Mara, Kristin C.

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to compare the association between migraine and sleep quality in premenopausal versus perimenopausal women. Methods A cross-sectional analysis from the Data Registry on the Experiences of Aging, Menopause and Sexuality was conducted using questionnaire data from premenopausal and perimenopausal women seen at women's health clinics at 3 geographic locations from 2015 to 2021. Sleep quality and duration were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Associations between poor sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index >5) and self-reported migraine history (Y/N) were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting for body mass index, anxiety, depression, and vasomotor symptoms. Results Of 2,067 women (mean age 43.2 years) included in the analysis, 594 (28.7%) reported a migraine history. Women were mostly white (92.2%), partnered (75.1%), and educated (86% with at least some college); 46.5% (n = 962) were premenopausal, 53.5% (n = 1,105) were perimenopausal, and 71.2% met the criteria for poor sleep. In univariate analysis, migraine history predicted poor sleep in both premenopausal and perimenopausal women (P = 0.005 and P = 0.004, respectively). However, in multivariable analysis, migraine history remained associated with poor sleep in premenopausal women (P = 0.044), but not in perimenopausal women (P = 0.46). Conclusions A migraine history was associated with poor sleep in premenopausal women. The relationship in perimenopausal women seemed to be influenced by confounding factors that are more prevalent during the menopause transition and are known to affect the frequency of migraine and sleep disturbances, such as anxiety, depression, and vasomotor symptoms. These conditions may need to be the focus of management in migraineurs with sleep disturbances during the menopause transition.

AbstractBackgroundItraconazole is the recommended first‐line treatment for mild‐to‐moderate blastomycosis and consolidation treatment of moderate‐to‐severe disease. Itraconazole is metabolised into three metabolites, including an active metabolite hydroxy‐itraconazole. Literature provides little evidence indicating whether therapeutic drug monitoring targets should be based on itraconazole parent compound alone or a sum of itraconazole and hydroxy‐itraconazole serum concentrations.ObjectivesThis study aims to compare clinical outcomes and adverse drug events (ADEs) of combined itraconazole and hydroxy‐itraconazole concentrations versus itraconazole parent compound alone in patients with blastomycosis.Patients/MethodsThis study was a retrospective cohort review of patients ≥18 years with probable or proven Blastomyces infection who received itraconazole with at least one documented serum itraconazole concentration. The primary outcome was rate of partial or complete treatment response across three patient groups: (1) Itraconazole parent compound >1.0 mcg/ml (parent), (2) parent compound <1.0 mcg/ml, but a combined itraconazole and hydroxy‐itraconazole >1.0 mcg/ml (combined) and (3) failure to achieve a combined or parent concentration >1.0 mcg/ml (subtherapeutic) for >75% of the duration of itraconazole therapy.ResultsA total of 80 patients were included (parent = 32, combined = 36, subtherapeutic = 12). No statistically significant difference was observed for rate of partial or complete treatment response (97% parent vs 94% combined, p = .99). Significantly higher mortality due to blastomycosis was observed in patients in the subtherapeutic group (0% parent vs 3% combined vs 25% subtherapeutic, p = .01).ConclusionsThis study supports an itraconazole therapeutic target combining itraconazole and hydroxy‐itraconazole >1.0 mcg/ml for blastomycosis treatment.

AbstractStudy ObjectiveIn critically ill patients, adequacy of early antibiotic exposure has been incompletely evaluated. This study characterized factors associated with inadequate cefepime exposure in the first 24 h of critical illness.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingAcademic Medical Center.PatientsCritically ill adults treated with cefepime. Patients with acute kidney injury or treated with kidney replacement therapy or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were excluded.InterventionNone.MeasurementsA nonlinear mixed‐effects pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed to estimate cefepime concentrations for each patient over time. The percentage of time the free drug concentration exceeded 8 mg/L during the first 24 h of therapy was calculated (%ƒT>8; appropriate for the susceptible breakpoint for Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Factors predictive of low %ƒT>8 were explored with multivariable regression.Main ResultsIn the 100 included patients, a one‐compartment PK model was developed with first‐order elimination with covariates for weight and estimated glomerular filtration rate based on creatinine and cystatin C (eGFRSCr‐CysC). The median (interquartile range) %ƒT>8 for cefepime in the first 24 h of therapy based on this model was 85% (66%, 100%). Less than 100% ƒT>8 during first 24 h of therapy occurred in 70 (70%) individuals. Lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (p = 0.032) and higher eGFRSCr‐CysC (p < 0.001) predicted a lower %ƒT>8. Central nervous system infection source was protective (i.e., associated with a higher %ƒT>8; p = 0.008).ConclusionsDuring early critical illness, cefepime concentrations were inadequate in a significant proportion of patients. Antimicrobial optimization is needed to improve the precision of pharmacotherapy in the critically ill patients.

