Point: should benzodiazepines be avoided in mechanically ventilated patients? Yes

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: New hope in the fight against COVID-19

The emerging COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic increase in global mortality and morbidity rates. As in most infections, fatal complications of coronavirus affliction are triggered by an untrammeled host inflammatory response. Cytokine storms created by high levels of interleukin and other cytokines elucidate the pathology of severe COVID-19. In this respect, repurposing drugs that are already available and might exhibit anti-inflammatory effects have received significant attention. With the in vitro and clinical investigation of several studies on the effect of antidepressants on COVID-19 prognosis, previous data suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might be the new hope for the early treatment of severely afflicted patients. SSRIs' low cost and availability make them potentially eligible for COVID-19 repurposing. This review summarizes current achievements and literature about the connection between SSRIs administration and COVID-19 prognosis.

Outcomes After Implementation of a Benzodiazepine-Sparing Alcohol Withdrawal Order Set in an Integrated Health Care System

Importance

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a common inpatient diagnosis managed primarily with benzodiazepines. Concerns about the adverse effects associated with benzodiazepines have spurred interest in using benzodiazepine-sparing treatments.

Objective

To evaluate changes in outcomes after implementation of a benzodiazepine-sparing AWS inpatient order set that included adjunctive therapies (eg, gabapentin, valproic acid, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This difference-in-differences quality improvement study was conducted among 22 899 AWS adult hospitalizations from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2019, in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health care delivery system. Data were analyzed from September 2020 through November 2021.

Exposures

Implementation of the benzodiazepine-sparing AWS order set on October 1, 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adjusted rate ratios for medication use, inpatient mortality, length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and nonelective readmission within 30 days were calculated comparing postimplementation and preimplementation periods among hospitals with and without order set use.

Results

Among 904 540 hospitalizations in the integrated health care delivery system during the study period, AWS was present in 22 899 hospitalizations (2.5%), occurring among 16 323 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 57.1 [14.8] years; 15 764 [68.8%] men). Of these hospitalizations, 12 889 (56.3%) used an order set for alcohol withdrawal. Among hospitalizations with order set use, any benzodiazepine use decreased after implementation from 6431 hospitalizations (78.1%) to 2823 hospitalizations (60.7%) (P < .001), with concomitant decreases in the mean (SD) total dosage of lorazepam before vs after implementation (19.7 [38.3] mg vs 6.0 [9.1] mg; P < .001). There were also significant changes from before to after implementation in the use of adjunctive medications, including gabapentin (2413 hospitalizations [29.3%] vs 2814 hospitalizations [60.5%]; P < .001), clonidine (1476 hospitalizations [17.9%] vs 2208 hospitalizations [47.5%]; P < .001), thiamine (6298 hospitalizations [76.5%] vs 4047 hospitalizations [87.0%]; P < .001), valproic acid (109 hospitalizations [1.3%] vs 256 hospitalizations [5.5%]; P < .001), and phenobarbital (412 hospitalizations [5.0%] vs 292 hospitalizations [6.3%]; P = .003). Compared with AWS hospitalizations without order set use, use of the benzodiazepine-sparing order set was associated with decreases in intensive care unit use (adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89; P = .003) and hospital length of stay (ARR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that implementation of a benzodiazepine-sparing AWS order set was associated with decreased use of benzodiazepines and favorable trends in outcomes. These findings suggest that further prospective research is needed to identify the most effective treatments regimens for patients hospitalized with alcohol withdrawal.

