Front-Loaded Versus Low-Intermittent Phenobarbital Dosing for Benzodiazepine-Resistant Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Phenobarbital is frequently used to manage severe alcohol withdrawal. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of mechanical ventilation in patients with benzodiazepine-resistant alcohol withdrawal between front-loaded and low-intermittent phenobarbital dosing strategies. METHODS: In this retrospective before-after study, we analyzed patients that received phenobarbital for severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome in a tertiary medical ICU. Patients received low-intermittent phenobarbital doses (260 mg intravenous push × 1 followed by 130 mg intravenous push every 15 min as needed) from January  2013 to July 2015, and front-loaded phenobarbital doses (10 mg/kg intravenous infusion over 30 min) from July 2015 to January 2017. RESULTS: In total, 87 patients met inclusion criteria for this study: 41 received low-intermittent phenobarbital and 46 received front-loaded phenobarbital). The incidence of mechanical ventilation was 13 (28%) in the front-loaded dosing group vs. 26 (63%) in the low-intermittent dosing group (odds ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1.8-10.9]). The cumulative dose of phenobarbital administered and serum phenobarbital levels were similar between both groups, although the front-loaded group had significantly lower benzodiazepine requirements than the low-intermittent group (median 86 mg [IQR 24-197] vs. 228 mg [115-298], P < 0.01) and reduced need for any continuous sedative infusion (OR 7.7 [95% CI 1.6-27], P < 0.01). There was no difference in respiratory failure or hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Front-loaded phenobarbital dosing, when compared to low-intermittent phenobarbital dosing, for benzodiazepine-resistant alcohol withdrawal was associated with significantly lower mechanical ventilation incidence and continuous sedative use.

Daptomycin-Induced Acute Eosinophilic Pneumonia: Late Onset and Quick Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Daptomycin is a cyclic lipopeptide antibiotic that provides great coverage for gram positive cocci. From the early years of daptomycin use, concerns were raised regarding the pulmonary side effects of daptomycin and potential development of acute eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP) secondary to daptomycin therapy. DISCUSSION: AEP could be idiopathic or induced by drugs or toxins. It is a distinct entity from atopic diseases and autoimmune, parasitic, or fungal infections that can also cause pulmonary eosinophilia. Multiple medications are associated with acute eosinophilic pneumonia. Multiple cases of daptomycin-induced AEP have been reported in the literature. Diagnosis of AEP is based on clinical history, laboratory tests, and radiographic studies. Obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage or lung biopsy is needed to confirm the diagnosis. Timing of the drug use and clinical presentation is crucial in the diagnosis of drug-induced AEP. Discontinuation of the offending drug and systemic corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment with great outcomes and recovery. CONCLUSION: We present a case of AEP caused by daptomycin, with complete recovery after discontinuation of daptomycin and administration of steroids. The patient had AEP after almost 6 weeks of daptomycin therapy which has never been reported in literature and our patient achieved complete recovery with appropriate management.