Making a case for the right '-ase' in acute ischemic stroke: alteplase, tenecteplase, and reteplase.

INTRODUCTION: Alteplase, reteplase, and tenecteplase are tissue plasminogen activators (TPA) approved for the management of acute myocardial infarction. Only alteplase is also approved for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The US Food and Drug Administration has received reports of accidental administration of tenecteplase or reteplase instead of alteplase in patients with AIS, which can result in failure to treat patients with the intended agent and lead to potential overdose. AREAS COVERED: This review compares the molecular and clinical features of alteplase, reteplase, and tenecteplase (TNK), identifies factors contributing to medication errors among these agents, and provides steps to reduce medication errors. EXPERT OPINION: Primary factors contributing to medication errors among tissue plasminogen activators include the use of the abbreviations 'TPA,' 'tPA,' or 'TNK' in written or verbal orders and use of these agents in similar settings (e.g. emergency departments and critical care areas). Steps to reduce the likelihood of accidental substitution of tenecteplase or reteplase for alteplase in patients with AIS include the use of full brand or generic names and inclusion of the indication in written and verbal orders, the addition of alerts in automated dispensing machines and ordering systems and use of stroke boxes containing alteplase and materials for administration.

70/30 insulin algorithm versus sliding scale insulin.

BACKGROUND: The medical literature supports the fact that sliding scale dosing of insulin is an ineffective means to control blood glucose concentrations. Despite this, many clinicians still use sliding scale insulin (SSI) regimens. A better tool for controlling hyperglycemia is clearly needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of an algorithm using 70/30 insulin with traditional SSI dosing for glycemic control in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A prospective, cohort, comparative trial was conducted at a 644-bed, 2-hospital, regional referral health system. Patients were screened for enrollment based on orders received in the pharmacy for sliding scale dosing of insulin. Patients were treated either following an algorithm using 70/30 insulin twice daily or traditional SSI dosing as written by the prescribing physician. RESULTS: Twenty patients with type 2 diabetes were involved in this pilot trial: 10 were treated with the 70/30 insulin algorithm and 10 received a physician-determined traditional SSI regimen. Patients treated based on the 70/30 insulin algorithm achieved better glycemic control (p = 0.042). No difference between the groups was detected in the average number of insulin units administered, insulin injections, or days patients spent on their respective insulin regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control with the 70/30 insulin algorithm was superior to traditional SSI dosing.