Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Methotrexate (MTX) is an antirheumatic drug, transported by reduced folate carrier-1 (RFC1). The most common RFC1 gene variant, c.80 A>G (rs1051266) is ambiguously linked to adverse effects of MTX therapy in some rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

The purpose of meta-analysis was to summarize all major published studies on c.80 A>G SNP to clarify this ambiguity in MTX therapy.

A total of 18 studies representing 3592 RA patients comprising 699 men and 2893 women were included. Both fixed and random effect models were applied to study the data.

The RFC1 80A-allele showed null association with MTX-mediated toxicity in both fixed (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.80-1.03) and random effects (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.71-1.11) models. Because heterogeneity was observed in this association (P = 0.0006), data were segregated based on use of folate therapy. In 7 studies (n = 1191) where folate was used along with MTX, RFC1 AA patients showed reduced risk for MTX-mediated toxicity (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89; P = 0.0006). The RFC1 80A-allele was found to increase the efficacy of MTX therapy by 1.53-fold (95% CI: 1.24-1.88), whereas the 80AA-genotype increased the efficacy by 1.85-fold (95% CI: 1.41-2.42). No publication bias was observed in these associations.

RFC1 c.80 A>G is an important pharmacogenetic determinant of MTX therapy in RA. The RFC1 80A-allele robustly increased therapeutic efficacy and safety when folate was used along with MTX. Findings are relevant to decision-making in the clinical use of MTX as a treatment for RA patients harboring the RFC1 gene variant.

Opioid rotations from fentanyl to hydromorphone may reduce opioid/sedative exposure in critically ill children.

The primary objective was to determine the conversion percentage from fentanyl to hydromorphone infusions using equianalgesic conversions (0.1 mg fentanyl = 1.5 mg hydromorphone). Secondary objectives included identification of the median time and hydromorphone rate at stabilization (defined as the first 24-hour period no hydromorphone rates changed, 80% of State Behavioral Scale [SBS] scores between 0 and −1, and <3 hydromorphone boluses administered). Additional outcomes included a comparison of opioid/sedative requirements on the day of conversion versus the three 24-hour periods prior to conversion.

This retrospective study included children <18 years old converted from fentanyl to hydromorphone infusions over 6.3 years. Linear mixed models were used to determine if the mean cumulative opioid/sedative dosing differed from the day of conversion versus three 24-hour periods prior to conversion.

A total of 36 children were converted to hydromorphone. The median conversion percentage of hydromorphone was 86% of their fentanyl dose (interquartile range [IQR] = 67-100). The median hydromorphone rate at stabilization was 0.08 mg/kg/h (IQR = 0.05-0.1). Eight (22%) were stabilized on their initial hydromorphone rate; 8 (22%) never achieved stabilization. Patients had a significant decrease in opioid dosing on the day of conversion versus the 24-hour period prior to conversion but no changes in sedative dosing following conversion.

A median 14% fentanyl dose reduction was noted when transitioning to hydromorphone. Further exploration is needed to determine if opioid rotations with hydromorphone can reduce opioid/sedative exposure.

No clear association between standard vasopressin doses and body mass index exists, despite potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability among patients with septic shock. It is unknown if higher doses may alter hemodynamic response.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of vasopressin dose on hemodynamic response in obese patients with septic shock.

A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult, obese patients with septic shock receiving catecholamine vasopressors and vasopressin. Patients were analyzed according to vasopressin dose received: standard dose (≤0.04 U/min) and high dose (>0.04 U/min). The primary outcome was percentage change in norepinephrine equivalent (NEQ) dose.

A total of 182 patients were included in the analysis, with 136 in the standard-dose vasopressin group and 46 in the high-dose vasopressin group. There was no difference in percentage change in NEQ dose at 6 hours after standard- or high-dose vasopressin attainment (−28.6% vs −19.1%; P = 0.166). A greater increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 6 hours was observed with receipt of high-dose vasopressin (23.3% vs 15.3%; P = 0.023). Duration of shock and length of stay were significantly longer in patients who received high-dose vasopressin, with no difference in in-hospital mortality.

