Rabies is a fatal disease that mandates proper prophylaxis after a rabies virus exposure to prevent death. This study evaluated adherence to Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for rabies immune globulin (IG) patient selection, dosing, timing of administration, and anatomical site of administration for rabies postexposure prophylaxis. This retrospective, cross-sectional study included patients who received at least one dose of rabies IG or rabies vaccine at a multi-hospital health system from January 2015 through June 2018. This study included 246 patients, and all of them received at least one dose of rabies vaccine. Two patients had a history of rabies vaccination, did not have an indication for rabies IG, and appropriately did not receive additional rabies IG. Rabies IG was administered to 91% (223 of 244) of patients with an indication. Of 223 patients who received rabies IG, 219 (98%) received doses within 10% of 20 IU/kg of body weight, and all 223 (100%) received rabies IG within 7 days of the first rabies vaccine administration. Only 56% (96 of 170) of patients with a wound that could be infiltrated with rabies IG actually received rabies IG via infiltration into and around the wound. This multi-hospital health system study demonstrated high adherence to guideline recommendations for rabies IG patient selection (91%), dosing (98%), and timing (100%). However, only 56% of eligible patients received rabies IG infiltration at wound sites as recommended by guidelines.

This study aimed to develop a definition of vasoplegia that reliably predicts clinical outcomes. Vasoplegia was evaluated using data from the electronic health record for each 15-minute interval for 72 hours following cardiopulmonary bypass. Standardized definitions considered clinical features (systemic vascular resistance [SVR], mean arterial pressure [MAP], cardiac index [CI], norepinephrine equivalents [NEE]), threshold strategy (criteria occurring in any versus all measurements in an interval), and duration (criteria occurring over multiple consecutive versus separated intervals). Minor vasoplegia was MAP < 60 mm Hg or SVR < 800 dynes⋅sec⋅cm⁻⁵ with CI > 2.2 L/min/m² and NEE ≥ 0.1 µg/kg/min. Major vasoplegia was MAP < 60 mm Hg or SVR < 700 dynes⋅sec⋅cm⁻⁵ with CI > 2.5 L/min/m² and NEE ≥ 0.2 µg/kg/min. The primary outcome was incidence of vasoplegia for eight definitions developed utilizing combinations of these criteria. Secondary outcomes were associations between vasoplegia definitions and three clinical outcomes: time to extubation, time to intensive care unit discharge, and nonfavorable discharge. Minor vasoplegia detected anytime within a 15-minute period (MINOR_ANY_15) predicted the highest incidence of vasoplegia (61%) and was associated with two of three clinical outcomes: 1 day delay to first extubation (95% CI: 0.2 to 2) and 7 day delay to first intensive care unit discharge (95% CI: 1 to 13). The MINOR_ANY_15 definition should be externally validated as an optimal definition of vasoplegia.

Background: Guidelines support area-under-the-curve (AUC) monitoring for vancomycin dosing which may lower overall doses and reduce acute kidney injury (AKI). Objective: The aim of this study was to compare incidence of AKI across 3 vancomycin dosing modalities: AUC-targeted Bayesian pharmacokinetic software, AUC-targeted empiric dosing nomogram, and trough-guided dosing using clinical pharmacists’ judgment. Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients with a pharmacy dosing consult who received ≥1 dose of vancomycin and ≥1 serum vancomycin level documented between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Patients with baseline serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dL, weight ≥100 kg, receiving renal replacement therapy, AKI prior to vancomycin therapy, or vancomycin ordered only for surgical prophylaxis were excluded. The primary analysis was incidence of AKI adjusted for baseline serum creatinine, age, and intensive care unit admission. A secondary outcome was adjusted incidence of an abnormal trough value (20 μg/mL). Results: The study included 3459 encounters. Incidence of AKI was 21% for Bayesian software (n = 659), 22% for the nomogram (n = 303), and 32% for trough-guided dosing (n = 2497). Compared with trough-guided dosing, incidence of AKI was lower in the Bayesian (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.89) and the nomogram (adjusted OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.95) groups. Compared with trough-guided dosing, abnormal trough values were less common in the Bayesian group (adjusted OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69-0.98). Conclusion and Relevance: Study results suggest that use of AUC-guided Bayesian software reduces the incidence of AKI and abnormal trough values compared with trough-guided dosing.

Background: Development of valid and feasible quality indicators (QIs) is needed to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings. Methods: Literature search identified published guidelines that were reviewed for QI extraction. A panel of 14 experts was assembled, including primary care physicians, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists, and outcomes research pharmacists. A screening survey excluded QIs that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. A validity screening survey used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each QI based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised QI wording, added new QIs, and voted to include or exclude each QI. A priority survey used a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included QIs. Results: Literature search identified 520 references published from January 2015 to March 2021 and 4 additional guidelines from professional/governmental websites. The study included 41 guidelines. Extraction of 741 recommendations yielded 115 candidate QIs. Feasibility screening excluded 28 QIs. Validity screening and expert panel discussion excluded 73 QIs and added 1 QI. The final set of 15 prioritized QIs focused on pain management safety, education, weight-management, psychological wellbeing, optimizing first-line medications, referral, and imaging. Conclusion: This multi-disciplinary expert panel established consensus on QIs for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings by combining scientific evidence with expert opinion. The resulting list of 15 prioritized, valid, and feasible QIs can be used to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management.