Prospective Observational Evaluation of Predatory Journals in Critical Care Pharmacy Practice: Defining Characteristics Associated With Receiving Unsolicited Invitations to Publish.

Open-access publishing promotes accessibility to scholarly research at no cost to the reader. The emergence of predatory publishers, which exploit the author-pay model by charging substantial publication fees for publication in journals with questionable publishing processes, is on the rise. Authors are solicited through aggressive marketing tactics, though who is targeted is not well described. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with critical care pharmacists that make them targets of unsolicited invitations to publish. A prospective, observational study of critical care pharmacists was performed. Participants archived emails received by their professional email that were unsolicited invitations to submit their original work for publication in a journal (unsolicited journals). Variables were evaluated to determine which were associated with unsolicited invitations; these were compared to legitimate journals, defined as all PubMed-indexed journals in which the participants were previously published. Twenty-three pharmacist participants were included, all of whom were residency and/or fellowship trained and practicing in an academic medical center. Participants had a median of 7 years of experience since their post-graduate training, 6 years since their last change in professional email address, and 2 years since their first PubMed-indexed publication. From these participants, 136 unsolicited and 59 legitimate journals were included. The average number of invitations increased 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.05) times for every additional PubMed-indexed publication (P < .001). Most unsolicited journals were considered predatory. Legitimate and unsolicited journals differed significantly. The number of previous PubMed-indexed publications strongly correlates with the likelihood of critical care pharmacists receiving unsolicited publication invitations, often from predatory journal.

Phase 3 Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Early Trophic Enteral Nutrition With "No Enteral Nutrition" in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose and timing of enteral nutrition (EN) in septic shock are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 single-center randomized controlled pilot trial comparing early trophic EN with "no EN" in mechanically ventilated adults with septic shock, with the hypothesis that implementing a protocol comparing early trophic EN with "no EN" in patients with septic shock would be feasible. Patients were randomized to early trophic EN or "no EN" until off vasopressor for 3 hours. The primary outcome was feasibility in achieving >75% consent and compliance rate and <10% contamination rate. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients were eligible for enrollment, and 49 were available for consent. Thirty-one (86%) consented and were randomized and 100% of patients in the early EN arm and 94% in the "no EN" arm completed their protocols. While on vasopressors, early EN group received median 384 kcal, and the "no EN" group received median 0 kcal. Contamination rate was 0 in the early trophic EN arm and 6% in the "no EN" arm. The early EN group had median 25 intensive care unit-free days, as compared with 12 in the "no EN" arm (P = .014). The early EN arm had median 27 ventilator-free days, compared with 14 in "no EN" arm (P = .009). CONCLUSION: Our protocol comparing early trophic EN with "no EN" in septic shock was feasible. Early trophic EN may be beneficial, but a larger multicenter trial is warranted to confirm the observed clinical benefits seen in this trial.

Characterization of alteplase therapy for presumed or confirmed pulmonary embolism during cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE: The dosing and administration of alteplase in cardiac arrest due to suspected or confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE) are characterized. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, cohort study evaluated adult patients who received alteplase during PE-induced cardiac arrest at 16 medical centers. Outcomes analyzed included alteplase dosing characteristics, cardiopulmonary resuscitation survival, time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), documented occurrence of major or minor bleeding, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and survival to discharge. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were included in the analysis. Forty-six percent of patients received alteplase by a bolus-only dosing strategy. The most common bolus-only alteplase dose was 50 mg. Patients in the bolus-only group had a significantly shorter mean time from cardiac arrest onset to alteplase administration (15.1 minutes) compared with both the infusion-only group (46.4 minutes) and the bolus-with-infusion group (48.0 minutes) (p = 0.006). The mean cumulative alteplase dose was significantly higher in patients who had ROSC than those who did not (90.6 and 69.4 mg, respectively; p = 0.03). Although there was a significant difference in the cardiac arrest survival between groups, there was no difference between dosing strategies and the attainment of ROSC, and survival to hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving alteplase for presumed or confirmed PE during cardiac arrest, the most common treatment was administration of a single 50-mg bolus of the thrombolytic agent. This treatment was received by all survivors of cardiac arrest.

Optimizing drug therapy in the surgical intensive care unit.

This article provides a review of commonly prescribed medications in the surgical ICU, focusing on sedatives, antipsychotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, cardiovascular agents, anticoagulants, and antibiotics. A brief overview of pharmacology is followed by practical considerations to aid prescribers in selecting the best therapy within a given category of drugs to optimize patient outcomes.

Use of prasugrel in a patient with clopidogrel hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of successful use of prasugrel following percutaneous coronary intervention with placement of a bare metal stent in a patient with a documented hypersensitivity reaction to clopidogrel. CASE SUMMARY: A 61-year-old male with a history of coronary artery disease with coronary stent placement presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The patient had developed Stephens-Johnson syndrome 6 years earlier following clopidogrel administration, characterized by erythematous plaques and subsequent desquamation of the hands and feet; clopidogrel was discontinued and he was subsequently treated with ticlopidine in addition to aspirin. The third-generation thienopyridine prasugrel was initiated as a therapeutic alternative to clopidogrel after placement of a bare metal stent; a 60-mg dose was administered after extubation, followed by 10 mg/day. No signs of allergic reaction were observed in the days, weeks, and months following administration. DISCUSSION: Thienopyridines, specifically clopidogrel, are the standard of care for prevention of coronary stent thrombosis; however, there are few data available on cross-hypersensitivity between these agents. One study demonstrated that 27% of patients who developed an allergic or hematologic reaction to clopidogrel developed a similar reaction to ticlopidine. Other therapeutic options for patients with clopidogrel hypersensitivity who are undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement include clopidogrel desensitization, warfarin plus aspirin, cilostazol, ticagrelor, and ticlopidine. However, these options are limited by efficacy and/or toxicity. With its approval in 2009, prasugrel has become a potential treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel may be considered a therapeutic alternative in some patients allergic or intolerant to clopidogrel, but additional data are warranted to make a strong conclusion.