Owusu, Kent A.

ABSTRACT Clinical pharmacists are increasingly recognized as vital contributors to acute stroke care, yet their role remains inconsistently defined and underutilized across health care systems. This consensus statement explores the expanding presence of clinical pharmacists within interdisciplinary stroke teams, particularly in the management of both acute ischemic stroke ( AIS ) and hemorrhagic stroke. This consensus statement panel was composed of clinical pharmacists, emergency medicine physicians, and a vascular neurologist. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation ( GRADE ) approach was used to assess the level of certainty and strength of recommendations. We focused on two questions regarding the clinical pharmacist's role in caring for adult patients presenting to the emergency department ( ED ) with AIS or hemorrhagic stroke. Despite the very low level of evidence, a consensus was reached for the following recommendations: (1) clinical pharmacist involvement in AIS care for adult patients presenting to the ED and (2) clinical pharmacist involvement in hemorrhagic stroke care for adult patients presenting to the ED . Based on the available literature, we believe optimizing the clinical pharmacist role is a critical factor in improving time‐sensitive treatment and equity in care delivery.

Objective: The specialty of critical care in the United States currently lacks a single, broad, unified database. We conducted a scoping review of existing established national ICU databases, describing national and international patterns of critical care delivery. Data Sources: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science search engines. Study Selection: Projects describing national critical care delivery (including any subspecialty) published in any language were included. Titles, abstracts, and full-text manuscripts were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion. Data Extraction: National database characteristics were collected, including the number and subspecialty of ICUs, the inaugural year, data entry methodology, the number of episodes of care included, and captured clinical data elements. Data Synthesis: Of 24,003 abstracts screened, 185 manuscripts were eligible for inclusion. Thirty countries were identified as having established national ICU registries: Argentina, Australia/New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay. Data entry commonly incorporates a combination of automated data abstraction from electronic healthcare systems and manual data entry, followed by independent validation. Frequently recorded variables include patient demographics; admission vital signs and laboratory data; comorbidities; admission source and diagnoses; ICU diagnoses, treatments, and complications; illness severity scores; and clinically relevant outcomes including discharge disposition, functional status, lengths of stay, and mortality. Conclusions: Insights and experience gained from the study of mature national ICU registries may be used to guide an equivalent U.S. multidisciplinary program aimed at benchmarking, needs assessment, quality improvement, and research facilitation

AbstractData 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 with the 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.