Contraindicated drug–drug interactions associated with oral antimicrobial agents prescribed in the ambulatory care setting in the United States

Objectives Antimicrobial agents are commonly used in ambulatory care settings. Our objective was to examine national-level patterns of contraindications between oral antibacterial or antifungal agents and patients' other oral medications in the US ambulatory care setting. Methods This cross-sectional study included multiple year pooled data (2003–2011) from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS Outpatient Department). Visits by adults (age ≥18 years) in ambulatory settings in the United States who were prescribed oral antibacterial or antifungal agents were evaluated for potential drug–drug interaction (DDI) contraindications. Findings with relative standard error >30% or unweighted sample size <30 were not reported because these were deemed unreliable estimates. Results From 2003 to 2011, there were 1 235 000 outpatient visits (proportion = 0.52%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.29–0.74) in which a patient was prescribed an antimicrobial agent associated with a contraindicated DDI. The most prevalent antimicrobials with contraindicated combination among outpatients were simultaneous use of macrolide-containing products (erythromycin or clarithromycin) with statin medication–containing products (simvastatin or lovastatin) (841 864 visits, proportion = 1.91%; 95% CI, 0.96–2.86). The next most common combination was use of fluoroquinolones with antiarrhythmic agents (amiodarone, sotalol, quinidine or procainamide) (365 622 visits, proportion = 0.19%; 95% CI, 0.06–0.32). Conclusions Providers should be aware of potential contraindicated DDIs when prescribing antibiotics, especially macrolides and fluoroquinolones

Identification of gender differences in ultrasound milestone assessments during emergency medicine residency training: a pilot study

Objectives: Prior literature suggests that incongruities between male and female resident's procedural competency may be explained by gender bias during the evaluation process. There are no known studies investigating gender differences in the assessment of ultrasound-based procedural skills among emergency medicine (EM) residents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate for gender differences in ultrasound milestone assessments among EM residents. Methods: This is a retrospective study including EM residents. Milestone assessment data were collected from a total of 3 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) EM residency programs representing a 3-year period The outcome measures included mean milestone levels, milestone levels at baseline and graduation and differences in milestone achievement between female and male EM residents. An unpaired Student's t-test was used to compare milestone scores between female and male residents. Results: A total of 456 ultrasound milestone evaluations were collected from 91 EM residents (34 females [37%] and 57 males [63%]). No significant differences were noted in the overall mean milestone level between females (2.3 +/- 0.6) and males (2.2 +/- 0.6) (P=0.387). There were no significant differences noted in the ultrasound milestone level between females (0.8 +/- 0.6) and males (0.7 +/- 0.7) at baseline (P=0.754). Although it did not reach statistical significance (P=0.197), the increase in the mean ultrasound milestone level from baseline to graduation was greater in males (3.4 +/- 0.7) compared to females (3.1 +/- 0.7). Conclusion: Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean ultrasound milestone levels between females and males. The rate of ultrasound milestone level achievement during EM residency training at our institution had a slight tendency to be higher for males than females in the observed residency programs; however, this also did not reach statistical significance. Possible gender bias while evaluating ultrasound milestone levels needs to be further studied on a larger scale.Open access journal.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

How to design a study to evaluate therapeutic drug monitoring in infectious diseases?

Background: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a tool to personalize and optimize dosing by measuring the drug concentration and subsequently adjusting the dose to reach a target concentration or exposure. The evidence to support TDM is however often ranked as expert opinion. Limitations in study design and sample size have hampered definitive conclusions of the potential added value of TDM. Objectives: We aim to give expert opinion and discuss the main points and limitations of available data from antibiotic TDM trials and emphasize key elements for consideration in design of future clinical studies to quantify the benefits of TDM. Sources: The sources were peer-reviewed publications, guidelines and expert opinions from the field of TDM. Content: This review focuses on key aspects of antimicrobial TDM study design: describing the rationale for a TDM study, assessing the exposure of a drug, assessing susceptibility of pathogens and selecting appropriate clinical endpoints. Moreover we provide guidance on appropriate study design. Implications: This is an overview of different aspects relevant for the conduct of a TDM study. We believe that this paper will help researchers and clinicians to design and conduct high-quality TDM studies

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.)

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570