Pharmacist-driven epoetin alfa-epbx dosing for hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of pharmacy consultation in managing epoetin alfa-epbx dosing for inpatients on hemodialysis. METHODS: This multisite, retrospective cohort study evaluated the implementation of an initial dose consultation for epoetin alfa-epbx by pharmacists. A pre-post cohort study evaluated patients from August 2020 through January 2021 and August 2021 through January 2022, respectively. Hospitalized patients were included if they were at least 18 years of age, received hemodialysis, and were administered an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) for anemia due to chronic kidney disease. Patients were excluded for religious objections to receiving blood products or if patients were discharged or died before their first hemodialysis session. The primary outcome was the average epoetin alfa-epbx acquisition cost per patient. Secondary endpoints were the epoetin alfa-epbx overall pharmacy purchasing cost, the average dose, and the number of administered doses. A subgroup analysis was performed for patients in the post group with an outpatient ESA before admission to determine the epoetin alfa-epbx days saved. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were included in the pre group, and 272 patients were included in the post group. The average acquisition cost was significantly lower in the post group ($1,681.77 vs $1,041.35, P < 0.0001). The overall pharmacy purchasing cost was also lower in the post group ($148,970.89 vs $127,873.25). The post group had a significantly lower average dose (13,694 vs 10,112 units, P = 0.0004), while the number of administered doses did not differ significantly between the groups (2.09 vs 1.79 doses, P = 0.0668). The subgroup analysis included 83 patients, which yielded 53 epoetin alfa-epbx days saved. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-driven ESA dosing was associated with significant decreases in ESA average acquisition cost and average total dose per patient.

Comparison of Clevidipine and Nicardipine for Acute Blood Pressure Reduction in Hemorrhagic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) with an intravenous antihypertensive, such as nicardipine or clevidipine, may reduce the risk of hematoma expansion and rebleeding. Previous studies comparing nicardipine and clevidipine in patients with stroke found no significant difference in blood pressure management. The inclusion of patients with ischemic stroke limited those studies because of convoluted results related to faster door-to-needle times. The purpose of this study was to compare clevidipine with nicardipine in time to goal SBP in hemorrhagic stroke. METHODS: This single-center retrospective observational cohort study evaluated adult hemorrhagic patients with stroke who received clevidipine or nicardipine from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if they had trauma-related hemorrhage, received concurrent continuous intravenous antihypertensives, received the study drug for less than 1-h duration, had a less than 24-h washout period between agents, required any dialysis, were pregnant, or were incarcerated. The primary outcome was time to goal SBP. Secondary outcomes included need for additional antihypertensives, percentage of time at goal SBP, all-cause mortality, 30-day readmission, rebleeding, total volume of antihypertensive infusion, hematoma expansion, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and cost of infusion. Safety outcomes included hypotension, severe hypotension, rebound hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, onset of atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: Of 89 patients included in this study, 60 received nicardipine and 29 received clevidipine. There was no significant difference between nicardipine and clevidipine in time to goal SBP in the unmatched cohort (30 vs. 45 min; p = 0.73) or the propensity-score-matched cohort (30 vs. 45 min; p = 0.47). Results were not affected by potential confounders in the multiple linear regression. The nicardipine group had a higher total volume from infusion compared with the clevidipine group (1410 vs. 330 mL; p < 0.0001) but significantly lower cost ($99.6 vs. $497.4; p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in need for additional antihypertensives, percentage of time at goal SBP, all-cause mortality, 30-day readmission, rebleeding, hematoma expansion, intensive care unit LOS, and hospital LOS. Compared with the clevidipine group, the nicardipine group had less rebound hypertension (40% vs. 75.9%; p = 0.0017) and less bradycardia (23.3% vs. 44.8%; p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in hypotension, severe hypotension, tachycardia, and acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hemorrhagic stroke, nicardipine appeared to have similar efficacy as clevidipine in SBP reduction, with a more likely reduction of rebound hypertension and drug cost. This retrospective study was underpowered, which may limit these implications. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these results.