Background: Patients supported on mechanical circulatory support devices experience vasodilatory hypotension due to high surface area exposure to nonbiological and non-endothelialized surfaces. Angiotensin II has been studied in general settings of vasodilatory shock, however concerns exist regarding the use of this vasopressor in patients with pre-existing cardiac failure. The objective of this study was to assess the systemic and central hemodynamic effects of angiotensin II in patients with primary cardiac or respiratory failure requiring treatment with mechanical circulatory support devices. Methods: Multicenter retrospective observational study of adults supported on a mechanical circulatory support device who received angiotensin II for vasodilatory shock. The primary outcome was the intraindividual change from baseline in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and vasopressor dosage after angiotensin II. Results: Fifty patients were included with mechanical circulatory devices that were primarily used for cardiac failure (n = 41) or respiratory failure (n = 9). At angiotensin II initiation, the norepinephrine equivalent vasopressor dosage was 0.44 (0.34, 0.64) and 0.47 (0.33, 0.73) mcg/kg/min in the cardiac and respiratory groups, respectively. In the cardiac group, MAP increased from 60 to 70 mmHg (intraindividual P < .001) in the 1 h after angiotensin II initiation and the vasopressor dosage declined by 0.04 mcg/kg/min (intraindividual P < .001). By 12 h, the vasopressor dosage declined by 0.16 mcg/kg/min ( P = .001). There were no significant changes in cardiac index or mean pulmonary artery pressure throughout the 12 h following angiotensin II. In the respiratory group, similar but nonsignificant effects at 1 h on MAP (61-81 mmHg, P = .26) and vasopressor dosage (decline by 0.13 mcg/kg/min, P = .06) were observed. Conclusions: In patients requiring mechanical circulatory support for cardiac failure, angiotensin II produced beneficial systemic hemodynamic effects without negatively impacting cardiac function or pulmonary pressures. The systemic hemodynamic effects in those with respiratory failure were nonsignificant due to limited sample size.

Abstract Background Posaconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is widely utilized to assess therapeutic efficacy and safety (i.e., hepatotoxicity, QTc prolongation); however, little is known about clinical effects of very high serum posaconazole serum levels (i.e., ≥ 5000 mg/mL). Reported incidence rate of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with posaconazole per most recent clinical trial was ∼30%. The primary objective was to compare the ADR incidence in patients with serum posaconazole levels of 3000-4999 ng/mL to ≥5000 ng/mL. Methods This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with a posaconazole serum level ≥3000 ng/mL from 1/1/2019 to 04/30/2021. The primary outcome was symptomatic ADR at time of first serum level ≥3000 ng/mL. Secondary outcomes were laboratory defined hepatoxicity, electrolyte and adrenal laboratory abnormalities, QTc changes, and dose changes in response to TDM. Patient outcomes were censored after the first serum level and were compared between groups using Fisher’s exact tests. Results Ninety patients met inclusion criteria, 80 with a level of 3000-4999 ng/mL and 10 with a level of ≥ 5000 ng/mL occurring at a median of 91 days (26-443) and 27 days (12-45) from posaconazole initiation, respectively. Majority of patients were immunocompromised (55.6% transplant recipients, 28.9% active malignancy, 5.6% other) with a split of treatment (50%) and prophylaxis (42.2%) indication. Symptomatic ADRs were very common in patients with posaconazole levels of ≥5000 ng/mL and 3000-4999 ng/mL (80% vs. 58.8%; p=0.31), primarily neurologic (49.1% overall) followed by gastrointestinal (32.7% overall). Hepatotoxicity was also common (≥5000 ng/mL 40% vs 3000-4999 ng/mL 23.4%, p=0.26). Fifty percent of patients had the posaconazole dose continued without change. Electrolytes and QTc results were similar between groups, but median overall QTc was borderline high (456 [IQR 435, 479]). Conclusion There are safety concerns for patients with serum posaconazole levels ≥3000 ng/mL. Posaconazole levels should be monitored and, importantly, dose adjusted according to serum level and patient symptoms for both treatment and prophylaxis indications. Disclosures Christina G. Rivera, PharmD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Gilead: Honoraria|Insmed: Honoraria.