Faculty Bibliography

Objective/UNASSIGNED:Drug interactions are a common cause of morbidity and mortality and may require prompt discontinuation of therapeutic regimens due to harmful side effects. Patients with acute coronary syndromes are likely to be prescribed multiple medications that are metabolized through the cytochrome P450 system, increasing the probability for drug interaction. Atorvastatin and simvastatin are both well known to interact with the oral P2Y12 agent ticagrelor. The purpose of this paper is to describe the interaction of ticagrelor with rosuvastatin leading to rhabdomyolysis, which is less clearly defined in the literature. Method/UNASSIGNED:We report a case of a 74-year-old male who presented with bilateral lower extremity weakness and difficulty ambulating for one month after being prescribed ticagrelor for a drug eluting stent, in the setting of already being on rosuvastatin. His clinical picture and laboratory findings were consistent with a diagnosis of rhabdomyolysis. His medications were adjusted to a regimen of clopidogrel and alirocumab. One month later, he returned to his baseline status. Results/UNASSIGNED:The mechanism of interaction between rosuvastatin and ticagrelor appears to be multifactorial. It may be caused by CYP450-mediated metabolism from a small amount of crossover between isoenzymes. Ticagrelor may also cause acute kidney injury, increasing the concentration of rosuvastatin. Other mechanisms of interaction include genetic differences in the organic anion transporter polypeptides and transportation through p-glycoprotein. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Future pharmacokinetic studies are warranted to better understand the interaction.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is associated with increased rates of cardiovascular disease and vascular events, and people living with HIV (PLWH) may often have indications for therapeutic anticoagulation. However, the ideal anticoagulant in PLWH remains unknown. This retrospective cohort evaluated the tolerability and effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in PLWH. The primary outcome was tolerability, defined as a composite of bleeding and/or discontinuation rates. The secondary outcomes included recurrent thromboembolism, bleeding, and discontinuations, independently. There were 92 patients included for analysis, 48 in the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) arm and 44 in the warfarin arm. There were 35 (38%) PLWH that did not tolerate oral anticoagulation therapy in the total cohort. Among these, 19 received a DOAC and 16 received warfarin. There were 16 (17%) PLWH that experienced a bleeding event: six in the DOAC arm and 10 in the warfarin arm. There were 15 (16%) PLWH that experienced recurrent thromboembolism, with similar rates between DOAC versus warfarin (10, 21% vs 5, 11%, respectively; p = 0.11). The most commonly prescribed HIV regimens were protease inhibitor and integrase inhibitor-based regimens. Overall, anticoagulation-related outcomes with either a DOAC or warfarin were poor in our cohort of PLWH, with high rates of bleeding, discontinuations, and recurrent thromboembolism. Further studies are necessary to validate and assess reasons for poor tolerability.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:infection (CDI) while receiving systemic antibiotics to prevent CDI recurrence. However, this practice has not been studied in pediatric patients. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of secondary OVP in pediatric patients with previous CDI who received subsequent antibiotic exposure. METHODS:A multicampus, retrospective cohort evaluation was conducted among patients aged ≤18 years with any history of clinical CDI and receiving systemic antibiotics in a subsequent encounter from 2013-2019. Patients who received concomitant OVP with antibiotics were compared with unexposed patients. The primary outcome was CDI recurrence within 8 weeks after antibiotic exposure. Infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci and risk factors for CDI recurrence were assessed. RESULTS:= .04). CONCLUSIONS:Secondary OVP while receiving systemic antibiotics reduces the risk of recurrent CDI in pediatric patients with a history of CDI.

