Annals of Pharmacotherapy最新文献

Background: While moderate-intensity statin therapy is recommended for primary prevention, statins may not be utilized at a recommended intensity due to dose-dependent adverse events, especially in an Asian population. However, evidence supporting the use of low-intensity statins in primary prevention is limited.

Objective: We sought to compare clinical outcomes between a low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin for primary prevention.

Methods: This population-based retrospective cohort study used the Korean nationwide claims database (2002-2019). We included adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases who received moderate-intensity statins or low-intensity statins plus ezetimibe. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. The safety outcomes were liver and muscle injuries and new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM). We used standardized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM).

Results: In the sIPTW model, 1717 and 36 683 patients used a low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin, respectively. In the PSM model, each group included 1687 patients. Compared with moderate-intensity statin use, low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe use showed similar risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.12 in sIPTW and HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.87-1.56 in PSM model). Low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe use was associated with decreased risks of liver and muscle injuries (subHR [sHR] = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.74-0.96 and sHR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77-0.97 in sIPTW; sHR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.96 and sHR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.72-0.94 in PSM model, respectively). For new-onset DM and hospitalization of liver and muscle injuries, no difference was observed.

Conclusion and relevance: Low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe may be an alternative to moderate-intensity statin for primary prevention. Our findings provide evidence on safety and efficacy of statin therapy in Asian population.

Background: Propofol and clevidipine (PC) are commonly used in the treatment of critically ill patients. While both medications are lipid emulsions, there is limited evidence concerning the incidence of hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) when these agents are used individually or concurrently.

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the effects of propofol, clevidipine, or concurrent PC on triglycerides (TGs) and related outcomes in critically ill adults.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic medical center. Patients were included if they received ≥24 hours of continuous propofol and/or clevidipine. Excluded were those without TG levels after ≥24 hours of infusion, baseline HTG, acute pancreatitis at admission, or receiving total parenteral nutrition with lipids. The primary outcome was incidence of HTG (defined as a TG level >400 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included median and peak TG levels, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, total lipid infused, time to peak TG level, peak lipase level, and development of pancreatitis.

Results: In total, 190 patients were studied: 109 in the propofol group, 50 in the clevidipine group, and 31 in the PC group. Incidence of HTG was similar (19 [17.4%] vs 6 [12%] vs 4 [12.9%] patients, P = 0.6246). Peak and median TG levels were similar for propofol, clevidipine, and PC groups (216 mg/dL vs 189.5 mg/dL vs 205 mg/dL, P = 0.7069; 177 mg/dL vs 185.5 mg/dL vs 177 mg/dL, P = 0.6791).

Conclusions and relevance: There was a similar incidence of HTG in all groups. The results of this study suggest that the concurrent use of PC should not modify the frequency of TG level monitoring.

Objective: The objective was to explore and describe the role of pharmacists in providing postdischarge care to patients with kidney disease.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (Ebscohost), Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus were searched on January 30, 2023. Publication date limits were not included. Search terms were identified based on 3 concepts: kidney disease, pharmacy services, and patient discharge. Experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative studies, or study protocols, describing the pharmacist's role in providing postdischarge care for patients with kidney disease, excluding kidney transplant recipients, were eligible.

Study selection and data extraction: Six unique interventions were described in 10 studies meeting inclusion criteria.

Data synthesis: Four interventions targeted patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization and 2 evaluated patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease. Pharmacists were a multidisciplinary care team (MDCT) member in 5 interventions and were the sole provider in 1. Roles commonly identified include medication review, medication reconciliation, medication action plan formation, kidney function assessment, drug dose adjustments, and disease education. Some studies showed improvements in diagnostic coding, laboratory monitoring, medication therapy problem (MTP) resolution, and patient education; prevention of hospital readmission was inconsistent. Limitations include lack of standardized reporting of kidney disease, transitions of care processes, and differences in outcomes evaluated.

Relevance to patient care and clinical practice: This review identifies potential roles of a pharmacist as part of a postdischarge MDCT for patients with varying degrees of kidney disease.

Conclusions: The pharmacist's role in providing postdischarge care to patients with kidney disease is inconsistent. Multidisciplinary care teams including a pharmacist provided consistent identification and resolution of MTPs, improved patient education, and increased self-awareness of diagnosis.

Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and role of live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) in the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI).

Data sources: A literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar (through February 2024) with search terms RBX2660, SER-109, and fecal microbiota. Other resources included abstracts presented at recent conferences, national clinical practice guidelines, and manufacturers' websites.

Study selection and data extraction: All relevant studies, trial updates, conference abstracts, and guidelines in the English language were included.

Data synthesis: Two LBPs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of recurrence in adults following antibiotic treatment for rCDI. Fecal microbiota, live-jslm is administered rectally as a retention enema, whereas fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk is given orally after bowel preparation. Several phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials have established the safety and efficacy of these LBPs in reducing rates of rCDI compared with placebo. Patients with severe immunosuppression and those with inflammatory bowel disease were largely excluded from these trials.

Relevance to patient care and clinical practice in comparison with existing drugs: Live biotherapeutic products offer a similar mechanism to conventional fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) in preventing rCDI through microbiota restoration. The primary advantages of LBPs over FMT are their standardized composition and donor stool screening processes for transmissible pathogens. Bezlotoxumab is also available for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile infection; however, there are no clinical data available to compare the efficacy of LBPs with bezlotoxumab, and the benefit of simultaneous use of these preventative therapies is unclear.

