Jerrica E. Shuster

Consequences of avoiding β-lactams in patients with β-lactam allergies

BACKGROUND The choice of empiric antibiotics for the treatment of gram-negative bacilli (GNB) bloodstream infections (BSIs) in patients presenting with a β-lactam (BL) allergy is often a difficult decision given that these agents are first-line treatment in many guidelines. OBJECTIVE We sought to compare rates of clinical failure between patients with a history of BL allergy who received either a BL or a non-β-lactam (NBL). METHODS Adult patients with a past medical history of BL allergy and receipt of antibiotics for treatment of a GNB BSI were included from 3 academic medical centers. Treatment groups were classified as BL or NBL groups based on the empiric antibiotics received. Clinical failure was assessed 72 to 96 hours after initiation of empiric antibiotics. Hypersensitivity reactions during receipt of antibiotic therapy for the index BSI were recorded. RESULTS A total of 552 patients were included for analysis: 433 patients in the BL group and 119 patients in the NBL group. Clinical failure was higher in the NBL group compared with the BL group (38.7% vs 27.4%, P = .030). The most common cause of clinical failure was a temperature of greater than 38.0°C 72 to 96 hours after receipt of empiric antibiotics (NBL group: 22.7% vs BL group: 13.9%, P = .016). Hypersensitivity occurred in 16 (2.9%) of 552 patients. Thirteen (2.5%) of 552 patients experiencing hypersensitivity reactions were exposed to a BL during treatment for GNB BSI. CONCLUSION Among patients with a BL allergy, use of BL antibiotics is associated with a lower rate of clinical failure. The low rate of hypersensitivity provides further evidence about the risk of cross-reactivity between BL classes. These results support the practice of using a BL from an alternative class for patients in need of gram-negative antibiotic coverage.

Treatment of Hypertension With Chronotherapy: Is It Time of Drug Administration?

Objective: To review evidence for dosing antihypertensives at bedtime and possible cardiovascular risk reduction. Data Sources: A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials database literature search (1990-September 2014) limited to human subjects was performed using the search terms hypertension, chronotherapy, ambulatory blood pressure, morning administration, evening administration, and antihypertensives. Additional references were identified from literature citations. Study Selection: All prospective studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes or comparing morning to evening administration of antihypertensives were selected. Data Synthesis: Compared with morning administration, dosing one or more antihypertensive medications at bedtime helps induce a normal circadian blood pressure pattern and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in individuals with hypertension. Similar results have been reported in high-risk individuals with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and resistant hypertension. A lack of diversity among studied populations and reliance on subgroup analyses are among the limitations of these data. All antihypertensive medications have not been studied in chronotherapy and do not uniformly achieve desired results. The most substantial evidence exists for medications affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Conclusions: Despite growing evidence and promise as a cost-effective strategy for reducing cardiovascular risk, chronotherapy is not uniformly recommended in the treatment of hypertension. Careful selection of patients and antihypertensives for chronotherapy is required. Further investigation is needed to evaluate the definitive impact of chronotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes.

Treatment of Hypertension With Chronotherapy Is It Time

Objective: To review evidence for dosing antihypertensives at bedtime and possible cardiovascular risk reduction. Data Sources: A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials database literature search (1990-September 2014) limited to human subjects was performed using the search terms hypertension, chronotherapy, ambulatory blood pressure, morning administration, evening administration, and antihypertensives. Additional references were identified from literature citations. Study Selection: All prospective studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes or comparing morning to evening administration of antihypertensives were selected. Data Synthesis: Compared with morning administration, dosing one or more antihypertensive medications at bedtime helps induce a normal circadian blood pressure pattern and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in individuals with hypertension. Similar results have been reported in high-risk individuals with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and resistant hypertension. A lack of diversity among studied populations and reliance on subgroup analyses are among the limitations of these data. All antihypertensive medications have not been studied in chronotherapy and do not uniformly achieve desired results. The most substantial evidence exists for medications affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Conclusions: Despite growing evidence and promise as a cost-effective strategy for reducing cardiovascular risk, chronotherapy is not uniformly recommended in the treatment of hypertension. Careful selection of patients and antihypertensives for chronotherapy is required. Further investigation is needed to evaluate the definitive impact of chronotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes.

