients aged 18 to 39 years with 3 or more rib fractures who were admitted to a level 1 trauma center between July 2014 and July 2018. Patients were dichotomized based on admission before and after methocarbamol addition to the institutional rib fracture protocol. The primary outcome was to determine the impact of methocarbamol on daily opioid requirements. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and diagnosis of pneumonia. Results: A total of 50 patients were included, with 22 and 28 patients in the preprotocol and postprotocol groups, respectively. All patients in the latter group received methocarbamol, whereas no patient in the preprotocol group received methocarbamol. Cumulative opioid exposure was significantly less for patients admitted after methocarbamol addition to the protocol (219 vs 337 mg oral morphine equivalents; P = 0.01), and hospital LOS was also decreased (4 vs 3 days; P = 0.03). No significant differences in the incidence of pneumonia or adverse effects were observed. Conclusion and Relevance: This is the first study to evaluate the impact of methocarbamol on reducing opioid requirements. Given the risks associated with opioids, use of methocarbamol as an analgesia-optimizing, opioid-sparing multimodal agent may be reasonable.

Background: Sepsis remains a leading cause of death in the critically ill. The combination of thiamine, vitamin C, and hydrocortisone has recently emerged as a potential adjunctive therapy and supportive care for patients with sepsis and septic shock. Areas of Uncertainty: Several randomized and observational controlled trials evaluated the role of vitamin C in sepsis and septic shock. However, there are variabilities in the findings of these studies that led to a substantial global debate on incorporating vitamin C therapy in clinical practice. Data Sources: A PubMed and Embase English language literature search through April 2021 was performed using the following terms: ascorbic acid, vitamin C, corticosteroid, hydrocortisone, thiamine, HAT, sepsis, and shock. Citations, including controlled trials, observational studies, review articles, guidelines, and consensus statements, were reviewed. The risk of bias for each clinical study was systematically evaluated. Relevant clinical data focusing on efficacy, safety, and special considerations regarding the use of vitamin C with and without thiamine and hydrocortisone in sepsis and septic shock were narratively summarized. Results: The most commonly used vitamin C dosing in sepsis and septic shock is 1.5 g every 6 hours with and without thiamine and hydrocortisone. Current literature is limited because of heterogeneity in vitamin C regimen used, initiation time, and duration of treatment. This limitation led to variability in outcomes evaluated. Vitamin C decreases proinflammatory mediators and slows the progression of endothelial injury in severe sepsis. There is an inconsistency between randomized controlled trials and observational controlled trials regarding mortality, resolution in organ failure, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay findings with the use of vitamin C in septic shock. Vitamin C seems to be safe in comparison with placebo. Conclusions: Future studies with consistent end points, initiation time with an emphasis on early initiation, and standard vitamin C dosing regimen are needed to determine the overall benefit of vitamin C in sepsis.

No abstract

No abstract

Clinical research is a skill that can be honed and cultivated in the right educational environment. Creating experiences to maximize growth and interest in clinical research can occur both during pharmacy school and throughout postgraduate training. The purpose of this “how‐to” guide is to assist pharmacists, as well as their students and residents, with effectively structuring experiences and programs that instill and cultivate a lifelong desire to contribute to the medical literature. The overarching areas of focus are threefold: (1) identifying trainees and mentors, (2) crafting research training experiences, and (3) supporting continued interest and growth in research after completion of the initial experience. Early introduction of a positive research culture in the trainee experience through structured and thoughtful curricula and experiences can maximize learner potential. Several thoughtful steps and recommendations can maximize these experiences and opportunities for learners and new practitioners. Instilling and cultivating a lifelong desire to contribute to the medical literature in pharmacy trainees remains a challenge that is both worthy and necessary to pursue for the sakes of our profession, patients, and trainees.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize selected meta-analyses and trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy published in 2020. DATA SOURCES: The Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update group screened 36 journals monthly for impactful publications. STUDY SELECTION: The group reviewed a total of 119 articles during 2020 according to relevance for practice. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were selected with consensus and importance to clinical practice from those included in the monthly Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update. The group reviewed articles according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. Articles with a 1A grade were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: Several trials were summarized, including two meta-analyses and five original research trials. Original research trials evaluating vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine versus hydrocortisone in sepsis, the use of nonsedation strategies, dexmedetomidine in cardiac surgery, remdesivir for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. Two meta-analyses determining the impact of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock and the use of corticosteroids in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was included. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical review provides summary and perspectives of clinical practice impact on influential critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2020.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents as an acute inflammatory lung injury characterized by refractory hypoxemia and non-cardiac pulmonary edema. An estimated 10% of patients in the intensive care unit and 25% of those who are mechanically ventilated are diagnosed with ARDS. Increased awareness is warranted as mortality rates remain high and delays in diagnosing ARDS are common. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of understanding ARDS management. Treatment of ARDS can be challenging due to the complexity of the disease state and conflicting existing evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that pharmacists understand both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies to optimize patient care. This narrative review provides a critical evaluation of current literature describing management practices for ARDS. A review of treatment modalities and supportive care strategies will be presented.