Doxycycline adherence for the management of Chlamydia trachomatis infections.

BACKGROUND: The updated 2021 CDC treatment guidelines recommend a single dose of 500 mg intramuscular ceftriaxone for Neisseria gonorrhea and doxycycline 100 mg by mouth twice daily for 7 days for Chlamydia trachomatis coinfection. However, there is a significant public health concern regarding patient non-adherence to the 7-day course of doxycycline. To date, there are no studies assessing this concern. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate a patient's adherence to doxycycline for chlamydial infections after discharge from the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: This was an IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluating the adherence to doxycycline for Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Patients who received treatment and were discharged from the ED with a doxycycline e-prescription between May 2021 and September 2022 were included. Patients were excluded if <18 years of age, pregnant, a sexual assault victim, or admitted inpatient. The primary endpoint was the incidence of doxycycline prescription pick-up after discharge from the ED. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of repeat ED visits for the same chief complaint within 28 days. Descriptive statistics were computed for all study variables and Fisher's Exact tests were used to assess the outcomes. RESULTS: A review of 144 patients who tested positive for chlamydia and were discharged from the ED with an e-prescription for doxycycline revealed that 18% of patients did not pick up their prescription (N = 26). Non-adherent patients were more likely to return to the ED with the same chief complaint within 28 days (23.1% vs 7.6%, OR 3.6 [1.2-11.3], p = 0.026). No differences were detected in baseline demographics, housing status, insurance type, sexual orientation, or Sexually Transmitted Infection history. CONCLUSION: For patients with a positive chlamydia infection who were discharged from the ED on doxycycline, an 18% non-adherence rate was found and a 3.6-fold higher likelihood of returning to the ED with the same chief complaint if the prescription was not picked up.

Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The preferred vasopressor in post-cardiac arrest shock has not been established with robust clinical outcomes data. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, refractory shock, and hemodynamic parameters in post-cardiac arrest patients who received either norepinephrine or epinephrine as primary vasopressor support. METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from 2000 to 2022. Included studies were prospective, retrospective, or published abstracts comparing norepinephrine and epinephrine in adults with post-cardiac arrest shock or with cardiogenic shock and extractable post-cardiac arrest data. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes included incidence of arrhythmias or refractory shock. RESULTS: The database search returned 2646 studies. Two studies involving 853 participants were included in the systematic review. The proposed meta-analysis was deferred due to low yield. Crude incidence of in-hospital mortality was numerically higher in the epinephrine group compared with norepinephrine in both studies, but only statistically significant in one. Risk of bias was moderate to severe for in-hospital mortality. Additional outcomes were reported differently between studies, minimizing direct comparison. CONCLUSION: The vasopressor with the best mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in post-cardiac arrest shock remains unclear. Randomized studies are crucial to remedy this.

UpdatED: The emergency medicine pharmacotherapy literature of 2022.

The purpose of this article is to summarize pharmacotherapy related emergency medicine (EM) literature indexed in 2022. Articles were selected utilizing a modified Delphi approach. The table of contents from pre-determined journals were reviewed and independently evaluated via the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system by paired authors, with disagreements adjudicated by a third author. Pharmacotherapy-related publications deemed to be GRADE 1A and 1B were reviewed by the group for inclusion in the review. In all, this article summarizes and provides commentary on the potential clinical impact of 13 articles, 4 guidelines, and 3 meta-analyses covering topics including anticoagulant reversal, tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke, guideline updates for heart failure and aortic aneurysm, magnesium in atrial fibrillation, sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and pain management strategies in the Emergency Department (ED), and tranexamic acid use in epistaxis and GI bleed.

The Emergency Medicine Pharmacotherapy Literature of 2021.

This article highlights the most relevant emergency medicine (EM) pharmacotherapy publications indexed in 2021. A modified Delphi approach was utilized for selected journals to identify the most impactful EM pharmacotherapy studies via the GRADE system. After review of journal table of contents GRADE 1A and 1B articles were reviewed by authors. Twenty articles, 2 guidelines, 2 position papers, and 2 meta-analysis were selected for full summary. Articles included in this review highlight acute agitation management, acute appendicitis treatment, sexually transmitted infection updates, optimizing sepsis management and treatment, updates for the ideal thrombolytic agent in acute ischemic stroke and endovascular therapy candidates, indications for tranexamic acid, calicium for out of hospital cardiac arrest, optimial inotrope for cardiogenic shock, awareness during rapid sequence intubation paralysis, comparison of propofol or dexmedetomidine for sedation, treatment of cannabis hyperemsis syndrome, and prophylactic use of diphenhydramine to reduce neuroleptic side effects. Selected articles are summarized to include design, results, limitations, conclusions and impact.

Clinical outcomes after 4F-PCC for warfarin-associated ICH and baseline GCS less than or equal to 8.

