Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Systemic Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Inpatient Setting: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers to inpatient alteplase administration and implement an interdisciplinary program to reduce time to systemic thrombolysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Compared with patients presenting to the emergency department with an acute ischemic stroke (AIS), inpatients are delayed in receiving alteplase for systemic thrombolysis. Institutional AIS metrics were extracted from the electronic medical records of patients presenting as an inpatient stroke alert. All patients who received alteplase for AIS were included in the analysis. A gap analysis was used to assess institutional deficiencies. An interdisciplinary intervention was initiated to address these deficiencies. Efficacy was measured with pre- and postintervention surveys and institutional AIS metric analysis. Statistical significance was determined using the Student t test. We identified 5 patients (mean age, 73 years; 100% (5/5) male; 80% (4/5) white) who met inclusion criteria for the preintervention period (January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017) and 10 patients (mean age, 71 years; 50% male; 80% white) for the postintervention period (October 31, 2018, to July 1, 2020). RESULTS: We found barriers to rapid delivery of thrombolytic treatment to include alteplase availability and comfort with bedside reconstitution. Interdisciplinary intervention strategies consisted of stocking alteplase on additional floors as well as structured education and hands-on alteplase reconstitution simulations for resident physicians. The mean time from stroke alert to thrombolysis was shorter postintervention than preintervention (57.4 minutes vs 77.8 minutes; P=.03). CONCLUSION: A coordinated interdisciplinary approach is effective in reducing time to systemic thrombolysis in patients experiencing AIS in the inpatient setting. A similar program could be implemented at other institutions to improve AIS treatment.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Antagonists for the Prevention of Migraine: Highlights From Pivotal Studies and the Clinical Relevance of This New Drug Class.

Objective: To review the new drug class of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (monoclonal antibodies) and their clinical relevance in migraine prophylaxis. Data Sources: A literature search was performed in PubMed (January 2009 to November 2019) using the terms migraine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for clinical trials and studies. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Reports from human studies in English were evaluated for clinical evidence supporting pharmacology, efficacy, and adverse events. Initial pharmacokinetic and preclinical studies were excluded. Data Synthesis: In chronic and episodic migraine, prophylaxis with injections of monoclonal antibodies antagonizing CGRP reduced monthly migraine days with minimal clinically significant adverse events. In addition, there is evidence supporting efficacy in refractory migraine despite optimal prophylaxis. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This is the first target-specific migraine prophylaxis treatment to show efficacy with minimal adverse effects. A higher drug cost is a barrier but is balanced by improved quality of life. Current therapies have limited efficacy and tolerability because of poor side effect profiles. CGRP antagonists represent a shift to more precise migraine treatments. Conclusions: Monoclonal antibodies inhibiting CGRP are effective in migraine prophylaxis with minimal adverse effects. Targeting CGRP is a novel clinical strategy in managing migraine.

Nonconvulsive status epilepticus secondary to acute porphyria crisis.

Both variegate and acute intermittent porphyria can manifest with various neurological symptoms. Although acute symptomatic seizures have been previously described, they are typically tonic-clonic and focal impaired awareness seizures. Convulsive status epilepticus and epilepsia partialis continua are rare and have been described on a case report basis. To our knowledge, there are no previously reported cases describing non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) with electroencephalogram (EEG) documentation in the setting of acute porphyria crisis. We report a unique presentation of NCSE, which resolved after administering levetiracetam in a patient with variegate porphyria, without a known seizure disorder.

Relevance of the Updated Food and Drug Administration Alteplase Label for Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Estimated Impact and Current Guidelines.

In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration updated the contraindications for the use of alteplase in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), potentially creating a greater impact on treatment. A history of intracranial hemorrhage and recent stroke within 3 months were removed as contraindications, increasing the number of patients eligible for alteplase. The aim of this commentary is to call attention to the updates and discuss them relative to current American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines. Additionally, we estimate the clinical impact of the updates by analyzing AIS admissions to a large-volume Comprehensive Stroke Center.

Comparison of Levetiracetam Dosing Regimens in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients Undergoing Intermittent Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (LEV) is primarily renally eliminated. In end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on hemodialysis (HD), pharmacokinetic studies recommend daily dosing with 50% supplemental doses after 4-hour HD sessions. However, poor medication adherence after HD could result in fluctuating plasma drug levels. OBJECTIVE: To compare two LEV dosing regimens, daily versus twice-daily (BID), in ESRD patients undergoing HD. METHODS: Consecutive ESRD patients (April 2013 to May 2014) receiving maintenance inpatient HD and prescribed LEV prior to admission to our academic tertiary hospital were prospectively analyzed. Demographics, initial lab values, adverse reactions, seizures, and LEV regimens were recorded. LEV levels were obtained pre-HD and post-HD along with levels after receiving post-HD doses. Recovery of plasma levels after HD was assessed by comparison of levels predialysis versus postdialysis and post-HD doses. RESULTS: We identified 22 patients who met inclusion criteria; 14 BID and 8 daily dosing. Mean predialysis, postdialysis, and post-HD dose plasma levels were higher in patients receiving LEV BID compared with daily (43.1 ± 6.3, 19.4 ± 5.2, 34.9 ± 4.3 vs 21.1 ± 3.9, 6.9 ± 1.5, 11.9 ± 1.7 µg/mL; P < 0.05). BID post-HD levels were 41.9 ± 4.6% of predialysis levels versus 36.9 ± 7.3% with daily dosing ( P = 0.275). Post-HD dose levels were 81.4±4.3% of predialysis on LEV BID versus 65.7 ± 8.8% on LEV daily ( P = 0.045). No seizures were reported during hospital admission in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to LEV daily, BID dosing achieved significantly higher levels and a better recovery to predialysis levels. Although limited by small numbers, a similar relationship between postdialysis levels was not detected.