As New York became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic early on, clinicians were challenged to provide optimal medical and pharmaceutical care, despite the paucity of supporting literature and guidance. We sought to describe prescribing patterns and outcomes of physician response to the urgent need to treat COVID-19 patients before initiation of randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) in the setting of cerebral edema is a medical emergency in which 23.4% sodium chloride (23.4% NaCl) may be a lifesaving intervention. Recently, our institution updated the 23.4% NaCl prescriber order entry to default to IV push (IVP) over 2 or 5 minutes rather than IV piggyback (IVPB) over 30 minutes. There is limited data evaluating the safety of IVP administration of 23.4% NaCl.
METHOD(S): We performed a retrospective review of patients who received a dose of 23.4% NaCl (30 mL) at the NYU Langone Health System as either IVP or IVPB. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of adverse events (ADEs) including hypotension, bradycardia, or extravasation.
RESULT(S): Fifty patients were included in this study, with 24 (48%) receiving IVP over 2 (2,5) minutes and 26 (52%) receiving IVPB over 30 (30,30) minutes. The median age was 55 (41,66) years and 60% were female. The most common etiologies of cerebral edema were intracranial hemorrhage (20%), ischemic stroke (16%), and acute liver failure (14%). Indications for 23.4% NaCl included brain herniation (56%), acute increase in ICP (22%), or maintenance of a goal ICP or target sodium (22%). Apart from 2 doses administered peripherally, all doses were given via central access. The time from order entry of 23.4% NaCl to dose completion was significantly faster with IVP administration (IVP 31 [23,69] vs. IVPB 73 [57,126] minutes, p=0.001). No difference was observed in the incidence of ADEs between groups (IVP 7 [29%] vs. IVPB 5 [19%], p=0.411). Hypotension occurred in 6 (25%) vs. 4 (15%) patients (p=0.490) and bradycardia in 2 (8%) vs. 2 (8%) patients (p=1) in the IVP and IVPB arms, respectively. The median percent change from baseline for each hemodynamic variable was less than 3% regardless of administration rate. There were no reported extravasations.
CONCLUSION(S): We did not observe a difference in the incidence of ADEs between IVP and IVPB administration of 23.4% NaCl in patients with heterogeneous etiologies of cerebral edema. In an emergency where time is critical and may impact neurologic function, 23.4% NaCl administered as IVP may be a safe and faster alternative to IVPB administration

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:There is a lack of robust data evaluating outcomes of enoxaparin "bridge" therapy in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a retrospective study of HeartMate II (HM II) and HeartWare HVAD recipients that received therapeutic enoxaparin as "bridge" therapy to describe bleeding and thrombotic events and compare outcomes between devices. The primary endpoint was the incidence of bleeding within 30 days of "bridge" episode. Major bleeding was defined by INTERMACS criteria. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .02). We observed 3 (1%) thromboembolic events in 2 (4%) patients with an HVAD device. On multivariate analysis, the presence of a HM II device was associated with a 4-fold increased risk of bleeding. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:We found the use of enoxaparin "bridge" therapy to be associated with a higher incidence of bleeding in patients with a HM II device compared with an HVAD device. Assessment of device- and patient-specific factors should be evaluated to minimize bleeding events.

ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:Intracardiac thrombus (ICT) formation is a common complication of several cardiovascular diseases. Warfarin is recommended for treatment of ICT by guidelines based on observational studies occurring prior to the advent of non-vitamin K antagonist direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We aim to evaluate the current prescribing patterns at our institution and to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of warfarin versus DOACs for ICT.This is a retrospective review of adult patients treated with oral anticoagulation for ICT between May 2013 and December 2019. Our primary endpoint was complete thrombus resolution. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of thrombus, treatment failure, and duration of therapy. Safety endpoints included stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events.A total of 123 patients were included (DOAC n=61; warfarin n=62). At baseline, more patients in the DOAC group had anemia (6 [10%] vs 0 [0%], p=0.013) and alcohol use disorder (6 [10%] vs 0 [0%], p = 0.013). Complete thrombus resolution occurred in 50 (82%) and 46 (74%) patients in the DOAC and warfarin groups, respectively (p = 0.298). There was a shorter time to thrombus resolution in the DOAC group versus the warfarin group (63 days [IQR 40, 138] vs 123 days [IQR 86, 244], p = 0.003). There were no differences found in SSE or bleeding between the groups (DOAC 11 [19%] vs warfarin 17 [28%], p = 0.213). For patients with an ICT, treatment with a DOAC for at least 3 months may be a comparable alternative to warfarin in terms of safety and efficacy.