PURPOSE: There is limited evidence describing the mortality benefit of utilizing 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in patients presenting with a warfarin-associated intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of ≤8. The aim of this study is to determine the potential mortality benefit of 4F-PCC in this patient population. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review, performed at a comprehensive stroke center from October 2013 through August 2020. Patients were included if they were ≥ 18 years of age, experienced a spontaneous ICH with baseline GCS ≤ 8, treated with warfarin prior to admission, had a baseline INR ≥ 1.7, and received 4F-PCC for INR normalization due to warfarin-associated ICH. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients received 4F-PCC in the specified time period. Of those patients, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. Sixteen patients (64%) experienced in-hospital mortality. When compared to a historical estimated 80% mortality rate in the studied patient population, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.208) in mortality when 4F-PCC was utilized to reverse INR. CONCLUSION: The administration of 4F-PCC in patients presenting with warfarin-related ICH and GCS ≤ 8 did not result in statistically significant mortality benefit. Our results are limited by study design and sample size. Thus, larger studies are needed to determine if a benefit exists for 4F-PCC in this patient population. Although the results are not statistically significant, our small study suggests that there may be a clinically significant mortality benefit when 4F-PCC is utilized.

Impact of Prior-to-Admission Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nares Screening in Critically Ill Adults With Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The high negative predictive value (NPV) of a negative nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) result in suspected MRSA pneumonia is well established; however, data are limited on the NPV of samples collected prior to hospital admission for critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive characteristics of MRSA nares screening performed prior to hospital admission in critically ill adult patients diagnosed with pneumonia. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in critically ill patients with pneumonia and MRSA nares screening within 60 days of respiratory culture. The primary outcome was NPV of MRSA nares for MRSA pneumonia using samples within 60 days compared to in-hospital respiratory cultures. A sensitivity analysis was performed for samples within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, and MRSA pneumonia risk factors. RESULTS: The NPV for MRSA nares screening collected prior to hospital admission was high at 98% (95% CI = 96%-99%) for samples collected within 60 days (n = 243) and 99% (95% CI: 94%-99.9%) for samples within 30 days (n = 119). Specificity for MRSA nares collected 60 days prior to admission (96%, 95% CI: 93-98) and 30 days (96%, 95% CI: 91%-99%) were both high. PPV and sensitivity were lower. Risk factors for MRSA pneumonia were similar. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: MRSA nares screening within 60 days of intensive care unit admission has a high NPV and specificity for MRSA pneumonia in critically ill patients and may be a powerful stewardship tool for avoidance of empirical anti-MRSA therapy.

Staying InformED: Top emergency Medicine pharmacotherapy articles of 2020.

The year 2020 was not easy for Emergency Medicine (EM) clinicians with the burden of tackling a pandemic. A large focus, rightfully so, was placed on the evolving diagnosis and management of patients with COVID-19 and, as such, the ability of clinicians to remain up to date on key EM pharmacotherapy literature may have been compromised. This article reviews the most important EM pharmacotherapy publications indexed in 2020. A modified Delphi approach was utilized for selected journals to identify the most impactful EM pharmacotherapy studies. A total of fifteen articles, eleven trials and four meta-analyses, were identified. This review provides a summary of each study, along with a commentary on the impact to the EM literature and EM clinician.

Evaluation of the blood pressure effects of diltiazem versus metoprolol in the acute treatment of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the difference in blood pressure effects of diltiazem intravenous push (IVP) and metoprolol IVP in the acute management of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate (AF with RVR). METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) between January 2012 and September 2018 in AF with RVR and received either diltiazem IVP or metoprolol IVP as the first agent for rate control. The primary objective was the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) within one hour of initial medication administration. Secondary outcomes included repeat doses within one hour, rate control to <110 beats per minute, and SBP <90 mmHg or decrease by >40% within three hours. Subgroup analysis of patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients included, 80 received diltiazem and 80 metoprolol. The primary outcome of median change in SBP at one hour was a difference of -9 [-21 to 6] mmHg in the diltiazem group versus a difference of -4 [-18 to 9] mmHg in the metoprolol group (p = 0.102). Subgroup analysis (n = 28) of patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg demonstrated an increase of 7 [-0.25 to 19] mmHg in the diltiazem group versus increase of 7 [0 to 13] in the metoprolol group (p = 0.910). CONCLUSION: No significant difference was observed in the blood pressure effects of diltiazem IVP versus metoprolol IVP in the acute management of AF with RVR.

Key articles and guidelines for the emergency medicine clinical pharmacist: 2011-2018 update.

