Search

Background Long-term prescriptions of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain—which are not supported by scientific evidence—suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Because risk perceptions and behaviors can differ depending on whether people learn about risks through description or experience, we investigated the effects of descriptive versus simulated-experience educative formats on physicians’ risk perceptions of strong opioids and their prescription behavior for managing chronic noncancer pain. Methods Three hundred general practitioners and 300 pain specialists in Germany—enrolled separately in two independent exploratory randomized controlled online trials—were randomly assigned to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated-experience format (interactive simulation). Primary endpoints Objective risk perception (numerical estimates of opioids’ benefits and harms), actual prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain. Secondary endpoint Implementation of intended prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain. Results Both formats improved the proportion of correct numerical estimates of strong opioids’ benefits and harms immediately after intervention, with no notable differences between formats. Compared to description, simulated experience led to significantly lower reported actual prescription rates for strong and/or weak opioids, and was more effective at increasing prescription rates for non-drug-based therapies (e.g., means of opioid reduction) from baseline to follow-up for both general practitioners and pain specialists. Simulated experience also resulted in a higher implementation of intended behavior for some drug-based and non-drug-based therapies. Conclusions The two formats, which recruit different cognitive processes, may serve different risk-communication goals: If the goal is to improve exact risk perception, descriptive and simulated-experience formats are likely to be equally suitable. If, however, the goal is to boost less risky prescription habits, simulated experience may be the better choice. Trial registration DRKS00020358 (German Clinical Trials Register, first registration: 07/01/2020).

Additional file 1. Supplemental material including supplemental Methods, Table, and Figures.

Background Daptomycin is a novel antibiotic with primarily renal elimination. Methods In an open-label, prospective trial, the pharmacokinetics of daptomycin after single (8 mg/kg BW) and multiple intravenous doses (4 mg/kg BW) at steady state were determined in critically ill, dialysis-dependent patients treated with continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD). Daptomycin levels were determined by HPLC. Subjects with normal renal function received one dose of 4 mg/kg BW of daptomycin. Results In the normal controls, daptomycin administration resulted in a mean maximum concentration (Cmax) of 60.7 ± 10.7 mg/l and an area under the time-versus-concentration curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) of 402 ± 56 mg × h/l. In the CVVHD-treated patients, a loading dose of 8 mg/kg lead to Cmax of 87.5 ± 15.0 mg/l, AUC0-24 of 537 ± 97 mg × h/l and AUC24-48 of 193 ± 69 mg × h/l, respectively. After multiple doses of 4 mg/kg every 48 h, Cmax was 41.8 ± 5.0 mg/l, AUC0-24 302 ± 43 mg × h/l and AUC 24-48 h 102 ± 24 mg × h/l, respectively. Approximately 40% of the daptomycin dose administered was removed by CVVHD. Mean plasma half-lives of daptomycin in patients were 2 - 3 times longer than in healthy controls. Conclusions The dosing regimen of 4 mg/kg TBW of daptomycin administered to CVVHD patients every 48 h is inappropriate to achieve effective antimicrobial plasma concentrations of daptomycin in the second half of the dosing interval (24 - 48 h). Doses of ≥ 4 mg/kg TBW administered intravenously every 24 h are necessary in CVVHD patients to assure that plasma daptomycin levels are comparably high to subjects with normal renal function and to avoid underdosing.

Introduction Recent evidence suggests that choice of fluid used for resuscitation may influence mortality in critically ill patients. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units across 25 countries to describe the types of fluids administered during resuscitation episodes. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between patient, prescriber and geographic factors and the type of fluid administered (classified as crystalloid, colloid or blood products). Results During the 24-hour study period, 1,955 of 5,274 (37.1%) patients received resuscitation fluid during 4,488 resuscitation episodes. The main indications for administering crystalloid or colloid were impaired perfusion (1,526/3,419 (44.6%) of episodes), or to correct abnormal vital signs (1,189/3,419 (34.8%)). Overall, colloid was administered to more patients (1,234 (23.4%) versus 782 (14.8%)) and during more episodes (2,173 (48.4%) versus 1,468 (32.7%)) than crystalloid. After adjusting for patient and prescriber characteristics, practice varied significantly between countries with country being a strong independent determinant of the type of fluid prescribed. Compared to Canada where crystalloid, colloid and blood products were administered in 35.5%, 40.6% and 28.3% of resuscitation episodes respectively, odds ratios for the prescription of crystalloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.69), 0.18 (0.10 to 0.32) and 3.43 (1.71 to 6.84) respectively; odds ratios for the prescription of colloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 1.72 (1.20 to 2.47), 4.72 (2.99 to 7.44) and 0.39 (0.21 to 0.74) respectively. In contrast, choice of fluid was not influenced by measures of illness severity (for example, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score). Conclusions Administration of resuscitation fluid is a common intervention in intensive care units and choice of fluid varies markedly between countries. Although colloid solutions are more expensive and may possibly be harmful in some patients, they were administered to more patients and during more resuscitation episodes than crystalloids were.

Standardised coloured drug labels may increase patient safety in the intensive care unit (ICU). The rates of adherence to standardised drug syringe labelling (DSL) in European and non-European ICUs, and the standards applied are not known. The aim of this survey among ESICM members was to assess if and what standardised drug syringe labelling is used, if the standards for drug syringe labelling are similar internationally and if intensivists expect that standardised DSL should be delivered by the pharmaceutical industry. A structured, web-based, anonymised survey on standardised DSL, performed among ESICM members (March-May 2011; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01232088). Descriptive data analysis was performed and Fisher's exact test was applied where applicable. Four hundred eighty-two submissions were analysed (20 % non-European). Thirty-five percent of the respondents reported that standardised drug labelling was used hospital-wide, and 39 % reported that standardised DSL was used in their ICU (Europe: Northern 53 %, Western 52 %, Eastern 17 %, Southern 22 %). The International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 26825 norm in its original form was used by 30 %, an adapted version by 19 % and local versions by 45 %; 6 % used labels that were included in the drug's packaging. Eighty percent wished that the pharmaceutical industry supplied ISO 26825 norm labelling together with the drugs. Standardised DSL is not widely applied in European and non-European ICUs and mostly does not adhere strictly to the ISO norm. The frequency and quality of DSL differs to a great extent among European regions. This leaves much room for improvement