Brown, Caitlin S

ABSTRACT Background Intracranial and extracranial hemorrhages are significant causes of morbidity and mortality. Emergency medicine pharmacists (EMPs) can play a crucial role in anticoagulation reversal by identifying patients on anticoagulation, selecting the optimal anticoagulation reversal agent, and ensuring adequate dosing and prompt administration. The goal of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to determine the impact EMPs have on time to anticoagulation reversal and patient outcomes in anticoagulation‐associated hemorrhages. Methods A medical librarian performed a literature search in EBSCO CINAHL, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to January 2025 for all types of oral anticoagulants and for life‐threatening bleeding that required emergent reversal. Newcastle‐Ottawa was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the level of certainty of the evidence. Random effects models estimating mean differences and 95% confidence intervals are reported. Results There were 2445 titles and abstracts screened, with 44 undergoing full‐text evaluation. Six observational studies including 219 patients who received an anticoagulation reversal agent with the presence of an EMP and 198 patients who received a reversal agent without an EMP were included. Time from emergency department (ED) presentation to anticoagulation reversal agent administration (75.60 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −101.7 to −49.5) and time from medication order to administration were faster with an EMP (−18.7 min, 95% CI: −23.5 to −14.0). There was no difference in short‐term mortality. The included studies had a high risk of bias and were deemed very low quality of evidence. Conclusion EMP involvement in patient care during anticoagulation reversal of acute hemorrhages improved time to anticoagulation reversal agent administration. Larger scale, higher‐quality studies are necessary to assess the value of EMPs in improving patient‐centered outcomes.

ABSTRACT Background Critically ill patients may be overexposed to valproate because altered protein binding leads to a disproportionate free valproate fraction. The Fraser equation was derived and internally validated to estimate critically ill patients' free valproate concentrations, but it requires external validation. Methods Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients at two academic centers with concurrently measured free and total valproate concentrations were included. Free valproate concentrations were estimated using the Fraser equation which includes total valproate, albumin and BUN concentration, and whether the patient received propofol or aspirin. The primary outcome was Fraser equation performance, assessed using Bland–Altman methods. Comparative performance against estimates from the Doré equation (an alternative predictive equation), therapeutic concordance using a target free valproate range of 5–15 mg/L, and equation improvements were explored. Results Overall, 315 patients and 556 free‐total valproate concentration pairs were included. The mean (±SD) age was 58 (±17) years and 90 (29%) patients were on valproate prior to hospital admission. The Fraser equation estimated free valproate concentrations were correlated with measured concentrations ( r = 0.728) with a negative bias (mean bias −2.77 mg/L, 95% LOA –18.9, 13.4). The Fraser equation increasingly underestimated measured concentrations as measured concentrations increased. 71% of Fraser equation estimates were therapeutically concordant (e.g., estimate and measured both within reference range) compared to 61.9% of Doré estimates ( p = 0.001). Fraser equation modifications led to minor performance improvements but did not overcome worsening underestimation with higher measured free valproate concentrations. Conclusion The Fraser equation was moderately accurate and corresponded with an appropriate interpretation for 71% of free valproate concentrations. Worse underestimation with higher measured free valproate concentrations suggests direct measurement of free valproate concentrations is warranted. While the Fraser equation could complement therapeutic decision making at centers where direct free valproate measurements are unavailable or slow to return, its accuracy is currently insufficient to replace direct measurement.

AbstractBackgroundNimodipine improves outcomes following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and current guidelines suggest that patients with aSAH receive nimodipine for 21 days. Patients with no difficulty swallowing will swallow the whole capsules or tablets; otherwise, nimodipine liquid must be drawn from capsules, tablets need to be crushed, or the commercially available liquid product be used to facilitate administration through an enteral feeding tube (FT). It is not clear whether these techniques are equivalent. The goal of the study was to determine if different nimodipine formulations and administration techniques were associated with the safety and effectiveness of nimodipine in aSAH.MethodsThis was a retrospective multicenter observational cohort study conducted in 21 hospitals across North America. Patients admitted with aSAH and received nimodipine by FT for ≥3 days were included. Patient demographics, disease severity, nimodipine administration, and study outcomes were collected. Safety end points included the prevalence of diarrhea and nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to blood pressure reduction. Predictors of the study outcomes were analyzed using regression modeling.ResultsA total of 727 patients were included. Administration of nimodipine liquid product was independently associated with higher prevalence of diarrhea compared to other administration techniques/formulations (Odds ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41–3.67, p‐value = 0.001, OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.37–5.55, p‐value = 0.005, for old and new commercially available formulations, respectively). Bedside withdrawal of liquid from nimodipine capsules prior to administration was significantly associated with higher prevalence of nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to hypotension (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57–5.06, p‐value = 0.001). Tablet crushing and bedside withdrawal of liquid from capsules prior to administration were associated with increased odds of delayed cerebral ischemia (OR 6.66, 95% CI 3.48–12.74, p‐value <0.0001 and OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.05–7.52, p‐value <0.0001, respectively).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that enteral nimodipine formulations and administration techniques might not be equivalent. This could be attributed to excipient differences, inconsistency and inaccuracy in medication administration, and altered nimodipine bioavailability. Further studies are needed.