This represents the first analysis comparing standard and higher doses of vasopressin in obese patients with septic shock. Receipt of high-dose vasopressin was not associated with a difference in catecholamine requirement or improved outcomes. Further studies are warranted to provide guidance on the use of high-dose vasopressin in septic shock.

The clinical use of factor VIII inhibitor bypassing activity (FEIBA) for factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor reversal is derived from small studies with notable variation in patient eligibility for use, dosage regimens, concurrent supportive care, and outcome measures. Consequently, additional effectiveness and safety data are warranted to expand the literature evaluating FEIBA for FXa inhibitor reversal.

This study sought to determine the incidence of observed effective hemostasis within 24 hours of post-FEIBA® administration as well as in-hospital and 30-day post-discharge incidences of thromboembolic event (TEE) and mortality between apixaban and rivaroxaban in the intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and non-ICH populations.

This case series evaluated patients between January 1, 2014 through July 1, 2019 who received at least one FEIBA® dose for apixaban or rivaroxaban reversal secondary to acute ICH or non-ICH. Patient demographics, FEIBA® dosages, adjunct treatments, effectiveness, and safety outcomes were retrospectively collected from electronic medical record review. Modified hemostasis outcomes, adapted from criteria previously published by Sarode et al., TEE, and mortality between apixaban and rivaroxaban in the ICH and non-ICH populations were evaluated.

Among the 104 patients evaluated, 62 received apixaban and 42 rivaroxaban. Thirty apixaban and 25 rivaroxaban users experienced ICH, whereas 32 apixaban and 17 rivaroxaban users experienced non-ICH. Among the combined ICH and non-ICH populations, effective hemostasis occurred in 89%, TEE in 8%, and mortality in 13%. No statistically significant differences were observed within ICH and non-ICH populations receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban regarding effective hemostasis, TEE, or mortality.

The combined ICH and non-ICH overall rates of effective hemostasis, TEE, and mortality were comparable to preexisting studies of FEIBA for factor Xa inhibitor reversal. The limitations inherent to the study design warrant a randomized controlled trial with an active comparator to confirm these observations.

Eptifibatide is used in acute coronary syndromes to reversibly block platelet aggregation by inhibiting the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor. A serious adverse effect of eptifibatide is a profound drop in platelet count, termed eptifibatide-induced thrombocytopenia (EIT).

To provide insight into the types of complications and management of EIT.

Cases of EIT submitted to the Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting system were evaluated. Data analyses included management of EIT, complications of thrombocytopenia, initial platelets, and platelet nadir following eptifibatide.

103 cases of EIT were reported from January 2010 to 2019; 57 cases met the Naranjo scale and were included. Only 37 of those cases contained information on how EIT was managed. Eptifibatide administration was withheld in all 37 of those cases. Platelet transfusions were administered in 20 cases (54%). Two cases were managed with steroids (5.4%), and 1 case used intravenous immunoglobulin G to reverse EIT (2%). The median initial platelet count prior to administration of eptifibatide was 207 000 cells/mm³ (SD = 69 000; n = 27), and median platelet nadir was 9000 cells/mm³ (SD = 19 000; n = 35) The majority of complications of EIT included bleeding events (16/28, 57%). Delayed procedures, prolonged stay, allergic reactions, and thrombosis were each reported in 3 patients (10.75%).

Most cases of EIT were managed by withholding eptifibatide with platelet transfusion if necessary. The majority of complications included bleeding. However, significant procedure delays, prolonged hospital stay, thrombosis, and allergic reactions were also reported.

Goals of managing patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) are mitigating disease progression and ensuring safety while providing supportive care because no effective treatment exists. One strategy recommended in guidelines to meet these goals is optimizing medication management. Unfortunately, guideline implementation appears to be lacking as observed by the frequent occurrence of medication errors and adverse drug events.