Conclusions: Live biotherapeutic products provide a safe and effective option for the prevention of rCDI and represent an improvement over conventional FMT. Additional studies are needed to further determine their place in therapy relative to bezlotoxumab and in the setting of immunosuppression and inflammatory bowel disease.

Objective: This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of novel respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines approved for adults aged 60 years and older.

Data sources: A literature search through February 27, 2024 was conducted using search terms, such as RSV, viral respiratory illness, vaccine, RSVpreF, RSVpreF3, Prefusion F, Abrysvo, and Arexvy.

Study selection and data extraction: Data from primary literature and vaccine prescribing information were reviewed, encompassing evaluations of clinical pharmacology, efficacy, safety, adverse events, warnings, and precautions.

Data synthesis: The literature review process resulted in 10 articles included within this article's scope, including the results of 2 major phase III trials presented in detail. Two RSV vaccines, Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine (recombinant [adjuvanted]; RSVpreF3-ASO1E, Arexvy) and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine (recombinant; RSVpreF, Abrysvo), approved for preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) in adults aged 60 years or older in the United States are discussed. Results from Phase III trials have demonstrated the efficacy of 1 dose of these vaccines in preventing RSV-associated LRTD across 2 RSV seasons.

Relevance to patient care and clinical practice: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices currently recommends use of these vaccines under shared clinical decision-making for adults aged 60 years or older. Most common adverse effects include injection site reactions (eg, site pain, redness, and swelling). Administration requires a single intramuscular injection of 0.5 mL, reconstituted prior to administration.

Conclusions: The RSVpreF3-ASO1E and RSVpreF vaccines effectively prevent RSV-associated LRTD in adults aged 60 years and older.

Background: Phenobarbital (PHB) has been shown to be an effective treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), with multiple dosing strategies used (e.g., single-dose and symptom-triggered). Studies have often used tapered doses, typically following a front-loaded dose, despite PHB's long half-life which should lead to an ability to auto-taper.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes associated with two PHB dosing strategies (taper [T], no taper [NT]) for AWS.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared adult patients admitted to the ICU from October 2017 to May 2019 who received an initial loading dose of PHB for AWS. The use of PHB was at the discretion of the clinician per our institutional guidelines. Prior to November 2018, patients were prescribed a PHB taper, while after this period, the taper was no longer recommended. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring rescue PHB or adjunctive medications for AWS. Secondary outcomes included number of adjunctive agents used, prevalence of severe manifestations of AWS, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and incidence of potentially significant drug interactions.

Results: A total of 172 patients were included (T: n = 81, NT: n = 91). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, including history of severe AWS and cumulative benzodiazepine dose pre-PHB. There was no difference in the primary outcome between groups (T: 70.4% vs NT: 59.3%, P = 0.152). The median number of adjunctive agents per patient, severe manifestations, and ICU and hospital length of stay did not differ between groups. Twenty-five patients (14.5%) had potentially significant drug interactions.

Conclusion and relevance: The use of a PHB loading dose without a taper may be comparable to a taper strategy on clinical outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to further delineate the optimal dose of PHB for AWS.

Background: The use of albumin resuscitation in septic shock is only recommended in patients who have received large volumes of crystalloid resuscitation regardless of serum albumin concentration. The role of albumin is still largely debated and evidence to support its use still lacking.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether albumin replacement increases the number of vasopressor-free days in patients with septic shock and hypoalbuminemia.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess the effect of albumin replacement in septic shock. Hypoalbuminemic patients with septic shock who received albumin were retrospectively compared with a cohort who did not. The primary outcome was number of vasopressor-free days at day 14 from shock presentation, which was analyzed using an adjusted linear regression model to adjust for confounders.

Results: There was no difference in vasopressor-free days at day 14 in patients who received albumin versus those who did not, after adjusting for confounders of exposure (0.50, 95% CI = -0.97 to 1.97; P = 0.502). There also was no difference in secondary outcomes except for need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), which was significantly lower in patients who received albumin (61 [54.4%] vs 88 [67.7%]; P = 0.035).

Conclusions and relevance: We observed no difference in vasopressor-free days at day 14 in patients with hypoalbuminemia who received albumin compared with those who did not. However, patients who received albumin required significantly less MV although further studies are warranted to assess this effect.

Background: The 2022 AHA-ACC HFSA Guideline for Management of Heart Failure recommend initiating an angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who can tolerate an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi). The manufacturer recommends initiating a 36-hour washout period when switching from ACEi to ARNI due to an increased risk of adverse effects, including angioedema. This study investigated the adherence to the washout period when transitioning from ACEi to ARNI at a community hospital.

Objectives: The primary objective was to assess the rate of adherence to the 36-hour washout when transitioning patients from ACEi to ARNI. Secondary outcomes included heart failure exacerbation readmission rates within 90 days and the rate of adverse effects (angioedema, hypotension, acute kidney injury, and hyperkalemia).

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including patients with HFrEF who were transitioned from ACEi to ARNI during their hospital stay between March 1, 2016 and December 31, 2022. Patients were excluded if they did not receive an ACEi or ARNI during their admission or if they had an ejection fraction >40%. Pearson chi-square was used to analyze categorical data.

Results: Of 33 patients included in this study, 67% received the full 36-hour washout period when transitioning from ACEi to ARNI. There were no significant differences between the rates of hospital readmissions or adverse effects between the groups. No patients experienced hyperkalemia or angioedema.

Conclusion and relevance: This is the first study to our knowledge to describe real-world prescribing practices when transitioning patients from ACEi to ARNI for the treatment of HFrEF. Larger, multicenter studies are needed to provide more data on prescribing practices outside this single center. Future research should also include pharmacist's role in adhering to the recommended washout.