Fatal Aspiration Pneumonia during Transition from Donepezil to Rivastigmine

2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 1550-1553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M Taylor ◽  
James D Hoehns ◽  
Doris M Anderson ◽  
Daren G Tobert

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of fatal aspiration pneumonia in a patient shortly after initiation of rivastigmine and discontinuation of donepezil, with no washout period between therapies. CASE SUMMARY: An 83-year-old white man presented to the emergency department in respiratory distress (O2 saturation 70%; RR 44 breaths/min) secondary to aspiration. He had started rivastigmine 1.5 mg twice daily that same day. The patient had been previously treated with donepezil 10 mg/d, and there was no washout period. He was intubated due to worsening respiratory status and was transferred to the cardiac care unit. He then became hypotensive and required dopamine and fluid support. Brief bronchoscopy revealed food particles in the lower airways and bile-stained secretions. Intubation was notable for the large amount of secretions. The patient died approximately 27 hours after presentation to the emergency department. Blood and sputum cultures were subsequently positive for Haemophilus influenzae. DISCUSSION: Cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitors approved for treatment of Alzheimer disease are associated with nausea and vomiting in a sizable percentage of patients, ranging from 5% to 31% in clinical trials. Most of these adverse events occur during the initiation/titration phase of therapy. An additive risk of adverse events may be expected with coadministration of ChE inhibitors or cholinergic agents or, potentially, with an inadequate washout period between such agents. Review of MEDLINE (1966–July 2002) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–July 2002) failed to identify any previous reports of aspiration with rivastigmine or donepezil. CONCLUSIONS: A washout period should be considered when switching between ChE inhibitors to minimize the risk of vomiting and aspiration.

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A466-A466
Author(s):  
Guo Gui Sun ◽  
Jing Hao Jia ◽  
Peng Gao ◽  
Xue Min Yao ◽  
Ming Da Chen ◽  
...  

BackgroundEffective options are limited for patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease progresses after first-line chemotherapy. Camrelizumab is a potent anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody and has shown promising activity in NSCLC. We assessed the activity and safety of camrelizumab for patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC patients with negative oncogenic drivers.MethodsPatients who progressed during or following platinum-based doublet chemotherapy were enrolled. All patients received camrelizumab(200 mg)every 3 weeks or in combination with chemotherapy until loss of clinical benefit. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), other endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.ResultsBetween Aug 5, 2019, and Jun 19, 2020, we enrolled 29 patients, 25 patients were available evaluated, ORR and DCR was 36% (9/25) and 92% (23/25), respectively. 25 of 29 patients were still receiving the treatment, the median PFS was not yet achieved. Compared with those without reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP), patients with RCCEP had higher ORR (60% vs. 28.6%). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 69.0% of patients (all Grade), and the most common were RCCEP (37.9%), pneumonitis (6.9%), and chest congestion (6.9%). Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events occurred in 10.3% of patients.ConclusionsIn patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, camrelizumab demonstrated improved ORR and DCR, compared with historical data of the 2nd line chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile. While patients with RCCEP derived greater benefit from camrelizumab. Further studies are needed in large sample size trials.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1150.1-1150
Author(s):  
T. Fujii ◽  
T. Atsumi ◽  
N. Okamoto ◽  
N. Takahashi ◽  
N. Tamura ◽  
...  

