Evaluation of levetiracetam for early post-traumatic seizure prophylaxis: A level II trauma center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can induce early or late post-traumatic seizures (PTS). While PTS incidence is low, prophylaxis is used despite a lack of consensus on agent or duration. Levetiracetam (LEV) for early PTS prophylaxis is preferred due to its safety and efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate LEV for early PTS prophylaxis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-center, retrospective chart review of TBI patients ≥18 years who received LEV for early PTS prophylaxis between August 2018-July 2019. The primary outcome was LEV duration. Secondary outcomes were incidence of seizure, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Of the 137 included, mean age was 59 ± 20 years and 69.3% were male. The mean admission GCS was 13 ± 4 and 77.4% had mild TBI. Median LEV duration was 7 (IQR 4-10) days and 13.9% met recommended 7-day duration. Those prescribed LEV >7 days had more than twice the median LEV duration than those prescribed ≤7 days [10.25 (8.5-15.5) vs 4 (1.5-4.5) days, p < 0.0001]. Electroencephalography-confirmed PTS occurred in 2.2%, with an early PTS incidence of 0.73%. Median ICU and hospital LOS were 2 (IQR 1-7) and 7 (IQR 3-16) days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PTS was low as most patients in our study had mild or moderate TBI. Early PTS prophylaxis with LEV for 7 days is appropriate, although the majority of patients did not meet the recommended duration. Efforts to standardize and implement PTS prophylaxis protocols are needed.

Evaluation of Teaching Activities Completed by PGY2 Pharmacy Residents at Colleges of Pharmacy.

Introduction: Evaluating PGY2 pharmacy residency programs and their academic opportunities is crucial for developing future clinician-educators and advancing pharmacy education. There is a lack of newer data available on residency programs' teaching activities and older studies are limited by timely survey instruments and low response rates. The objective of this project was to describe teaching responsibilities among PGY2 pharmacy residents nationwide using a short, electronic survey. Methods: A survey consisting of ten multiple-choice questions was emailed to residency program directors to assess the teaching and precepting responsibilities of PGY2 and PGY1/PGY2 combined pharmacy residents across the country. The survey was converted to an online form using QualtricsXM and had an estimated completion time of 2 min. Data was reviewed and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 292 out of 594 PGY2 or PGY1/PGY2 combined pharmacy residency program directors responded to the survey (49% response rate), with the majority of programs being ASHP-accredited. Only 13% of PGY2 residency programs surveyed did not have their residents complete a didactic lecture at a college of the pharmacy and 50% of programs have their residents facilitate labs or recitations at colleges of pharmacy. Sixty-eight percent of programs have their residents serve as the primary preceptor for experiential rotations. Conclusion: The majority of PGY2 pharmacy residency programs include teaching opportunities. Continuous efforts are needed to increase teaching opportunities for PGY2 residents to help fill vacant academic positions with qualified academicians.