Quantifying Critical Care Pharmacist Interventions in COVID-19.

Purpose/Background: Pharmacists have been shown to play an important role in the medication management of critically ill patients. Pharmacist interventions in the care of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been quantitatively described. Methodology: A single center, retrospective, observational study was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. All adult patients admitted to the COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) or Medical ICU with a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were included. All interventions made by pharmacists were documented electronically, collected, categorized, and analyzed. The primary outcome of this study was the median number of interventions by pharmacists per patient. The secondary outcome was the number of different types of interventions performed. Results: A total of 768 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 63 years old; 63% of patients were male and 71% were Caucasian. Median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 12 days (interquartile range (IQR) 7-21) and ICU LOS was 5 days (IQR 1-11). The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 4 (IQR 2-7) and Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3 (IQR 2-5). Mortality at 60 days occurred in 352 patients (46%). Pharmacists performed a total of 7027 interventions for 655 patients with a median number of pharmacist interventions per patient of 6 (IQR 3-14). The most common pharmacist interventions were medication discontinuation (24%), completion of components of the ICU liberation bundle (19%), medication dose adjustment (18%), therapeutic drug monitoring (15%), and medication initiation (10%). Conclusions: Pharmacists made multiple interventions related to medication use and management in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study adds important information of the evolving role clinical pharmacists play in the care of critical illness, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo₂) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo₂ target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).

Detecting Drug-Drug Interactions in COVID-19 Patients.

COVID-19 patients with multiple comorbid illnesses are more likely to be using polypharmacy to treat their COVID-19 disease and comorbid conditions. Previous literature identified several DDIs in COVID-19 patients; however, various DDIs are unrecognized. This study aims to discover novel DDIs by conducting comprehensive research on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data from January 2020 to March 2021. We applied seven algorithms to discover DDIs. In addition, the Liverpool database containing DDI confirmed by clinical trials was used as a gold standard to determine novel DDIs in COVID-19 patients. The seven models detected 2,516 drug-drug pairs having adverse events (AEs), 49 out of which were confirmed by the Liverpool database. The remaining 2,467 drug pairs tested to be significant by the seven models can be candidate DDIs for clinical trial hypotheses. Thus, the FAERS database, along with informatics approaches, provides a novel way to select candidate drug-drug pairs to be examined in COVID-19 patients.

Strategies to Optimize ICU Liberation (A to F) Bundle Performance in Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has stretched ICU resources in an unprecedented fashion and outstripped personal protective equipment supplies. The combination of a novel disease, resource limitations, and risks to medical personnel health have created new barriers to implementing the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; and "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, a proven ICU care approach that reduces delirium, shortens mechanical ventilation duration, prevents post-ICU syndrome, and reduces healthcare costs. This narrative review acknowledges barriers and offers strategies to optimize Bundle performance in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. DATA SOURCES STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: The most relevant literature, media reports, and author experiences were assessed for inclusion in this narrative review including PubMed, national newspapers, and critical care/pharmacology textbooks. DATA SYNTHESIS: Uncertainty regarding coronavirus disease 2019 clinical course, shifts in attitude, and changes in routine behavior have hindered Bundle use. A domino effect results from: 1) changes to critical care hierarchy, priorities, and ICU team composition; 2) significant personal protective equipment shortages cause; 3) reduced/restricted physical bedside presence favoring; 4) increased depth of sedation and use of neuromuscular blockade; 5) which exacerbate drug shortages; and 6) which require prolonged use of limited ventilator resources. Other identified barriers include manageable knowledge deficits among non-ICU clinicians unfamiliar with the Bundle or among PICU specialists deploying pediatric-based Bundle approaches who are unfamiliar with adult medicine. Both groups have been enlisted to augment the adult ICU work force to meet demand. Strategies were identified to facilitate Bundle performance to liberate patients from the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: We acknowledge current challenges that interfere with comprehensive management of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Rapid response to new circumstances precisely requires established safety mechanisms and protocols like the ABCDEF Bundle to increase ICU and ventilator capacity and help survivors maximize recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 as early as possible.

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. METHODS: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Medication Changes and Diagnosis of New Chronic Illnesses in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited literature on the impact of the COVID-19 infection on medications and medical conditions in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first multicenter study to describe the prevalence of new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of medical conditions and medications at hospital admission compared to at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter observational study (7 ICUs) evaluated new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU between March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Patient and hospital characteristics, baseline and hospital discharge medication and medical conditions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and Charlson comorbidity index were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and number and type of medical conditions and medications. Paired t-test was used to compare number of medical conditions and medications from hospital discharge to admission. RESULTS: Of the 973 COVID-19 ICU survivors, 67.4% had at least one new medical condition and 88.2% had at least one medication change. Median number of medical conditions (increased from 3 to 4, P < .0001) and medications (increased from 5 to 8, P < .0001) increased from admission to discharge. Most common new medical conditions at discharge were pulmonary disorders, venous thromboembolism, psychiatric disorders, infection, and diabetes. Most common therapeutic categories associated with medication change were cardiology, gastroenterology, pain, hematology, and endocrinology. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study found that the number of medical conditions and medications increased from hospital admission to discharge. Our results provide additional data to help guide providers on using targeted approaches to manage medications and diseases in COVID-19 ICU survivors after hospital discharge.

Delirium in critical illness: clinical manifestations, outcomes, and management.

Delirium is the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. In the intensive care unit (ICU), duration of delirium is independently predictive of excess death, length of stay, cost of care, and acquired dementia. There are numerous neurotransmitter/functional and/or injury-causing hypotheses rather than a unifying mechanism for delirium. Without using a validated delirium instrument, delirium can be misdiagnosed (under, but also overdiagnosed and trivialized), supporting the recommendation to use a monitoring instrument routinely. The best-validated ICU bedside instruments are CAM-ICU and ICDSC, both of which also detect subsyndromal delirium. Both tools have some inherent limitations in the neurologically injured patients, yet still provide valuable information about delirium once the sequelae of the primary injury settle into a new post-injury baseline. Now it is known that antipsychotics and other psychoactive medications do not reliably improve brain function in critically ill delirious patients. ICU teams should systematically screen for predisposing and precipitating factors. These include exacerbations of cardiac/respiratory failure or sepsis, metabolic disturbances (hypoglycemia, dysnatremia, uremia and ammonemia) receipt of psychoactive medications, and sensory deprivation through prolonged immobilization, uncorrected vision and hearing deficits, poor sleep hygiene, and isolation from loved ones so common during COVID-19 pandemic. The ABCDEF (A2F) bundle is a means to facilitate implementation of the 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (PADIS) Guidelines. In over 25,000 patients across nearly 100 institutions, the A2F bundle has been shown in a dose-response fashion (i.e., greater bundle compliance) to yield improved survival, length of stay, coma and delirium duration, cost, and less ICU bounce-backs and discharge to nursing homes.