Bioavailability of fondaparinux to critically ill patients

Dilemmas in the Choice of Adequate Therapeutic Treatment in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism—From Modern Recommendations to Clinical Application

Pulmonary thromboembolism is a very common cardiovascular disease, with a high mortality rate. Despite the clear guidelines, this disease still represents a great challenge both in diagnosis and treatment. The heterogeneous clinical picture, often without pathognomonic signs and symptoms, represents a huge differential diagnostic problem even for experienced doctors. The decisions surrounding this therapeutic regimen also represent a major dilemma in the group of patients who are hemodynamically stable at initial presentation and have signs of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction proven by echocardiography and positive biomarker values (pulmonary embolism of intermediate–high risk). Studies have shown conflicting results about the benefit of using fibrinolytic therapy in this group of patients until hemodynamic decompensation, due to the risk of major bleeding. The latest recommendations give preference to new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA), except for certain categories of patients (patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, mechanical valves, pregnancy). When using oral anticoagulant therapy, special attention should be paid to drug–drug interactions, which can lead to many complications, even to the death of the patient. Special population groups such as pregnant women, obese patients, patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and the incidence of cancer represent a great therapeutic challenge in the application of anticoagulant therapy. In these patients, not only must the effectiveness of the drugs be taken into account, but great attention must be paid to their safety and possible side effects, which is why a multidisciplinary approach is emphasized in order to provide the best therapeutic option.

Pharmacists in Critical Care

The beginnings of caring for critically ill patients date back to Florence Nightingale's work during the Crimean War in 1854, but the subspecialty of critical care medicine is relatively young. The first US multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) was established in 1958, and the American Board of Medical Subspecialties first recognized the subspecialty of critical care medicine in 1986. Critical care pharmacy services began around the 1970s, growing in the intervening 40 years to become one of the largest practice areas for clinical pharmacists, with its own section in the SCCM, the largest international professional organization in the field. During the next decade, pharmacy services expanded to various ICU settings (both adult and pediatric), the operating room, and the emergency department. In these settings, pharmacists established clinical practices consisting of therapeutic drug monitoring, nutrition support, and participation in patient care rounds. Pharmacists also developed efficient and safe drug delivery systems with the evolution of critical care pharmacy satellites and other innovative programs. In the 1980s, critical care pharmacists designed specialized training programs and increased participation in critical care organizations. The number of critical care residencies and fellowships doubled between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. Standards for critical care residency were developed, and directories of residencies and fellowships were published. In 1989, the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Section was formed within the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the largest international, multidisciplinary, multispecialty critical care organization. This recognition acknowledged that pharmacists are necessary and valuable members of the physician-led multidisciplinary team. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines for Critical Care Services and Personnel deem that pharmacists are essential for the delivery of quality care to critically ill patients. These guidelines recommend that a pharmacist monitor drug regimen for dosing, adverse reactions, drug-drug interactions, and cost optimization for all hospitals providing critical care services. The guidelines also advocate that a specialized, decentralized pharmacist provide expertise in nutrition support, cardiorespiratory resuscitation, and clinical research in academic medical centers providing comprehensive critical care.

Reducing medication errors in critical care: a multimodal approach

The Institute of Medicine has reported that medication errors are the single most common type of error in health care, representing 19% of all adverse events, while accounting for over 7,000 deaths annually. The frequency of medication errors in adult intensive care units can be as high as 947 per 1,000 patient-days, with a median of 105.9 per 1,000 patient-days. The formulation of drugs is a potential contributor to medication errors. Challenges related to drug formulation are specific to the various routes of medication administration, though errors associated with medication appearance and labeling occur among all drug formulations and routes of administration. Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires a multimodal approach. Changes in technology, training, systems, and safety culture are all strategies to potentially reduce medication errors related to drug formulation in the intensive care unit.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients: focus on the clinical utility of (low-dose) fondaparinux

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication among acutely ill medical patients hospitalized for congestive heart failure, acute respiratory insufficiency, rheumatologic disorders, and acute infectious and/or inflammatory diseases. Based on robust data from randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses showing a reduced incidence of VTE by 40% to about 60% with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, prevention of VTE with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), or fondaparinux is currently recommended in all at-risk hospitalized acutely ill medical patients. In patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, mechanical prophylaxis with graduated compression stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression may be suggested. Thromboprophylaxis is generally continued for 6 to 14 days or for the duration of hospitalization. Selected cases could benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis beyond this period, although the risk of major bleeding remains a concern, and additional studies are needed to identify patients who may benefit from prolonged prophylaxis. For hospitalized acutely ill medical patients with renal insufficiency, a low dose (1.5 mg once daily) of fondaparinux or prophylactic LMWH subcutaneously appears to have a safe profile, although proper evaluation in randomized studies is lacking. The evidence on the use of prophylaxis for VTE in this latter group of patients, as well as in those at higher risk of bleeding complications, such as patients with thrombocytopenia, remains scarce. For critically ill patients hospitalized in intensive care units with no contraindications, LMWH or UFH are recommended, with frequent and careful assessment of the risk of bleeding. In this review, we discuss the evidence for use of thromboprophylaxis for VTE in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients, with a focus on (low-dose) fondaparinux.

Newer anticoagulants in critically ill patients

Critically ill patients are at increased risk for development of thrombosis. In addition, thrombosis is often unrecognized in this population. Furthermore, these patients are particularly susceptible to bleeding complications from anticoagulants. Herein the authors review the pharmacology, data from clinical trials, management of bleeding complications, and perioperative use of these agents in the intensive care unit population. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to improve our understanding of the safety and efficacy of these newer agents in critically ill patients.

Role of factor xa inhibitors in cancer-associated thrombosis: any new data?

The association between cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been well documented in the literature. Prevention and treatment of VTE in cancer patients is imperative. Typically, the mainstay regimen for VTE prevention and treatment has been anticoagulation therapy, unless contraindicated. This therapy consists of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), factor Xa inhibitor, or vitamin K antagonist (VKA). Current guidelines recommend LMWH over VKA for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients. Factor-specific anticoagulants have been proven safe and effective, and recently factor Xa inhibitors have emerged as a treatment alternative to heparins and VKA. Currently, three factor Xa inhibitors have been identified: fondaparinux (the only one approved so far by the US Food and Drug Administration), idraparinux (in clinical trials), and idrabiotaparinux (in clinical trials). This paper will examine the role of these agents, focusing on fondaparinux, for the prevention and treatment of VTE in cancer patients.