Effect of Therapeutic Interchange on Medication Changes Between Admission and Discharge.

Background: Therapeutic interchange (TI) is the dispensing of an alternative medication within the same class as the original medication. TI often occurs in hospitals; however, failure to return patients to their original medications may increase the risk of adverse effects following hospital discharge. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between TI and discharge medication changes, hospital readmission rates, and emergency department visit rates following hospital discharge. Methods: Patient demographic and medication data were collected retrospectively for patients admitted to a nonprofit, acute care hospital. The primary outcome was the relationship between TI and the rate of discharge medication changes. Secondary outcomes included types of discharge medication changes and the relationship between TI and both hospital readmissions and emergency department visits following hospital discharge. Results: A total of 497 patients accounting for 1072 medications were included; 21.2% of home medications were interchanged following admission, and 21.8% of home medications were changed at discharge. TI increased the incidence of discharge medication changes by 70% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-2.37, P = .0021). Cardiovascular agents were most likely to be changed at discharge (26%), and gastrointestinal agents were most likely to be interchanged (65%). Psychotropic agents were least likely to be changed at discharge (12%) or interchanged (7%). Neither TI nor discharge medication changes were predictive of 30-, 60-, or 90-day hospital readmission or emergency department visits following discharge. Conclusion and Relevance: This study was the first to examine the effects of TI on post-discharge outcomes. Despite being associated with an increased rate of discharge medication changes, the presence of TI did not correlate with hospital readmission or emergency department visit rates. This study supports the safety of TI.

Clonidine as a strategy for discontinuing dexmedetomidine sedation in critically ill patients: A narrative review.

PURPOSE: To review the efficacy and safety of transitioning from dexmedetomidine to clonidine to facilitate weaning of patients from sedation with dexmedetomidine. There is a paucity of data describing dexmedetomidine withdrawal syndrome (DWS) as well as clonidine's place in therapy for DWS. This review will describe and analyze current literature to provide clinical recommendations. SUMMARY: A MEDLINE literature search was performed to identify original research articles describing DWS and/or transitioning from dexmedetomidine to clonidine for the purpose of weaning patients from sedation with dexmedetomidine. Four case reports describing DWS, 3 case reports describing the use of clonidine to treat DWS, and 3 observational studies describing the use of clonidine to facilitate dexmedetomidine weaning were identified. The incidence of and risk factors for DWS are unknown; factors including patient age and dexmedetomidine infusion rate, loading dose, and discontinuation strategy have inconsistent associations with DWS. All cases of DWS have been associated with infusion durations greater than 72 hours. While there are limited data describing clonidine use for the treatment of dexmedetomidine withdrawal, clonidine appears to be beneficial for dexmedetomidine weaning and its use for that purpose has been well described. Clonidine dosages that have been assessed for discontinuing dexmedetomidine vary from 0.1 to 0.3 mg orally or enterally every 6 to 8 hours; one study assessed use of transdermal clonidine (100 µg/24 h patch). Patients with extensive cardiac comorbidities may be more susceptible to adverse effects of clonidine, which may limit the drug's use for DWS intervention. CONCLUSION: Despite limited supportive data, clonidine provides a promising option for sedation management in adult ICU patients, with successful transitions from dexmedetomidine reported within 24 hours after clonidine initiation.

Evaluation of prophylactic antibiotic regimens on recurrence and mortality in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Limited data describe current SBP epidemiology and specific secondary SBP prophylactic regimens, leading to variable prescribing practices. This work aims to compare 90-day and one-year SBP recurrence and mortality based on secondary SBP antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort of patients >18 years with an SBP diagnosis from 2010 to 2015 at two academic institutions. Eligible patients had ascitic PMN counts ≥250cells/mm3 or a positive ascitic culture. Patients were compared based on secondary SBP prophylaxis regimens (i.e., daily, intermittent, or no prophylaxis). RESULTS: Of 791 patients with ascitic fluid samples, 86 patients were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis included daily (n=34), intermittent (n=36), or no prophylaxis (n=16). Nearly half of SBP episodes had a positive ascitic fluid culture; 50% were gram-negative pathogens, and 50% were gram-positive pathogens. Daily and intermittent regimens had similar rates of recurrence at 90-days (19.4% vs. 14.7%, p=0.60) and one-year (33.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.53). Similarly, mortality did not differ among daily and intermittent regimens at 90-days (32.4% vs. 30.6%, p=0.87) or one-year (67.6% vs. 63.9%, p=0.74). When comparing any prophylaxis vs. no prophylaxis, there were no differences in 90-day or one-year recurrence or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a history of SBP, our data indicate similar outcomes with daily, intermittent, or no secondary antibiotic prophylaxis. With available data, including ours, demonstrating a changing epidemiology for SBP pathogens, further data is required to determine if traditional approaches to secondary SBP prophylaxis remain appropriate.