Frazee, Erin N.

Abstract AKI occurs frequently in critically ill patients. Patients with AKI, including those who require KRT, experience multiple pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic perturbations that dynamically influence medication effectiveness and safety. Patients with AKI may experience both subtherapeutic drug concentrations, which lead to ineffective therapy, and supratherapeutic drug concentrations, which increase the risk for toxicity. In critically ill patients with AKI not requiring KRT, conventional GFR estimation equations, especially those based on serum creatinine, have several limitations that can limit the accuracy when used for medication dosing. Alternative methods to estimate kidney function may be informative, including use of measured urinary creatinine clearance, kinetic eGFR, and equations that integrate novel kidney biomarkers. For critically ill patients with AKI requiring KRT, physicochemical properties of the drug, the KRT prescription and circuit configuration, and patient-specific factors each contribute to medication clearance. Evidence-based guidance for medication dosing during AKI requiring KRT is often limited. A working knowledge of the basic tenets of drug elimination during KRT can provide a framework for how to approach decision making when the literature is lacking. Iterative re-evaluation of a patient's progress toward therapeutic goals with a medication must occur over the arc of critical illness, including and especially in the setting of dynamic kidney function.

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.

ABSTRACT Background Serum cystatin C–based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcys) generally associates with clinical outcomes better than serum creatinine–based eGFR (eGFRcr) despite similar precision in estimating measured GFR (mGFR). We sought to determine whether the risk of adverse outcomes with eGFRcr or eGFRcys was via GFR alone or also via non-GFR determinants among kidney transplant recipients. Methods Consecutive adult kidney transplant recipients underwent a standardized GFR assessment during a routine follow-up clinic visit between 2011 and 2013. Patients were followed for graft failure or the composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) events or mortality through 2020. The risk of these events by baseline mGFR, eGFRcr and eGFRcys was assessed unadjusted, adjusted for mGFR and adjusted for CV risk factors. Results There were 1135 recipients with a mean baseline mGFR of 55.6, eGFRcr of 54.8 and eGFRcys of 46.8 ml/min/1.73 m2 and a median follow-up of 6 years. Each 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrease in mGFR, eGFRcr or eGFRcys associated with graft failure [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 1.68 and 2.07, respectively; P &lt; .001 for all) and CV events or mortality outcome (HR 1.28, 1.19 and 1.43, respectively; P &lt; .001 for all). After adjusting for mGFR, eGFRcys associated with graft failure (HR 1.57, P &lt; .001) and CV events or mortality (HR 1.49, P &lt; .001), but eGFRcr did not associate with either. After further adjusting for CV risk factors, risk of these outcomes with lower eGFRcys was attenuated. Conclusion eGFRcr better represents the true relationship between GFR and outcomes after kidney transplantation because it has less non-GFR residual association. Cystatin C is better interpreted as a nonspecific prognostic biomarker than is eGFR in the kidney transplant setting.

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 Beta-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (BL TDM; drug level testing) can facilitate improved outcomes in critically ill patients. Yet less than 20% of hospitals have implemented BL TDM. The purpose of this study was to characterize provider perceptions and key considerations for successful implementation of BL TDM. Methods This was a sequential mixed methods study from 2020 to 2021 of stakeholders at three academic medical centers with varying degrees of BL TDM implementation - Mayo Clinic (BL TDM not implemented), University of Florida Health Shands (partially implemented), and Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (fully implemented). Stakeholders completed a survey to characterize their knowledge, perceptions, and experience with BL TDM. A diverse group of 30 respondents were then purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews. Results from the two strands were integrated, themes were identified, and findings were situated within implementation science frameworks. Results Among the 138 survey respondents (22% response rate), the majority were physicians (38%) and pharmacists (33%). 71% practiced in critical care and 21% in infectious diseases. The majority of respondents felt BL TDM was relevant to their practice and improved medication effectiveness and safety (Figure 1). Two implementation themes were identified: individual internalization and organizational features. Individuals needed to internalize, make sense of, and agree to BL TDM implementation which was positively influenced by repeated exposure to evidence and expertise. The process of internalization seemed more complex with BL TDM than with other antibiotics (i.e., vancomycin). Organizational considerations relevant to BL TDM implementation included adequate physical and informational infrastructure, access to trained personnel, supportive governance/leadership, and robust process and workflow development. Conclusion We found broad enthusiasm about the relevance and potential benefits of BL TDM among stakeholders. Prior literature suggested the primary barrier to implementation was assay availability, but we identified many more individual and organizational attributes which impacted the scale and spread of BL TDM. Disclosures Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Christina G. Rivera, PharmD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Gilead: Honoraria|Insmed: Honoraria Jason Roberts, BPharm(Hons), PhD, FSHP, FISAC, British Society of Chemotherapy: Grant/Research Support|Cipla: Honoraria|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Honoraria|Pfizer: Board Member|Pfizer: Honoraria|Qpex: Grant/Research Support|Sandoz: Board Member|Summit: Advisor/Consultant|Wolters Kluwer: Advisor/Consultant Marc H. Scheetz, PharmD, MSc, Abbvie: Advisor/Consultant|Allecra: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Nevakar: Advisor/Consultant|Nevakar: Grant/Research Support|Premier Healthcare Solutions: Honoraria|Spero: Advisor/Consultant|SuperTrans Medical: Advisor/Consultant|SuperTrans Medical: Grant/Research Support|Takeda: Advisor/Consultant|Third Pole Therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant.