The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, particularly in managing critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation early in the pandemic. Surging patient volumes strained hospital resources and complicated the implementation of standard-of-care intensive care unit (ICU) practices, including sedation management. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an evidence-based ICU sedation bundle during the early COVID-19 pandemic. The bundle was designed by a multi-disciplinary collaborative to reinforce best clinical practices related to ICU sedation. The bundle was implemented prospectively with retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data. The setting was the ICUs of a single-center tertiary hospital. The patients were the ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation for confirmed COVID-19 between March and June 2020. A learning health collaborative developed a sedation bundle encouraging goal-directed sedation and use of adjunctive strategies to avoid excessive sedative administration. Implementation strategies included structured in-service training, audit and feedback, and continuous improvement. Sedative utilization and clinical outcomes were compared between patients admitted before and after the sedation bundle implementation. Quasi-experimental interrupted time-series analyses of pre and post intervention sedative utilization, hospital length of stay, and number of days free of delirium, coma, or death in 21 days (as a quantitative measure of encephalopathy burden). The analysis used the time duration between start of the COVID-19 wave and ICU admission to identify a \"breakpoint\" indicating a change in observed trends. A total of 183 patients (age 59.0 ± 15.9 years) were included, with 83 (45%) admitted before the intervention began. Benzodiazepine utilization increased for patients admitted after the bundle implementation, while agents intended to reduce benzodiazepine use showed no greater utilization. No \"breakpoint\" was identified to suggest the bundle impacted any endpoint measure. However, increasing time between COVID-19 wave start and ICU admission was associated with fewer delirium, coma, and death-free days (β =  - 0.044 [95% CI - 0.085, - 0.003] days/wave day); more days of benzodiazepine infusion (β = 0.056 [95% CI 0.025, 0.088] days/wave day); and a higher maximum benzodiazepine infusion rate (β = 0.079 [95% CI 0.037, 0.120] mg/h/wave day). The evidence-based practice bundle did not significantly alter sedation utilization patterns during the first COVID-19 wave. Sedation practices deteriorated and encephalopathy burden increased over time, highlighting that strategies to reinforce clinical practices may be hindered under conditions of extreme healthcare system strain.

Management of severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) typically involves the use of sedation, which inherently results in benefits and risks. The cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP2B6 is involved in the biotransformation of particular drug classes, including many intravenous sedatives. Variants of the CYP2B6 gene can lead to decreased systemic clearance of some sedatives, including propofol. This study aimed to investigate the relationship of CYP2B6 gene variation and patient outcomes after TBI while also considering propofol administration. Patients who sustained a non-penetrating sTBI and admitted to a single-center Level 1 trauma hospital were included in this study (n = 440). The *6 functional allele of CYP2B6 that leads to reduced enzyme expression and activity required genotyping two single nucleotide polymorphisms, rs3745274 and rs2279343. Patient outcomes were evaluated using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and Disability Rating Scale (DRS) at 3 and 6 months post-injury. Data on sedative administration were abstracted from medical records. Individuals homozygous for the alleles coding for the reduced enzyme expression and activity were more likely to have worse outcomes. A relationship between propofol administration and 3-month GOS and 6-month DRS was noted when controlling for CYP2B6 genotype. These findings suggest that genetic variation in CYP2B6 may influence the impact of intravenous sedation on patient outcomes after TBI and warrants further investigation.

Pediatric sedation is a crucial tool for minimizing pain and anxiety during procedures and examinations in children. However, it is not without risks. This review provides a comprehensive review of pediatric sedation, including both established practices and recent advancements. A thorough pre-procedural evaluation is crucial to mitigate these risks. Skilled healthcare professionals trained in pediatric sedation are paramount to ensure a safe and effective procedure. The choice of sedative medication depends on various factors, such as the type of procedure and the patient\'s medical condition. Medications, used alone or in combination, offer sedation with varying onset times and durations. Non-pharmacological approaches can complement pharmacological sedation and further reduce potential complications. Preventing sedation-related complications requires a multidisciplinary approach. This includes collaborative decision-making, vigilant monitoring throughout the procedure, and a focus on patient safety. Recovery involves ensuring the child returns to their baseline status before discharge, following established criteria. In conclusion, successful pediatric sedation hinges on a comprehensive strategy. This strategy encompasses a thorough evaluation, skilled personnel, appropriate medication selection, vigilant monitoring, and a focus on patient safety throughout the process. By following these steps, we can minimize risks and achieve successful outcomes.