PURPOSE: To summarize recently published research reports and practice guidelines on emergency medicine (EM)-related pharmacotherapy. SUMMARY: Our author group was composed of 14 EM pharmacists, who used a systematic process to determine main sections and topics for the update as well as pertinent literature for inclusion. Main sections and topics were determined using a modified Delphi method, author and peer reviewer groups were formed, and articles were selected based on a comprehensive literature review and several criteria for each author-reviewer pair. These criteria included the document "Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine - Levels of Evidence (March 2009)" but also clinical implications, interest to reader, and belief that a publication was a "key article" for the practicing EM pharmacist. A total of 105 articles published from January 2011 through July 2018 were objectively selected for inclusion in this review. This was not intended as a complete representation of all available pertinent literature. The reviewed publications address the management of a wide variety of disease states and topic areas that are commonly found in the emergency department: analgesia and sedation, anticoagulation, cardiovascular emergencies, emergency preparedness, endocrine emergencies, infectious diseases, neurology, pharmacy services and patient safety, respiratory care, shock, substance abuse, toxicology, and trauma. CONCLUSION: There are many important recent additions to the EM-related pharmacotherapy literature. As is evident with the surge of new studies, guidelines, and reviews in recent years, it is vital for the EM pharmacist to continue to stay current with advancing practice changes.

Levetiracetam vs. phenytoin as 2nd-line treatment for status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin (PHT) as second-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE). METHODS: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were assessed for prospective randomized trials comparing LEV with PHT as second-line treatment of SE published from inception until December 18th, 2019. The primary outcome was seizure cessation. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Quality analysis was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020136417). RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 1732 patients were included. Overall, seizure cessation occurred in 657 of 887 (74%) of patients in the LEV group and 600 of 845 (71%) in the PHT group. Treatment success did not differ significantly between groups, and the relative risk (RR) was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.12; I2 = 53%). Six of the studies were at low risk of bias, one study had some risk, and two studies had high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LEV or PHT as second-line agents after benzodiazepine (BZD) for the treatment of SE was not associated with a difference in seizure cessation. Because there are minimal differences in efficacy at this time, clinicians should consider alternative factors when deciding on an antiepileptic drug (AED).

Factors associated with unsuccessful follow-up in patients undertreated for gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.

INTRODUCTION: Neisseria gonorrhea (GC) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) are two commonly encountered sexually transmitted infections in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: The study was a single-center, retrospective cohort of patients screened for GC/CT infections at an urban, academic medical center ED. Participants were identified through electronic medical record reports. Patients were excluded if they absconded, were discharged against medical advice, or had a chief complaint of sexual assault. Patients were classified as having tested positive or negative for GC/CT and further classified as having received adequate treatment, overtreatment, or undertreatment. The undertreatment group was further assessed for successful versus unsuccessful follow-up. The primary aim was to determine factors associated with unsuccessful follow-up in patients undertreated. Secondary aims included rate of overtreatment, rate of undertreatment, and method of contact in patients with successful follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 10,452 patients were included. Of the 456 undertreated patients, follow-up was successful in 425 (93.2%) patients and unsuccessful in 31 (6.8%) patients. No history of STIs was associated with a higher rate of unsuccessful follow-up in patients undertreated for GC/CT infections (52.9% versus 74.2%, difference = -21.3%, 95% CI -37.4%, -5.1%). Rate of overtreatment was 19.1%, and rate of undertreatment was 46.5%. Phone contact was the most frequent method of successful contact, which occurred in 98.6% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: GC/CT infections continue to be overtreated in the ED. Based on this study, no history of prior sexually transmitted infections was associated with unsuccessful follow-up in patients undertreated for GC/CT infections after discharge from the ED.

Glucagon for Relief of Acute Esophageal Foreign Bodies and Food Impactions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Glucagon is frequently used for the relief of esophageal impactions. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucagon for acute esophageal foreign body and food impactions. PubMed, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 1, 2018. Retrospective, observational, and randomized controlled trials assessing glucagon for the relief of acute esophageal foreign body and food impaction were included. There were no language or age restrictions. Only studies conducted on humans and with a comparator (e.g., control or placebo) were included. Study quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Quality of evidence analysis was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. A total of 1988 studies were identified, and five studies with a total of 1185 subjects were included. Treatment success occurred in 213 of 706 (30.2%) patients in the glucagon group and 158 of 479 (33.0%) patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.17, p=0.42). There was minimal statistical heterogeneity (I2  = 14%, p=0.33). No publication bias was identified. Adverse events were identified in 24 (15.0%) patients in the glucagon group and 0 (0%) patients in the placebo group (risk difference [RD] 0.18, 95% CI 0.03-0.33, p=0.02). Vomiting events occurred more frequently in the glucagon group (17 of 160 [10.6%] vs 0 of 53 [0%]) but was not statistically significant (RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03-0.17, p=0.19). Glucagon was not associated with a difference in treatment success but had a higher rate of adverse events for the treatment of esophageal foreign body and food impaction. Further controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of glucagon with adequate power to assess adverse events.