John W. Devlin

Background: Current critical care pharmacist (CCP) practices and perceptions related to neuromuscular infusion (NMBI) use for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) maybe different with the COVID-19 pandemic and the publication of 2020 NMBI practice guidelines. Objective: To evaluate CCP practices and perceptions regarding NMBI use for patients with moderate-severe ARDS. Methods: We developed, tested, and electronically administered a questionnaire (7 parent-, 42 sub-questions) to 409 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Critical Care Practice and Research Network members in 12 geographically diverse states. The questionnaire focused on adults with moderate-severe ARDS (PaO 2 :FiO 2 <150) whose causes of dyssynchrony were addressed. Two reminders were sent at 10-day intervals. Results: Respondents [131/409 (32%)] primarily worked in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) 102 (78%). Compared to COVID-negative(-) ARDS patients, COVID positive(+) ARDS patients were twice as likely to receive a NMBI (34 ± 18 vs.16 ± 17%; P < 0.01). Respondents somewhat/strongly agreed a NMBI should be reserved until after trials of deep sedation (112, 86%) or proning (92, 81%) and that NMBI reduced barotrauma (88, 67%), dyssynchrony (87, 66%), and plateau pressure (79, 60%). Few respondents somewhat/strongly agreed that a NMBI should be initiated at ARDS onset (23, 18%) or that NMBI reduced 90-day mortality (12, 10%). Only 2/14 potential NMBI risks [paralysis awareness (101, 82%) and prolonged muscle weakness (84, 68%)] were frequently reported to be of high/very high concern. Multiple NMBI titration targets were assessed as very/extremely important including arterial pH (109, 88%), dyssynchrony (107, 86%), and PaO 2 : FiO 2 ratio (82, 66%). Train-of-four (55, 44%) and BIS monitoring (36, 29%) were deemed less important. Preferred NMBI discontinuation criteria included absence of dysschrony (84, 69%) and use ≥48 hour (72, 59%). Conclusions and Relevance: Current critical care pharmacists believe NMBI for ARDS patients are best reserved until after trials of deep sedation or proning; unique considerations exist in COVID+ patients. Our results should be considered when ICU NMBI protocols are being developed and bedside decisions regarding NMBI use in ARDS are being formulated.

Precision medicine is a growing field in critical care. Research increasingly demonstrated pharmacogenomic variability to be an important determinant of analgesic and sedative drug response in the intensive care unit (ICU). Genome‐wide association and candidate gene finding studies suggest analgesic and sedatives tailored to an individual's genetic makeup, environmental adaptations, in addition to several other patient‐ and drug‐related factors, will maximize effectiveness and help mitigate harm. However, the number of pharmacogenetic studies in ICU patients remains small and no prospective studies have been published using pharmacogenomic data to optimize analgesic or sedative therapy in critically ill patients. Current recommendations for treating ICU pain and agitation are based on controlled studies having low external validity, including the failure to consider pharmacogenomic factors affecting response. Use of a precision medicine approach to individualize pharmacotherapy focused on optimizing ICU patient comfort and safety may improve the outcomes of critically ill adults. Additionally, benefits and risks of analgesic and/or sedative therapy in an individual may be informed with large, standardized datasets. The purpose of this review was to describe a precision medicine approach focused on optimizing analgesic and sedative therapy in individual ICU patients to optimize clinical outcomes and reduce safety concerns.