Peppard, William

Abstract Optimal dosing of prophylactic enoxaparin for individuals ≥150 kg is unknown due to limited inclusion in previous studies. Estimate an optimal weight-based prophylactic enoxaparin dose for individuals ≥150 kg. This multicenter, retrospective study included ≥150 kg adult patients admitted to the hospital between January 2014 and April 2024, who received twice daily prophylactic enoxaparin (goal peak anti-Xa 0.2–0.4 IU/mL). At least one peak anti-Xa was required, obtained 3 to 5 hours after the 3rd consecutive dose. The primary outcome was the range of dosing that produced goal prophylactic peak anti-Xa following linear regression modeling. Secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive care unit (ICU)/progressive care unit (PCU) length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and VTE/bleed events within 72 hours after an eligible peak anti-Xa. A total of 311 encounters and 388 peak anti-Xa levels were assessed. Patients were 46 (37–55) years old, 53.1% were male, and weighed 183.3 kg (166.1–204.1) with a BMI of 61.3 kg/m2 (54.8–69.4). Creatinine clearance was 179.6 mL/min (126.5–228.2) and patients received 4 doses (4–6) before peak anti-Xa, with a time between of 249 minutes (227–271). Linear regression modeling revealed a statistically significant correlation (r2 = 0.27) between weight-based dose and peak anti-Xa (p < 0.0001). Enoxaparin 0.34 mg/kg (95% CI 0.33–0.36) twice daily was predicted to achieve a peak anti-Xa of 0.3 IU/mL. Hospital LOS was 8 days (4–15), ICU/PCU LOS was 8 days (4–14, n = 158), and only two patients (0.6%) died during hospitalization. One VTE event was observed. Our results suggest an appropriate empiric weight-based prophylactic enoxaparin dose for hospitalized patients ≥150 kg is 0.34 mg/kg twice daily.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

AbstractIntroductionActive engagement in research and scholarly output is challenging for pharmacists following residency training.ObjectivesTo determine the current structure of institutional support for pharmacy research, describe barriers to increasing staff research support and scholarly output, and benchmark best practices.MethodsA national survey was developed and distributed to the Vizient Consortium Director of Pharmacy listserv. The survey was conducted between October 2, 2019 and January 31, 2020 and incorporated 23 base questions assessing seven domains: financial support, study design/conduct support, interdisciplinary support, staff incentives, pharmacy research oversight, best practices, and barriers to research support.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 253 directors of pharmacy and 49 (19%) distinct responses were obtained. Most responders (71%) reported less than 25% of clinical staff were involved in research. Responses indicated most departmental research was driven by residents: 43% reported postgraduate year one (PGY1) and postgraduate year two (PGY2) residents were responsible for at least 75% of research projects. The greatest barriers to conducting research included time (72%), funding (33%), and knowledge/experience (32%). Research support included access to statisticians for data analysis (63%) or study design (57%), development of a pharmacy research committee (55%), and financial support or stipends (45%).ConclusionDespite institutional financial and educational support, the most commonly reported barriers to conducting pharmacy research were time, funding, and knowledge or experience of staff pharmacists.

Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU. Design: The guideline panel comprised 29 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure and/or methodology. The Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy were followed throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. Setting: The panel was divided into nine subgroups: cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, endocrine and nutrition, gastrointestinal, infection, perioperative, and neurology. Interventions: We developed and selected population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question, we conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence whenever applicable, and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. Measurements and Main Results: In this article, we report 29 recommendations (from 30 population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions) on the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, related to five groups (cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, and endocrine). Overall, six were strong recommendations, 19 were conditional recommendations, four were best-practice statements, and in two instances, the panel did not issue a recommendation due to insufficient evidence. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary international experts were able to formulate evidence-based recommendations for the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low-quality indirect evidence.