Vasopressin antagonism for decompensated right-sided heart failure

BACKGROUND Targeted treatment for decompensated right heart failure (RHF) with or without left heart failure is lacking. Vasopressin antagonists (vaptans) may offer an option by increasing urine output and fluid mobilization when used in acute decompensated RHF without impacting blood pressure or renal function, both common complications of loop diuretics. METHODS AND RESULTS We searched electronic medical records from 2 institutions over 4 years for patients with RHF treated with vaptans. Urine output, creatinine, BUN and sodium, 1 day pre- versus 1 day post-vaptan initiation were compared. Baseline (admission) pre-vaptan values for patients with RHF who met inclusion criteria (n = 112) were RAP, median (interquartile range) = 19 (13-24) mmHg; cardiac index, mean ± standard deviation = 1.8 ± 0.4 L/min/m2; BNP, 1078 (523-1690) pg/ml; creatinine clearance of 51 (39-69) ml/min, BUN, 37 (26-54) mg/dl, and serum [Na+] 132 (126-135) mEq/L. Most patients (n = 103/112) received intravenous inotrope (prior to vaptan, n = 91). Overall length of stay was 27 (16-43) days. Vaptan treatment (90% tolvaptan, 10% conivaptan) was associated with increased 24 h urine output, 1517 (906-2394) vs 2337 (1425-3744) mL, p = 0.005, and [Na+], 127 (124-130) vs 130 (126-135) mEq/L, p = 0.001, without significant change in Cr or BUN. Furosemide IV dose equivalent decreased or remained unchanged in 75% of patients at 24 h and 64% at 72 h compared to the 24 h prior to vaptan use. CONCLUSION Vaptans were associated with a significant increase in urine output and serum sodium with an apparent reduction or stabilization of furosemide equivalent dosing in the early treatment period in patients with decompensated RHF. Vaptans may offer a management option for patients failing conventional diuretic-based treatment.

Oral Metolazone Versus Intravenous Chlorothiazide as an Adjunct to Loop Diuretics for Diuresis in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background: Thiazide diuretics are often utilized to overcome loop diuretic resistance when treating acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). In addition to a large cost advantage, several pharmacokinetic advantages exist when administering oral metolazone (MTZ) compared with intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide (CTZ), yet many providers are reluctant to utilize an oral formulation to treat ADHF. The purpose of this study was to compare the increase in 24-hour total urine output (UOP) after adding MTZ or CTZ to IV loop diuretics (LD) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and Results: From September 2013 to August 2016, 1002 patients admitted for ADHF received either MTZ or CTZ in addition to LD. Patients were excluded for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n = 469), <24-hour LD or UOP data prior to drug initiation (n = 129), or low dose MTZ/CTZ (n = 91). A total of 168 patients were included with 64% receiving CTZ. No significant difference was observed between the increase in 24-hour total UOP after MTZ or CTZ initiation (1458 [514, 2401] mL vs 1820 [890, 2750] mL, P = .251). Conclusions: Both MTZ and CTZ similarly increased UOP when utilized as an adjunct to IV LD. These results suggest that while thiazide agents can substantially increase UOP in ADHF patients with HFrEF, MTZ and CTZ have comparable effects.

Treatment of Hypertension With Chronotherapy

Objective: To review evidence for dosing antihypertensives at bedtime and possible cardiovascular risk reduction. Data Sources: A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials database literature search (1990-September 2014) limited to human subjects was performed using the search terms hypertension, chronotherapy, ambulatory blood pressure, morning administration, evening administration, and antihypertensives. Additional references were identified from literature citations. Study Selection: All prospective studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes or comparing morning to evening administration of antihypertensives were selected. Data Synthesis: Compared with morning administration, dosing one or more antihypertensive medications at bedtime helps induce a normal circadian blood pressure pattern and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in individuals with hypertension. Similar results have been reported in high-risk individuals with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and resistant hypertension. A lack of diversity among studied populations and reliance on subgroup analyses are among the limitations of these data. All antihypertensive medications have not been studied in chronotherapy and do not uniformly achieve desired results. The most substantial evidence exists for medications affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Conclusions: Despite growing evidence and promise as a cost-effective strategy for reducing cardiovascular risk, chronotherapy is not uniformly recommended in the treatment of hypertension. Careful selection of patients and antihypertensives for chronotherapy is required. Further investigation is needed to evaluate the definitive impact of chronotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes.