Intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) remains an important therapeutic agent, particularly in the inpatient setting, for anticoagulation. Historically, the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) has been the primary laboratory test used to monitor and adjust UFH. The aPTT test has evolved since the 1950s, and the historical goal range of 1.5-2.5 times the control aPTT, which first gained favor in the 1970s, has fallen out of favor due to a high degree of variability in aPTT readings from one laboratory to another, and even from one reagent to another. As a result, it is now recommended that the aPTT goal range be based on a corresponding heparin concentration of 0.2-0.4 unit/ml by protamine titration or 0.3-0.7 unit/ml by antifactor Xa assay. Given that several biologic factors can influence the aPTT independent of the effects of UFH, many institutions have transitioned to monitoring heparin with antifactor Xa levels, rather than the aPTT. Clinical data from the last 10-20 years have begun to show that a conversion from aPTT to antifactor Xa monitoring may offer a smoother dose-response curve, such that levels remain more stable, requiring fewer blood samples and dosage adjustments. Given the minimal increased acquisition cost of the antifactor Xa reagents, it can be argued that the antifactor Xa is a cost-effective method for monitoring UFH. In this review, we discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of the aPTT, antifactor Xa, and protamine titration tests, and provide a clinical framework to guide practitioners who are seeking to optimize UFH monitoring within their own institutions.

Many reports of drug-induced thrombocytopenia do not provide evidence supporting a definite or probable causal relation between the disease and the drug. Future patient case reports should incorporate standard criteria to clearly establish the etiologic role of the drug.

The pathophysiology of respiratory failure associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains under investigation. One hypothesis is that progressive endothelial damage from the virus leads to microvascular thrombosis. It is uncertain if empiric therapeutic anticoagulation provides benefit over standard deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2. A retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit at 3 hospitals with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-associated respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare patients who were initiated on therapeutic anticoagulation prior to the time of intubation and those receiving standard DVT prophylaxis doses. The primary outcome was the difference in the 28-day mortality of patients between the 2 groups. Twenty-eight-day mortality did not differ between groups, occurring in 26.1% of patients who received therapeutic anticoagulation and 29.5% of those who received a prophylactic dose only (hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .055). There was no difference in 28-day mortality between groups in patients who were admitted with a serum D-dimer ≥ 2 μg/mL (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .41). Empiric therapeutic anticoagulation in patients who require invasive mechanical ventilation for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection does not improve 28-day mortality compared with standard DVT prophylaxis, even among those with elevated D-dimer levels.

A hospital-based pharmacy vaccination program that relied on simple chart reminders was significantly associated with increased vaccination rates among inpatients at risk for invasive pneumococcal disease.

Results of many animal and in vitro studies suggest that CI may be the optimal method of beta-lactam administration. Clinical trials need to further document the impact of the method of beta-lactam administration on the incidence of adverse effects, emergence of bacterial resistance, and patient outcome. Pharmacodynamic studies defining target beta-lactam concentrations, the practicality of CI in patients requiring multiple intravenous fluids and medications, and the pertinence of this issue when beta-lactam antibiotics are used as sole agents or in combination with other antimicrobials require further exploration.