IMPORTANCEAcutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. OBJECTIVE To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm 3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 .INTERVENTIONS Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. RESULTSOn June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early terminationbecauseoflowerthananticipatedeventrates;atthattime,657symptomaticoutpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEV...

Objectives: To provide a multiorganizational statement to update recommendations for critical care pharmacy practice and make recommendations for future practice. A position paper outlining critical care pharmacist activities was last published in 2000. Since that time, significant changes in healthcare and critical care have occurred. Design: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. Main Results: There are 82 recommendation statements: 44 original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations represent the domain of patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations were made in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. Conclusions: Critical care pharmacists are essential members of the multiprofessional critical care team. The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

No abstract

Positive outcomes of antimicrobial stewardship programs in the inpatient setting have been well documented, but the benefits for patients not admitted to the hospital remain less clear. This report describes a retrospective case-control study of patients discharged from the ED with subsequent positive cultures conducted to determine if integrating antimicrobial stewardship responsibilities into practice of the dedicated emergency medicine clinical pharmacist (EPh) decreased times to positive culture follow-up, patient or primary care provider (PCP) notification, and appropriateness of empiric or final antimicrobial therapy for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). Pre-and post-implementation groups of an EPh-managed antimicrobial stewardship program were compared. Data were collected from medical records and the ED culture database. Continuous data were analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and categorical data using Chi-squared analysis. Positive cultures were identified in 177 patients, 104 and 73 in pre and post-implementation groups, respectively. Median time to culture review in the pre-implementation group was 3 days (range 1–15) and 2 days (range 0–4) in the post-implementation group (p=0.0001). There were positive cultures that required notification in 74 (71.2%) and 36 (49.3%) on pre- and post-implementation groups, respectively. Median time to patient or PCP notification was 3 days (range 1–9) in the pre-implementation group and 2 days(range 0–4) in the Eph managed program (p = 0.01). No difference in appropriate antimicrobial therapy was seen.

No abstract