To address this performance gap in the care of hospitalized patients receiving nephrotoxins and renally eliminated drugs, we sought to provide a potential intervention based on theory-informed behavior change.

Formative research with a qualitative analysis identifying what needs to change in patient care was completed by obtaining clinician opinion and expert opinion and reviewing the published literature. Frontline providers, including 8 physicians, 4 pharmacists, and a multiprofessional group of authors, provided insight into possible barriers to appropriate prescribing. Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior model and Theoretical Domain Framework were applied to characterize behavior change interventions and inform a potential implementation intervention for changing inappropriate prescribing behaviors.

Lack of knowledge about appropriate drug management in patients at risk for adverse outcomes was provided as a major barrier. Other reported barriers included a lack of: (1) tools to assist with drug management, (2) motivation to make changes, (3) routinization, and (4) an accountable clinician.

Assigning a designated clinician to execute a stepwise, routine care process following the checklist provided is a recommended intervention to overcome barriers. The intended impact is behavior change that reduces inappropriate prescribing.

To provide an overview of clinical recommendations regarding genomic medicine relating to pain management and opioid use disorder.

A literature review was conducted using the search terms pain management, pharmacogenomics, pharmacogenetics, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and opioids on PubMed (inception to February 1, 2021), CINAHL (2016 through February 1, 2021), and EMBASE (inception through February 1, 2021).

All relevant clinical trials, review articles, package inserts, and guidelines evaluating applicable pharmacogenotypes were considered for inclusion.

More than 300 Food and Drug Administration–approved medications contain pharmacogenomic information in their labeling. Genetic variability may alter the therapeutic effects of commonly prescribed pain medications. Pharmacogenomic-guided therapy continues to gain traction in clinical practice, but a multitude of barriers to widespread pharmacogenomic implementation exist.

Pain is notoriously difficult to treat given the need to balance safety and efficacy when selecting pharmacotherapy. Pharmacogenomic data can help optimize outcomes for patients with pain. With improved technological advances, more affordable testing, and a better understanding of genomic variants resulting in treatment disparities, pharmacogenomics continues to gain popularity. Unfortunately, despite these and other advancements, pharmacogenomic testing and implementation remain underutilized and misunderstood in clinical care, in part because of a lack of health care professionals trained in assessing and implementing test results.

A one-size-fits-all approach to pain management is inadequate and outdated. With increasing genomic data and pharmacogenomic understanding, patient-specific genomic testing offers a comprehensive and personalized treatment alternative worthy of additional research and consideration.

To describe the clinical presentation of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) and discuss current treatments and investigational products and their effect on patient outcomes.

A literature search was performed in PubMed (September 2018 to December 2020) using the following keywords: transthyretin amyloidosis, cardiomyopathy, polyneuropathy and transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy, monoclonal light-chain, tafamidis, cardiac amyloidosis, ATTR cardiomyopathy, green tea and inhibition of cardiac amyloidosis, AG10, tolcapone, tolcapone and leptomeningeal ATTR, PRX004, NI006, patisiran, inotersen, vutrisiran, AKCEA-TTR-LRx, and NTLA-2001.

Clinical trials were evaluated for evidence supporting pharmacology, safety, efficacy, and measured outcomes.

Until 2019, there were no approved treatments for ATTR-CM. Treatment consisted of symptom management and organ transplant. Nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments focused on the symptoms of heart failure (HF) associated with ATTR-CM. However, there are several emerging therapies recently approved or in development to address the underlying pathophysiology. Treatment classes for ATTR-CM include transthyretin stabilizers, human monoclonal antibodies, gene silencers, and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing.

ATTR-CM is a complex disease in which amyloidosis causes cardiomyopathy. Underdiagnosis is attributed to the clinical presentation being heterogeneous, indistinguishable from HF caused by other etiologies, and the need for invasive testing modalities, including endomyocardial biopsy. Improved diagnostic approaches along with targeted therapies can slow disease progression and enhance patient quality of life.

