BackgroundIn acute kidney injury (AKI), medication dosing based on Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) or Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) are not valid when serum creatinine (SCr) is not in steady state. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a kinetic estimating equation that incorporates fluctuations in SCrs on drug dosing in critically ill patients.MethodsWe used data from participants enrolled in the NIH Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network Fluid and Catheters Treatment Trial to simulate drug dosing category changes with the application of the kinetic estimating equation developed by Chen. We evaluated whether kinetic estimation of renal function would change medication dosing categories (≥60, 30–59, 15–29, and <15mL/min) compared with the use of CrCl or CKD-EPI eGFR.ResultsThe use of kinetic CrCl and CKD-EPI eGFR resulted in a large enough change in estimated renal function to require medication dosing recategorization in 19.3% [95 CI 16.8%–21.9%] and 23.4% [95% CI 20.7%–26.1%] of participants, respectively. As expected, recategorization occurred more frequently in those with AKI. When we examined individual days for those with AKI, dosing discordance was observed in 8.5% of total days using the CG CrCl and 10.2% of total days using the CKD-EPI equation compared with the kinetic counterparts.ConclusionIn a critically ill population, use of kinetic estimates of renal function impacted medication dosing in a substantial proportion of AKI participants. Use of kinetic estimates in clinical practice should lower the incidence of medication toxicity as well as avoid subtherapeutic dosing during renal recovery.

No abstract

Providing safe and high-quality care to critically ill patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) includes adequate drug dosing and evaluation of patients' response to medications during therapy. Pharmacokinetic drug studies in acute kidney injury and CRRT are limited, considering the number of medications used in critical care. Therefore, it is important to understand the basic principles of drug clearance during CRRT by evaluating drug properties, CRRT modalities, and how they affect medication clearance. Few published studies have addressed drug disposition and clinical response during CRRT. Additionally, clotting in the CRRT circuit is a concern, so a few options for anticoagulation strategies are presented. This article reviews (1) the CRRT system and drug property factors that affect medication management, (2) the evidence available to guide drug dosing, and (3) anticoagulation strategies for critically ill patients receiving CRRT.

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose To describe the perceptions of residency candidates, residency practitioners (current residents and preceptors), and residency program directors (RPDs) regarding a virtual interview process for pharmacy residency programs across multiple institutions. Methods In May 2021, an anonymous web-based questionnaire characterizing perceptions of the virtual interview process used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was distributed to residency candidates, residency practitioners, and RPDs across 13 institutions. Quantitative responses measured on a 5-point Likert scale were summarized with descriptive statistics, and open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic qualitative methods. Results 236 residency candidates and 253 residency practitioners/RPDs completed the questionnaire, yielding response rates of 27.8% (236 of 848), and 38.1% (253 of 663), respectively. Overall, both groups perceived the virtual interview format positively. When asked whether virtual interviews should replace in-person interviews moving forward, 60.0% (18 of 30) of RPDs indicated they agreed or strongly agreed, whereas only 30.5% (61 of 200) of current preceptors/residents and 28.7% (66 of 230) of residency candidates agreed or strongly agreed. Thematic analysis of qualitative responses revealed that while virtual interviews were easier logistically, the lack of in-person interactions was a common concern for many stakeholders. Lastly, the majority (65.0%) of residency candidates reported greater than $1,000 in savings with virtual interviews. Conclusion Virtual interviews offered logistical and financial benefits. The majority of RPDs were in favor of offering virtual interviews to replace in-person interviews, whereas the majority of residency candidates and practitioners preferred on-site interviews. As restrictions persist with the ongoing pandemic, our results provide insight into best practices for virtual pharmacy residency interviews.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with acid suppressive therapy is often inappropriately prescribed in the intensive care setting. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists, has been associated with adverse effects, including increased risk of nosocomial infections. Reduction in the rate of inappropriate use of SUP may mitigate the risk of medication adverse effects and unnecessary health care costs. Our interdisciplinary team executed a bundled quality improvement initiative to reduce inappropriate use of SUP in the ICU, which included (a) developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for use of SUP, (b) implementing these clinical guidelines with an education intervention targeting ICU health care providers, and (c) determining provider attitudes regarding SUP use before and after implementation of the bundled initiative. Within 1 month following implementation, inappropriate SUP (per patient hospital day) decreased from 19% to 6.6% (P = .002). Our multidisciplinary bundled quality improvement initiative reduced inappropriate use of SUP. The program was successfully integrated into the pharmacists' workflow, thus yielding a sustainable impact on SUP use.