Background:An all-case post marketing surveillance (PMS) of baricitinib (Bari), that started in Sep 2017, collects safety and effectiveness for the first 24 wks of treatment and continues to collect serious adverse events (SAEs) for 3 yrs.Objectives:To evaluate Bari safety in RA patients (pt) in clinical practice.Methods:We report pt baseline demographics and adverse events (AEs) up to 24 wks for pts whose case report files for 24-wk data were completed as of Jun 2020.Results:Data from 3445 pts were analyzed (females=80%, mean age=64yr, mean RA duration 12yr). Bari dose regimen was as follows: 4mg, 60%, 2mg, 27%, 4mg→2mg, 5%, 2mg→4mg, 5%, and others, 2%. Concomitant use of MTX and glucocorticoid was 65% and 48%, respectively. 74% continued treatment for 24 wks. AE and SAE were recognized in 887 (26%) and 122 pts (4%), respectively. 6 pts died of pneumonia, aspiration pneumonia, bacterial pneumonia, cerebral infarction/ILD/aspiration pneumonia, adenocarcinoma, and colorectal cancer. Major AEs were as follows: herpes zoster=3%, liver dysfunction=3%, serious infection=1%, anemia=1%, hyperlipidemia=1%, malignancy=0.3%, interstitial pneumonia=0.2%, MACE=0.1%, and VTE=0.1%.Conclusion:Data do not show new safety concerns and encourage guideline-compliant use of Bari.Disclosure of Interests:Takao Fujii Speakers bureau: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Eisai Co. Ltd; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Consultant of: Asahikasei Pharma Corp, Grant/research support from: Asahikasei Pharma Corp; AbbVie Japan GK; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Eisai Co. Ltd; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tatsuya Atsumi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Astellas Pharma Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Ltd; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.; Eisai Co. Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., UCB Japan Co. Ltd., Consultant of: AbbVie Japan GK; AstraZeneca plc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd.; Medical & Biological Laboratories Co. Ltd.; Novartis Pharma K.K.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Pfizer Japan Inc., Grant/research support from: Astellas Pharma Inc., Alexion Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.Pfizer Japan Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nami Okamoto Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Asahikasei Pharma Co.; AYUMI Pharmaceutical Co.Eisai Co. Ltd; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.Sanofi K.K.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Novartis Pharma Co.; Teijin Pharma Ltd.; Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nobunori Takahashi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Eisai Co. Ltd.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; UCB Japan Co. Ltd.; Astellas Pharma Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Ltd., Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Ltd., Naoto Tamura Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Ltd.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Eisai Co. Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Glaxo Smith Kline K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Novartis Pharma Co., Atsuo Nakajima: None declared, Ayako Nakajima Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Actelion Pharmaceuticals Japan Ltd., Asahi Kasei Pharma Co., Astellas Pharma Inc., Ayumi Pharmaceutical Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Ltd.,Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Glaxo Smith Kline K.K., Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co. Inc., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Teijin Pharma Ltd., Grant/research support from: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Pfizer Japan Inc., Hiroaki Matsuno Speakers bureau: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Consultant of: Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Grant/research support from: Astellas Pharma Inc., Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K, Naoto Tsujimoto Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Atsushi Nishikawa Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Taeko Ishii Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK, Ayumi Pharmaceutical Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. Eisai Co., Ltd. Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Novartis Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Sanofi K.K.; UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Consultant of: AbbVie Japan GK, Astellas Pharma, Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Eisai Co., Ltd.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., Pfizer Japan Inc., Grant/research support from: AbbVie Japan GK, Asahikasei Pharma Corp., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., DNA Chip Research Inc.; Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK, Astellas Pharma Inc., Asahi Kasei Pharma Co., Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Medical &Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co.; Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Pfizer Japan Inc., Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc.; Medical &Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd.; Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Medical &Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Michiaki Takagi Speakers bureau: Yes, but sponsored lectures without COI in the academic meetings, only.


2014 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-136.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer C. Chen ◽  
Richelle J. Cooper ◽  
Ana Lopez-O'Sullivan ◽  
David L. Schriger

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s459-s461
Author(s):  
Valerie M Vaughn ◽  
Lindsay A. Petty ◽  
Tejal N. Gandhi ◽  
Keith S. Kaye ◽  
Anurag Malani ◽  
...  