Research Needs for Inpatient Management of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (SAWS) is highly morbid, costly, and common among hospitalized patients, yet minimal evidence exists to guide inpatient management. Research needs in this field are broad, spanning the translational science spectrum. Goals: This research statement aims to describe what is known about SAWS, identify knowledge gaps, and offer recommendations for research in each domain of the Institute of Medicine T0-T4 continuum to advance the care of hospitalized patients who experience SAWS. Methods: Clinicians and researchers with unique and complementary expertise in basic, clinical, and implementation research related to unhealthy alcohol consumption and alcohol withdrawal were invited to participate in a workshop at the American Thoracic Society 2019 International Conference. The committee was subdivided into four groups on the basis of interest and expertise: T0-T1 (basic science research with translation to humans), T2 (research translating to patients), T3 (research translating to clinical practice), and T4 (research translating to communities). A medical librarian conducted a pragmatic literature search to facilitate this work, and committee members reviewed and supplemented the resulting evidence, identifying key knowledge gaps. Results: The committee identified several investigative opportunities to advance the care of patients with SAWS in each domain of the translational science spectrum. Major themes included 1) the need to investigate non-γ-aminobutyric acid pathways for alcohol withdrawal syndrome treatment; 2) harnessing retrospective and electronic health record data to identify risk factors and create objective severity scoring systems, particularly for acutely ill patients with SAWS; 3) the need for more robust comparative-effectiveness data to identify optimal SAWS treatment strategies; and 4) recommendations to accelerate implementation of effective treatments into practice. Conclusions: The dearth of evidence supporting management decisions for hospitalized patients with SAWS, many of whom require critical care, represents both a call to action and an opportunity for the American Thoracic Society and larger scientific communities to improve care for a vulnerable patient population. This report highlights basic, clinical, and implementation research that diverse experts agree will have the greatest impact on improving care for hospitalized patients with SAWS.

Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions

Neural respiratory drive, i.e., the activity of respiratory centres controlling breathing, is an overlooked physiologic variable which affects the pathophysiology and the clinical outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Spontaneous breathing may offer multiple physiologic benefits in these patients, including decreased need for sedation, preserved diaphragm activity and improved cardiovascular function. However, excessive effort to breathe due to high respiratory drive may lead to patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI), even in the absence of mechanical ventilation. In the present review, we focus on the physiological and clinical implications of control of respiratory drive in ARDS patients. We summarize the main determinants of neural respiratory drive and the mechanisms involved in its potentiation, in health and ARDS. We also describe potential and pitfalls of the available bedside methods for drive assessment and explore classical and more “futuristic” interventions to control drive in ARDS patients.

Cost effectiveness of a benzodiazepine vs a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedation regimen for mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults

PURPOSE

Nonbenzodiazepine sedation (eg, dexmedetomidine or propofol) may be more cost effective than benzodiazepine (BZ) sedation despite its higher acquisition cost.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost effectiveness (CE) analysis of noncardiac surgery, critically ill adults requiring at least 1 day of mechanical ventilation (MV) and administered either BZ or non-BZ sedation, that cycled health states and costs daily using a Markov model accounting for daily MV use until intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, was conducted from a third-party perspective. Transition probabilities were obtained from a published meta-analysis, and costs were estimated from best evidence. Sensitivity analyses were run for all extubation and discharge probabilities, for different cost estimates and for the specific non-BZ administered.

RESULTS

When non-BZ rather than BZ sedation was used, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to avert 1 ICU day while MV or while either MV or non-MV was $3406 and $3136, respectively. The base-case analysis revealed that non-BZ sedation (vs BZ sedation) resulted in higher drug costs ($1327 vs $65) but lower total ICU costs (percent accounted for MV need): $35380 (71.0%) vs $45394 (70.6%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that BZ sedation would only be less costly if the daily rate of extubation was at least 16%, and the daily rate of ICU discharge without MV was at least 77%. The incremental CE ratio to avert 1 ICU day while MV or non-MV was similar between the dexmedetomidine and propofol non-BZ options.

CONCLUSIONS

Among MV adults, non-BZ sedation has a more favorable CE ratio than BZ sedation over most cost estimates.

The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective

The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit differ from earlier guidelines in the following ways: literature searches were performed in eight databases by a professional librarian; psychometric validation of assessment scales was considered in their recommendation; discrepancies in recommendation votes by guideline panel members are available in online supplements; and all recommendations were made exclusively on the basis of evidence available until December of 2010. Pain recognition and management remains challenging in the critically ill. Patient outcomes improve with routine pain assessment, use of co-analgesics and administration as well as dose adjustment of opiates to patient needs. Thoracic epidurals help ease patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Little data exists to guide clinicians as to the type or dose of co-analgesics; no opiate choice is associated with better patient outcomes. Lighter or no sedation is beneficial, and interruption is desirable in patients who require deep sedation for specific pathologic states. Delirium screening is probably useful; no treatment modality can be unequivocally recommended, and the benefit of prophylaxis is established only for early mobilization. The details of these recommendations, as well as more recent publications that complement the guidelines, are provided in this commentary.