Brown, Caitlin S.

OBJECTIVES: Protein binding of valproate is variable in ICU patients, and the total valproate concentration does not predict the free valproate concentration, even when correcting for albumin. We sought to quantify valproate free concentration among ICU patients, identify risk factors associated with an increasing free valproate concentration, and evaluate the association between free valproate concentration with potential adverse drug effect. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients greater than or equal to 18 years of age with concomitant free and total valproate concentrations collected in the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two-hundred fifty-six patients were included in the study, with a median age of 56 years (42–70) and 65% of patients were male. The median total valproate concentration was 53 µg/mL (38–70 µg/mL), the free valproate concentration was 12 µg/mL (7–20 µg/mL), and the free fraction was 23.6% (17.0–33.9%). Therapeutic discordance between the free and total valproate concentration occurred in 70% of patients. On multivariable analysis, increased free valproate concentration was associated with higher total valproate concentration (per 5 µg/mL increase, increase 1.72 µg/mL, 95% CI, 1.48–1.96) and lower serum albumin (per 1 g/dL decrease, increase 4.60 µg/mL, 95% CI, 2.71–6.49). There was no association between free valproate concentration and adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The valproate total and free concentration was discordant in the majority of patients (70%). Increased valproate free concentration was associated with hypoalbuminemia and total valproate concentration. Clinical decisions based on total valproate concentration may be incorrect for many ICU patients. Prospective, controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings and their clinical relevance.

AbstractBackgroundUropathogen resistance, fluoroquinolone‐resistance (FQR), and extended spectrum beta‐lactamase (ESBL), has been observed to be emerging worldwide with prevalences above recommended thresholds for routine empirical treatment. The primary aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of FQR from a geographically diverse sample of United States emergency departments (EDs).MethodsWe conducted a multi‐center, observational cohort study using a network of 15 geographically diverse US EDs. All patients ≥18 years of age with the primary or secondary diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the ED identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐10) diagnosis code of cystitis, pyelonephritis, or UTI from 2018 to 2020 were included. We calculated descriptive statistics for uropathogens and susceptibilities. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify antimicrobial resistance risk factors associated with FQR Escherichia coli.ResultsAmong 3779 patients who met inclusion criteria, median age was 62.9 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 41–77.6) and 76.3% were female. The most common diagnoses were complicated (41.2%) and uncomplicated cystitis (40.3%). E. coli was the most common pathogen (63.2%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (13.2%) and Enterococcus species (5.8%). Across all sites, overall E. coli FQ‐resistance prevalence was 22.1%, ranging from 10.5 to 29.7% by site. The prevalence of ESBL‐producing uropathogen was 7.4%, ranging from 3.6% to 11.6% by site. Previous IV or oral antimicrobial use in the past 90‐days and history of a multi‐drug resistant pathogen were associated with FQ‐resistant E. coli (odds ratio [OR] 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04–3.51, and OR 6.93, 95% CI: 4.95–9.70, respectively). Of the patients who had FQ‐resistant E. coli or an ESBL‐producing uropathogen isolated, 116 (37.1%) and 61 (36.7%) did not have any documented risk factors for resistance.ConclusionFQ‐resistant E. coli is widely prevalent across US sites highlighting the need for ongoing monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and, at some locations, modification of empirical treatments.

Background Intensive care unit (ICU) sedation guidelines recommend targeting a light sedation level, but light sedation has no accepted definition, and inconsistent levels have been proposed. Objective To determine Sedation-Agitation Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores that best describe patients’ ability to follow voice commands. Methods This prospective, observational pilot study enrolled a convenience sample of ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Pairs of trained investigators evaluated scores on the Sedation-Agitation Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and ability to follow commands before and up to 2 hours after sedation lightening in a blind, independent, simultaneous fashion. Positive predictive values (PPVs) and likelihood ratios (LRs) of Sedation-Agitation Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores associated with light sedation (ability to follow at least 3 commands) were calculated. Results Ninety-six assessments (50 before and 46 after lightening of sedation) were performed in medical ICU patients. Scores best associated with ability to follow at least 3 commands were Sedation-Agitation Scale score of 4 (PPV, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98; LR, 14.0) and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of −1 (PPV, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93; LR, 10.7), superior to previously recommended thresholds of Sedation-Agitation Scale score of 3 (PPV, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.75; LR, 3.1) and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of −3 (PPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64; LR, 2.0). Conclusions The level of sedation most associated with the ability to follow commands appears higher than previously recommended. Further study is needed regarding the effects of sedation level on ICU patients’ ability to follow commands and assessment of delirium, pain, and patient preferences.

Abstract Purpose Utilization of telemedicine and telepharmacy services has become increasingly popular, as specifically noted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This article describes the implementation of and services provided by emergency medicine pharmacists (EMPs) as part of a telemedicine team in the emergency department (ED). Summary This report describes the telemedicine and telepharmacy services provided to EDs in the Mayo Clinic Health System from the Mayo Clinic Rochester ED. Telepharmacy services provided by EMPs started in 2018. EMPs cover telepharmacy calls as part of their shift within the ED in Rochester. Recommendations and interventions are documented in the electronic medical record. A retrospective review evaluated interventions provided from November 18, 2018, through November 10, 2020. Baseline patient demographics, as well as the type and number of interventions provided by EMPs, hospital site, and time spent on the interventions, were collected. Telepharmacy consults could include multiple interventions and be classified as more than one type of intervention. During this time period, 24 pharmacists worked in the ED and were able to provide telepharmacy services. There were 279 consults included in this study, with 435 interventions. Most of the calls came from critical access hospitals (48.7%). The most common types of interventions documented were medication selection and dosing (n = 238), antimicrobials (n = 141), monitoring and follow-up (n = 65), discharge (n = 56), drug information (n = 55), and allergy review (n = 50). Conclusion Telepharmacy services can provide increased access to emergency medicine specialty pharmacists in areas that would not otherwise have these services.