Background: Nearly half of hospitalized patients with bacteriuria or treated for pneumonia receive unnecessary antibiotics (noninfectious or nonbacterial syndrome such as asymptomatic bacteriuria), excess duration (antibiotics prescribed for longer than necessary), or avoidable fluoroquinolones (safer alternative available) at hospital discharge.1–3 However, whether antibiotic overuse at discharge varies between hospitals or is associated with patient outcomes remains unknown. Methods: From July 2017 to December 2018, trained abstractors at 46 Michigan hospitals collected detailed data on a sample of adult, non–intensive care, hospitalized patients with bacteriuria (positive urine culture with or without symptoms) or treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP; includes those with the disease formerly known as healthcare-associated pneumonia [HCAP]). Antibiotic prescriptions at discharge were assessed for antibiotic overuse using a previously described, guideline-based hierarchical algorithm.3 Here, we report the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse by the hospital. We also assessed hospital-level correlation (using Pearson’s correlation coefficient) between antibiotic overuse at discharge for patients with bacteriuria and patients treated for CAP. Finally, we assessed the association of antibiotic overuse at discharge with patient outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) at 30 days using logit generalized estimating equations adjusted for patient characteristics and probability of treatment. Results: Of 17,081 patients (7,207 with bacteriuria; 9,874 treated for pneumonia), nearly half (42.2%) had antibiotic overuse at discharge (36.3% bacteriuria and 51.1% pneumonia). The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals from 14.7% (95% CI, 8.0%–25.3%) to 74.3% (95% CI, 64.2%–83.8%). Hospital rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge were strongly correlated between bacteriuria and CAP (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 0.76; P ≤ .001) (Fig. 1). In adjusted analyses, antibiotic overuse at discharge was not associated with death, readmission, emergency department visit, or Clostridioides difficile infection. However, each day of overuse was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of patient-reported antibiotic-associated adverse events after discharge (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Antibiotic overuse at discharge was common, varied widely between hospitals, and was associated with patient harm. Furthermore, antibiotic overuse at discharge was strongly correlated between 2 disparate diseases, suggesting that prescribing culture or discharge processes—rather than disease-specific factors—contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Thus, discharge stewardship may be needed to target multiple diseases.Funding: This study was supported by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.Disclosures: Valerie M. Vaughn reports contracted research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of VA, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports receipt of funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.


2017 ◽  
Vol 171 (10) ◽  
pp. 957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maala Bhatt ◽  
David W. Johnson ◽  
Jason Chan ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Nick Barrowman ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaina Moon ◽  
Julia Veir

ABSTRACT This study described the rate of vaccine reactions in a population of dogs receiving vaccines after diagnosis of primary immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA). A secondary objective was to describe the time elapsed between vaccination and initial diagnosis of IMHA. A medical record search identified cases meeting criteria for primary IMHA. Owners and referring veterinarians were surveyed regarding vaccination of the dog following diagnosis. Referring veterinarians were surveyed regarding vaccination prior to diagnosis of IMHA. A completed survey was returned in 44 cases. Twenty-two dogs received vaccinations after diagnosis, and 22 dogs did not. The median time elapsed between vaccination and initial diagnosis was 280 days. No dog was vaccinated within 30 days of diagnosis. Two of the following possible reactions were noted out of 22 dogs vaccinated: vomiting and urticarial eruption in a dog administered a rabies and canine distemper vaccine, and recurrent anemia in a dog administered a rabies vaccine. The rate of vaccine reactions was higher than previously reported, although the time period evaluated was longer than in previous studies. The relationship between initial vaccination and development of IMHA, and between vaccination and vaccine reaction, in this population is uncertain and may reflect coincidence or differences in susceptibility.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 1202-1209
Author(s):  
Joseph Sinnott ◽  
Christopher Holthaus ◽  
Enyo Ablordeppey ◽  
Brian Wessman ◽  
Brian Roberts ◽  
...  

Introduction: Management of sedation, analgesia, and anxiolysis are cornerstone therapies in the emergency department (ED). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a central alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly being used, and intensive care unit (ICU) data demonstrate improved outcomes in patients with respiratory failure. However, there is a lack of ED-based data. We therefore sought to: 1) characterize ED DEX use; 2) describe the incidence of adverse events; and 3) explore factors associated with adverse events among patients receiving DEX in the ED. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study of consecutive ED patients administered DEX (January 1, 2017–July 1, 2019) at an academic, tertiary care ED with an annual census of ~90,000 patient visits. All included patients (n= 103) were analyzed for characterization of DEX use in the ED. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events, bradycardia and hypotension. Secondary clinical outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and hospital mortality. To examine for variables associated with adverse events, we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: We report on 103 patients. Dexmedetomidine was most commonly given for acute respiratory failure, including sedation for mechanical ventilation (28.9%) and facilitation of non-invasive ventilation (17.4%). Fifty-four (52.4%) patients experienced the composite adverse event, with hypotension occurring in 41 patients (39.8%) and bradycardia occurring in 18 patients (17.5%). Dexmedetomidine was stopped secondary to an adverse event in eight patients (7.8%). Duration of DEX use in the ED was associated with an increase adverse event risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 1.001, 1.008). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered in the ED for patients with acute respiratory failure. Adverse events are relatively common, yet DEX is discontinued comparatively infrequently due to adverse events. Our results suggest that DEX could be a viable option for analgesia, anxiolysis, and sedation in ED patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document