Diagnostic modalities along with biomarker and genetic testing could detect disease earlier and target therapy more accurately. Novel therapies demonstrate potential treatment benefits and can help shape the standard of care for these patients.

To review the literature describing the use of adjunctive phenobarbital in the treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS).

PubMed and EMBASE were searched using the following terms: phenobarbital, adjunct, refractory or treatment resistant, severe or complicated, and alcohol withdrawal delirium or alcohol withdrawal seizures.

The search was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published in English.

Seven studies were identified in the emergency department (ED; RCT, n = 1; cohort, n = 2), general medicine ward (cohort, n = 1), and intensive care unit (ICU; cohort, n = 3) settings. For all studies set in the ED and general medicine ward and for 1 ICU study, phenobarbital plus symptom-guided benzodiazepine therapy was compared to symptom-guided benzodiazepine monotherapy. The other 2 ICU studies examined adjunctive phenobarbital before and after implementation of a protocol, meaning patients in both arms could have received phenobarbital. Overall risk of bias across all studies was low to moderate.

The specific role of adjunctive phenobarbital in AWS is not clear because a majority of studies are retrospective cohorts with varying primary outcomes in different patient care settings.

In the ED and general medicine ward, phenobarbital demonstrated benzodiazepine-sparing effects. In the ICU, when a protocol guides phenobarbital use, the need for mechanical ventilation may be reduced. Adjunctive phenobarbital was well tolerated. Because of study limitations, it is challenging to provide specific recommendations for adjunctive phenobarbital use in severe AWS.

To determine the safety and efficacy of non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) initiated early after cardiac surgery.

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (database inception to January 20, 2021), www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/, NOAC trial registries, and bibliographies of relevant guidelines and other reviews were used.

Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that initiated NOACs within the index hospitalization and that reported bleeding for the primary outcome were included.

A total of 6 cohort studies, 1 RCT, and 3 ongoing RCTs were included. Most studies were single-centered, limited to postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting, and with 30-day follow-up; few studies included patients with isolated bioprosthetic valve replacement or valve repair. Bleeding risk varied (0%-28.6%), and all but one study showed no significantly higher risk with NOAC compared with warfarin.

Overall, NOACs were used in 26% to 37.5% of patients early after cardiac surgery. Starting a NOAC on postoperative day 4 appeared to have similar bleeding rates compared with warfarin, but clinical application is limited by heterogeneity of outcome definitions, confounding, and bias. Compared with warfarin, NOACs may have similar thromboembolism risk, reduced length of stay, and cost.

There is limited evidence to guide NOAC use early after cardiac surgery. Three ongoing randomized trials will add to the literature and provide guidance for clinicians on whether, in whom, when, and how to use NOACs safely early after cardiac surgery.

To discuss methods for the assessment of creatinine clearance (Cl_cr) when serum creatinine (SCr) is not at steady state in order to estimate kidney function and apply the estimate to kidney function staging for clinical assessment or drug dosing.

A PubMed search was conducted from 1976 to mid-January 2021 with other articles identified through review of bibliographies of retrieved articles and citations in Scopus.

Articles assessing Cl_cr under non–steady-state conditions and studies evaluating predictive equations were selected.

When SCr is systematically changing (ie, trending up or down), kinetic methods to estimate Cl_cr are appropriate. Estimates from kinetic methods should be individual based and not indexed to body surface area, and careful monitoring is required to confirm predictions as the situation evolves. Standard methods intended for steady-state conditions should not be used to estimate Cl_cr in patients with unstable SCr.

Creatinine continues to be a monitoring parameter of choice and is an important variable in all the commonly used equations for estimating Cl_cr and most important for estimating glomerular filtration rate. However, standard methods of estimating Cl_cr for medication dosing are not accurate under non–steady-state conditions.

The methods for kinetic clearance estimation and standards methods for clearance estimation, such as the Cockcroft-Gault equation, are mutually exclusive. There are no benefits of using the kinetic method in patients with stable SCr concentrations, and standard equations are not appropriate with unstable SCr concentrations.