Long-acting injectable antipsychotics provide the delivery of medication over an extended period of time requiring administration typically only every 2 to 4 weeks. The side effect profile of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic is predictable and similar to the oral formulation. However, injection site reactions may occur with this novel delivery system. The risk of an injection site reaction may be greater with the repeated administration of a lipophilic decanoate formulation and include pain, development of indurations, and fibrosis. Severe complications from injection site reactions have rarely been described in the literature with newer agents. We report the first case of a patient prescribed paliperidone palmitate every 3 weeks that developed severe sepsis requiring vasopressors and intubation due to delayed relayed recognition of a necrotizing infection at an injection site. Clinicians should be alerted to screen for injection site reactions when there is an unknown source infection in a patient receiving a long-acting injectable antipsychotic.

Background Clinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published. Objective To assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use. Methods A scenario‐based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups. Results Among 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045). Conclusion Since vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

No abstract

In clinical scenario surveys, inpatient providers were more likely to continue inappropriate antibiotic therapy (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.35-3.03, p&lt;0.001) or broad therapy (OR 1.8; 95%CI 1.27-2.56, p=0.001) when initiated by ED providers, as compared to appropriate or narrow antibiotics, respectively. Antibiotic inertia could represent a significant antibiotic stewardship target.