Nei, Andrea M.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates of delirium or coma-free days between continuous infusion sedative-dose ketamine and continuous infusion benzodiazepines in critically ill patients. Materials and Methods: In this single-center, retrospective cohort adult patients were screened for inclusion if they received continuous infusions of either sedative-dose ketamine or benzodiazepines (lorazepam or midazolam) for at least 24 h, were mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h and admitted to the intensive care unit of a large quaternary academic center between 5/5/2018 and 12/1/2021. Results: A total of 165 patients were included with 64 patients in the ketamine group and 101 patients in the benzodiazepine group (lorazepam n = 35, midazolam n = 78). The primary outcome of median (IQR) delirium or coma-free days within the first 28 days of hospitalization was 1.2 (0.0, 3.7) for ketamine and 1.8 (0.7, 4.6) for benzodiazepines (p = 0.13). Patients in the ketamine arm spent a significantly lower proportion of time with RASS −3 to +4, received significantly higher doses and longer durations of propofol and fentanyl infusions, and had a significantly longer intensive care unit length of stay. Conclusions: The use of sedative-dose ketamine had no difference in delirium or coma-free days compared to benzodiazepines.

Abstract Purpose Critical care pharmacists (CCPs) have been clearly established as value-added members of the interprofessional team, and their contributions positively impact patient outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite this, not every critically ill patient in the US receives care from a CCP and the model through which CCPs practice is variable, which has important implications. The purpose of this primer is to review current CCP models and discuss elements of the optimal CCP practice model. Summary Current CCP practice models are defined, including the drug processing and dispensing model, clinical pharmacy specialist model, integrated pharmacy generalist model, and hybrid model, as well as unit-based vs service-based models. The optimal CCP practice model considers the Triple Domain of CCP workload, which includes direct patient care, indirect patient care, and professional service. Elements of the ideal CCP practice model including 24/7/365 CCP services, unit- vs service-based models, prescriptive authority, operational support, and CCP-to-patient ratio are discussed. Other vital elements include dedicated offline time, use of appropriate workload metrics, development of career ladders, opportunities for professional development, and providing wellness resources. The ideal CCP practice model must also be considered through the lens of the patient and medical team, the CCP, the institution, and professional organizations. Strategies for optimizing current CCP practice models are provided, and application of optimal CCP practice model elements is explored through 5 case studies. Conclusion The optimal CCP practice model includes multiple elements and incorporates the viewpoints of patients, providers, CCPs, institutions, and professional organizations; this model will increase access of all ICU patients to CCPs, enhance the scope of CCP cognitive services, and ensure the economic sustainability of CCP practice while establishing CCP involvement in activities outside of patient care and in professional service.

AbstractProfessional standards for academic health care system pharmacy departments and clinical pharmacists advocate for research and scholarly activities. Developing and sustaining a research program in a clinical pharmacy department is challenging. Over the span of a decade, a robust pharmacy research program was developed in an academic medical center not affiliated with a college of pharmacy. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a framework suitable for scaling research in pharmacy departments within an academic medical center. Objectives to accomplish the aim includes describing the structure and evolution of the clinical pharmacy department research program, listing measurable outputs and achievements of the pharmacists and the program and describing the barriers encountered and solutions that were enacted to overcome them. Elements critical to building and sustaining a research program in the pharmacy department included long‐term commitment from within the department, a departmental research infrastructure, support from institutional leadership, research funding from the institution, and a growth mindset in accordance with company initiatives to support evolving research needs. A research curriculum was developed for pharmacy residents and pharmacists, created electronic tools for research proposal scientific reviews and allocation of funds, and established departmental research career development awards that allowed for protected time to pursue research and professional development. Over the first 10 years of the program, publication rates grew more than three‐fold, faculty appointments and promotions increased approximately five‐fold, and pharmacist investigators obtained extramural federal funding. Further offsetting clinical workload relative to dedicated research time remains a challenge. The experience and success at this academic medical center suggest it is feasible to develop a robust, sustainable clinical pharmacy department research program.

OBJECTIVES: We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 47 RCTs ( n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87–1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89–1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03–1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82–1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11–1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29–1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: The critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. DATA ANALYSIS: We performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88–0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11–1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, –0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08–1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01–1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–0.98) or equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: We found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.