Antibiotic, analgesic sedative, and antiseizure medications are among the most commonly used medications in preterm/sick neonates, who are at high risk of nosocomial infections, central nervous system complications, and are exposed to numerous painful/stressful procedures. These severe and potentially life-threatening complications may have serious short- and long-term consequences and should be prevented and/or promptly treated. The reported variability in the medications used in neonates indicates the lack of adequate neonatal studies regarding their effectiveness and safety. Important obstacles contributing to inadequate studies in preterm/sick infants include difficulties in obtaining parental consent, physicians\' unwillingness to recruit preterm infants, the off-label use of many medications in neonates, and other scientific and ethical concerns. This review is an update on the use of antimicrobials (antifungals), analgesics (sedatives), and antiseizure medications in neonates, focusing on current evidence or knowledge gaps regarding their pharmacokinetics, indications, safety, dosage, and evidence-based guidelines for their optimal use in neonates. We also address the effects of early antibiotic use on the intestinal microbiome and its association with long-term immune-related diseases, obesity, and neurodevelopment (ND). Recommendations for empirical treatment and the emergence of pathogen resistance to antimicrobials and antifungals are also presented. Finally, future perspectives on the prevention, modification, or reversal of antibiotic resistance are discussed.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing of gabapentinoids and Z-drug-hypnotics has increased in the population and among people receiving opioid-agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid dependence. Evidence is mixed on whether co-prescribing of sedatives such as gabapentinoids and Z-drugs during OAT increases risk of drug-related death (DRD).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals prescribed OAT between 2011 and 2020 in Scotland. Prescribing records were linked to mortality data and other healthcare datasets (sociodemographic, comorbidity). We identified episodes of treatment with gabapentinoids/Z-drugs and used multivariable quasi-Poisson regression to model associations between co-prescription and DRD risk.
RESULTS: Among 46,602 individuals with 304,783 person-years of follow-up, we found that co-prescription was common, with 25 % and 34 % ever being co-prescribed gabapentinoids and Z-drugs, respectively. Gabapentinoid exposure was strongly associated (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=2·18, 95 % CI=1·92, 2·46) and Z-drug exposure moderately associated (aHR=1·39, 95 % CI=1·15, 1·66) with elevated risk of DRD. Gabapentinoid exposure was associated with DRD risk on and off OAT; Z-drug exposure was less strongly associated with DRD risk when on OAT.
CONCLUSIONS: Co-prescription of gabapentinoids and Z-drugs is common among OAT patients. However, co-prescription is associated with increased risk of DRD. Alternatives to prescribing sedative medications to OAT patients and/or greater monitoring - if prescribed - are needed.

OBJECTIVE: This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the existing literature on the relationship between hypnotics and dementia, considering both potential link and inconclusive or lack of association.
METHODS: Data from studies that investigate the association between hypnotic medications and dementia were reviewed. Studies included both cohort studies and systematic reviews, participants with various type of dementia and hypnotics including benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z-drugs (ZDs).
RESULTS: The existing literatures presents conflicting evidence regarding the association between hypnotics, including BZDs and ZDs, and the risk of dementia. Some studies suggest a potential link between prolonged use of hypnotics and an increased risk of dementia. However, other studies indicate inconclusive or lacking evidence regarding this association. Factors such as study design, sample characteristics, and control of confounding variables contribute to the variability in findings.
CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between hypnotics and dementia remains complex and controversial. While some studies suggest a potential association, others find inconclusive or conflicting evidence. Future research should focus on addressing methodological limitations, considering classifying dementia subtypes, and try to adjust medication lag time.

OBJECTIVE: Older inpatients who fall are often frail, with multiple co-morbidities and polypharmacy. Although the causes of falls are multifactorial, sedating and delirium-inducing drugs increase that risk. The aims were to determine whether people who fell had a change in their sedative and anticholinergic medication burden during an admission compared to people who did not fall. A secondary aim was to determine the factors associated with change in drug burden.
METHODS: A retrospective, observational, case-control study of inpatients who fell. Two hundred consecutive people who fell were compared with 200 randomly selected people who had not fallen. Demographics, functional ability, frailty and cognition were recorded. For each patient, their total medications and anticholinergic and sedative burden were calculated on admission and on discharge, using the drug burden index (DBI).
RESULTS: People who fell were more dependent and cognitively impaired than people who did not fallen. People who fell had a higher DBI on admission, than people who had not fall (mean: .69 vs .43, respectively, p < .001) and discharge (.66 vs .38, p < .001). For both cohorts, the DBI decreased between admission and discharge (-.03 and -.05), but neither were clinically significant. Higher total medications and a higher number DBI medications on admission were both associated with greater DBI changes (p = .003 and <.001, respectively). However, the presence (or absence) of cognitive impairment, dependency, frailty and single vs multiple falls were not significantly associated with DBI changes.
CONCLUSIONS: In older people, DBI medications and falls are both common and have serious consequences, yet this study was unable to demonstrate any clinically relevant reduction in average DBI either in people who fell or people who had not fallen during a hospital admission.

