Impact of the introduction of real-time therapeutic drug monitoring on empirical doses of carbapenems in critically ill burn patients.

PURPOSE: Adequate empirical antibiotic dose selection for critically ill burn patients is difficult due to extreme variability in drug pharmacokinetics. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may aid antibiotic prescription and implementation of initial empirical antimicrobial dosage recommendations. This study evaluated how gradual TDM introduction altered empirical dosages of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin in our burn ICU. METHODS: Imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem use and daily empirical dosage at a five-bed burn ICU were analyzed retrospectively. Data for all burn admissions between 2001 and 2011 were extracted from the hospital's computerized information system. For each patient receiving a carbapenem, episodes of infection were reviewed and scored according to predefined criteria. Carbapenem trough serum levels were characterized. Prior to May 2007, TDM was available only by special request. Real-time carbapenem TDM was introduced in June 2007; it was initially available weekly and has been available 4 days a week since 2010. RESULTS: Of 365 patients, 229 (63%) received antibiotics (109 received carbapenems). Of 23 TDM determinations for imipenem/cilastatin, none exceeded the predefined upper limit and 11 (47.8%) were insufficient; the number of TDM requests was correlated with daily dose (r=0.7). Similar numbers of inappropriate meropenem trough levels (30.4%) were below and above the upper limit. Real-time TDM introduction increased the empirical dose of imipenem/cilastatin, but not meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time carbapenem TDM availability significantly altered the empirical daily dosage of imipenem/cilastatin at our burn ICU. Further studies are needed to evaluate the individual impact of TDM-based antibiotic adjustment on infection outcomes in these patients.

High doses of onabotulinumtoxinA in post-stroke spasticity: a retrospective analysis.

We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of high doses of onabotulinumtoxinA (from 600 to 800 units) in 26 patients affected by upper and/or lower limb post-stroke spasticity. They were assessed before, 30 and 90 days after treatment. We observed a significant muscle tone reduction and a significant functional improvement (assessed with the Disability Assessment Scale). No adverse events were reported. In our retrospective analysis the treatment with high doses of onabotulinumtoxinA showed to be effective and safe.

Safety of Prasugrel Loading Doses in Patients Pre-Loaded With Clopidogrel in the Setting of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Nonrandomized Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of the concurrent administration of a clopidogrel and prasugrel loading dose in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Prasugrel is one of the preferred P2Y12 platelet receptor antagonists for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. The use of prasugrel was evaluated clinically in clopidogrel-naive patients. METHODS: Between September 2009 and October 2012, a total of 2,023 STEMI patients were enrolled in the COMFORTABLE (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI]) and the SPUM-ACS (Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes) studies. Patients receiving a prasugrel loading dose were divided into 2 groups: 1) clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose; and 2) a prasugrel loading dose. The primary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding in hospital at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 2,023 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, 427 (21.1%) received clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose, 447 (22.1%) received a prasugrel loading dose alone, and the remaining received clopidogrel only. At 30 days, the primary safety endpoint was observed in 1.9% of those receiving clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose and 3.4% of those receiving a prasugrel loading dose alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 1.30, p = 0.18). The HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) bleeding score tended to be higher in prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.076). The primary safety endpoint results, however, remained unchanged after adjustment for these differences (clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose vs. prasugrel only; HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.23 to 1.27], p = 0.16). No differences in the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were observed at 30 days (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.62, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: This observational, nonrandomized study of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients suggests that the administration of a loading dose of prasugrel in patients pre-treated with a loading dose of clopidogrel is not associated with an excess of major bleeding events. (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI] [COMFORTABLE]; NCT00962416; and Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes [SPUM-ACS]; NCT01000701).