Search

Background: Several studies have examined INR fluctuations using pharmacokinetic (PK) models or post-hoc INR values after completing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, but further study of the effects of the drug interaction with warfarin during treatment is necessary. Case Summary: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is largely utilized in the outpatient setting so data regarding INR trends in hospitalized patients on warfarin is limited. However, many who receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir outpatient experience difficulty with presenting to clinic for INR checks due to feeling acutely ill along with isolation precautions. We present the case of a patient receiving warfarin and utilizing home INR testing for monitoring. After diagnosis of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), she was started on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on day five after testing positive. Most recent INR prior to the start of therapy was 2.7 and had been stable on the same dose for months prior to infection. On day two of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, her INR rose to 4.0 on home point of care INR testing. Despite reducing her dose of warfarin by 15%, her INR remained supratherapeutic the day after completing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (4.0) and for several checks after. One month after completion of therapy, her INR returned to therapeutic levels. Practice Implications: While PK models and case series have hypothesized both potential increases or decreases in INR with the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and warfarin interaction, COVID-19 infection itself can cause several pharmacodynamic changes which can increase INR, including decreased appetite and, in severe cases, organ dysfunction. This case provides real-world insight into the drug interaction between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and the drug-disease state interaction between warfarin and COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2019, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists ratified a multitiered standardized surveillance case definition (SSCD) for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) to minimize variability in definitions across states. This evaluation of the tier 1 NAS SSCD aimed to identify common challenges and opportunities for enhancement to support consistent implementation of the definition.This mixed-methods analysis consisted of 3 virtual focus groups in March 2021 with site principal investigators, medical record abstractors, and data analysts (1 focus group each) from 4 jurisdictions piloting the tier 1 NAS SSCD. We analyzed focus group transcripts to create a codebook. We collected written reports in February 2022 from the 4 jurisdictions, conducted thematic analysis of focus group transcripts and written reports to identify themes, and collected surveillance data on infants identified with NAS born from January 2020 through December 2021 from the pilot sites. We analyzed surveillance data to further inform identified themes. We examined agreement among tier 1 classifications assigned independently by each pilot site and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to cases of NAS.Three major themes emerged in the data: challenges abstracting data on withdrawal signs from the medical record, difficulty determining the time frame of prenatal substance exposure, and challenges assigning case classifications. In a comparison of tier 1 classifications assigned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the sites, 82.1% of cases in the dataset were concordant.We identified several opportunities to modify the SSCD to promote consistency and ease implementation across jurisdictions. Promoting consistent implementation supports comparability of NAS incidence estimates across jurisdictions, evaluation of prevention efforts, and allocation of resources to support families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]