Pain in early life may seriously impact neonatal outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate whether the perceptions of physicians working in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) of the short-term adverse outcomes associated with neonatal pain have changed over a 20-year period. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 117 and 145 neonatologists, pediatricians, and fellows working in level III NICUs in 2000 (T1) and 2019 (T2), respectively. The questionnaire consisted of four domains, including the central nervous, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, as well as \"other systems\" (metabolic/endocrine system, growth, and general condition), with 21 total items overall. Although the proportion of positive (correct) responses to the total and system-specific domain scores was significantly higher at T2 than T1, the knowledge of certain short-term adverse outcomes was suboptimal even at T2. Adjustment for cofactors confirmed the independent association of the survey time-point with the total and system-specific domain scores. Moreover, NICU type was an independent significant factor associated with the adjusted total and central nervous system scores, while young doctors had a better knowledge of adverse cardiovascular effects. Conclusions: The perceptions of NICU physicians concerning the short-term outcomes associated with neonatal pain have significantly improved over the past 20 years, although remaining knowledge gaps mandate ongoing efforts to achieve an improvement in neonatal care.

A hepatocyte cell line was used to determine the hepatotoxicity of sedatives and opioids, as the hepatotoxicity of these drugs has not yet been well characterized. This might pose a threat, especially to critically ill patients, as they often receive high cumulative doses for daily analgosedation and often already have impaired liver function due to an underlying disease or complications during treatment. A well-established biosensor based on HepG2/C3A cells was used for the determination of the hepatotoxicity of commonly used sedatives and opioids in the intensive care setting (midazolam, propofol, s-ketamin, thiopental, fentanyl, remifentanil, and sufentanil). The incubation time was 2 × 3 days with clinically relevant (Cmax) and higher concentrations (C5× and C10×) of each drug in cell culture medium or human plasma. Afterward, we measured the cell count, vitality, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity, cytochrome P 450 1A2 (CYP1A2), and albumin synthesis. All tested substances reduced the viability of hepatocyte cells, but sufentanil and remifentanil showed more pronounced effects. The cell count was diminished by sufentanil in both the medium and plasma and by remifentanil only in plasma. Sufentanil and remifentanil also led to higher values of LDH in the cell culture supernatant. A reduction of mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity was seen with the use of midazolam and s-ketamine. Microalbumin synthesis was reduced in plasma after its incubation with higher concentrations of sufentanil and remifentanil. Remifentanil and s-ketamine reduced CYP1A2 activity, while propofol and thiopental increased it. Our findings suggest that none of the tested sedatives and opioids have pronounced hepatotoxicity. Sufentanil, remifentanil, and s-ketamine showed moderate hepatotoxic effects in vitro. These drugs should be given with caution to patients vulnerable to hepatotoxic drugs, e.g., patients with pre-existing liver disease or liver impairment as part of their underlying disease (e.g., hypoxic hepatitis or cholestatic liver dysfunction in sepsis). Further studies are indicated for this topic, which may use more complex cell culture models and global pharmacovigilance reports, addressing the limitation of the used cell model: HepG2/C3A cells have a lower metabolic capacity due to their low levels of CYP enzymes compared to primary hepatocytes. However, while the test model is suitable for parental substances, it is not for toxicity testing of metabolites.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID syndrome (PCS) causes lasting symptoms like fatigue and cognitive issues. PCS treatment is nonspecific, focusing on symptom management, potentially increasing the risk of polypharmacy.
OBJECTIVE: To describe medication use patterns among patients with Post-COVID Syndrome (PCS) and estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy, potential drug-drug interactions, and anticholinergic/sedative burden.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Quebec Action for Post-COVID cohort, consisting of individuals self-identifying with persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 12 weeks. Medications were categorized using Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes. Polypharmacy was defined as using 5 or more concurrent medications. The Anticholinergic and Sedative Burden Catalog assessed anticholinergic and sedative loads. The Lexi-Interact checker identified potential drug-drug interactions, which were categorized into 3 severity tiers.
RESULTS: Out of 414 respondents, 154 (average age 47.7 years) were prescribed medications related to persistent COVID-19 symptoms. Drugs targeting the nervous system were predominant at 54.5%. The median number of medications was 2, while 11.7% reported polypharmacy. Over half of the participants prescribed medications used at least 1 anticholinergic or sedative medication, and 25% had the potential risk for clinically significant drug-drug interactions, primarily needing therapy monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals prescription patterns for PCS, underscoring the targeted management of nervous system symptoms. The risks associated with polypharmacy, potential drug-drug interactions, and anticholinergic/sedative burden stress the importance of judicious prescribing. While limitations like recall bias and a regional cohort are present, the findings underscore the imperative need for vigilant PCS symptom management.