Comparison of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for emergent warfarin reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal (EWR) have been prescribed three-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC3) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC4) to reverse the anticoagulant effects of warfarin. There is no existing systematic review and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing PCC3 and PCC4. METHODS: The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of achieving study defined target INR goal after PCC3 or PCC4 administration. Secondary objectives were to determine the difference in safety endpoints, thromboembolic events (TE), and survival during the patients' hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR), and heterogeneity associated with the outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Ten full-text manuscripts and five abstracts provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Patients requiring EWR had more than three times the odds of reversal to goal INR when they were given PCC4 compared to PCC3 (OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 1.97-6.60, p < 0.001). There was no meaningful clinical association or statistically significant result between PCC4 and PCC3 groups in TE (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.83-2.91, p = 0.17), or survival during hospital stay (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.81-2.23, p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: PCC4 is more effective than PCC3 in meeting specific predefined INR goals and has similar safety profiles in patients requiring emergent reversal of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin.

Assessing pharmacy student experience with, knowledge of and attitudes towards harm reduction: illuminating barriers to pharmacist-led harm reduction.

BACKGROUND: As the burden from the opioid epidemic continues to increase in the state of Minnesota and across the nation, the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy seeks to design an innovative, comprehensive harm reduction curriculum in order to better train student pharmacists to serve the varied needs of the greater community. This study examines incoming individuals' baseline knowledge of and attitudes toward harm reduction in order to better inform curriculum planning and to ultimately produce pharmacists capable of impacting the devastating effects of the opioid crisis. METHODS: Incoming first-year pharmacy students took a survey focused on their knowledge of opioid overdose and the drug naloxone and also provided written reflections on their perceptions of harm reduction. Data was coded using consensual qualitative research (CQR) into appropriate domains. RESULTS: Pharmacy students beginning their professional education revealed a lack of knowledge of proper response to an overdose situation, with 18.56% unfamiliar with the opioid antagonist drug naloxone. Close to 10% (9.58%) of students expressed unwillingness to do anything other than call an ambulance during an overdose event, while 8.98% were either unsure or felt that they would not feel compelled to do something to help. Qualitative coding revealed many barriers to students' becoming capable harm reductionists, including lack of knowledge of substance use, addiction, and harm reduction, in addition to the presence of bias and stigma. CONCLUSION: In order to interrupt the cycle of misinformation and stigma within the larger community and the subgroup of medical providers, gaps in student knowledge must be addressed in meaningful, specific ways over the course of their pharmacy education. Evaluating baseline knowledge and beliefs informs the design of a flexible, action-oriented curriculum to produce well-trained pharmacists ready to engage in finding solutions to the opioid crisis.

OPIOIDS: cultivating interprofessional collaboration to find solutions to public health problems.

This study evaluated perceived effectiveness of an interprofessional case-based activity that allowed medical and pharmacy students to engage in problem-solving around the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) in opioid misuse. Students participated in a case-based activity, and then completed a post-activity survey that included five open-ended questions and the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey. Twelve pharmacy students (100%) and 47 medical students (75%) completed the post-activity survey. Results indicate the activity resulted in a statistically significant increase in student ability to: 1) recognize interprofessional team members' knowledge, skills, and contributions to the interprofessional team; 2) communicate effectively across professions; and 3) learn with, from, and about interprofessional team members to develop a patient care plan. Students also reported enhanced understanding of treatment considerations with opioid misuse, the role of SDOH, and recognition of the value of interprofessional collaboration in their future practice. This interprofessional case-based activity appeared to promote collaboration among students from different professional programs as they engaged in problem-solving around a contemporary public health issue that intersects their future practices. This activity may serve as a model for health professional programs, practitioners, healthcare systems, and communities that seek interprofessional solutions to combat opioid misuse.

Rural Emergency Medical Service Providers Perceptions on the Causes of and Solutions to the Opioid Crisis: A Qualitative Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: The continuing opioid crisis poses unique challenges to remote and often under-resourced rural communities. Emergency medical service (EMS) providers serve a critical role in responding to opioid overdose for individuals living in rural or remote areas who experience opioid overdoses. They are often first at the scene of an overdose and are sometimes the only health care provider in contact with an overdose patient who either did not survive or refused additional care. As such, EMS providers have valuable perspectives to share on the causes and consequences of the opioid crisis in rural communities. METHODS: EMS providers attending a statewide EMS conference serving those from greater Minnesota and surrounding states were invited to take a 2-question survey asking them to reflect upon what they believed to be the causes of the opioid crisis and what they saw as the solutions to the opioid crisis. Results were coded and categorized using a Consensual Qualitative Research approach. RESULTS: EMS providers' perceptions on causes of the opioid crisis were categorized into 5 main domains: overprescribing, ease of access, socioeconomic vulnerability, mental health concerns, and lack of resources and education. Responses focused on solutions to address the opioid crisis were categorized into 5 main domains: need for increased education, enhanced opioid oversight, increased access to treatment programs, alternative therapies for pain management, and addressing socioeconomic vulnerabilities. CONCLUSION: Along with the recognition that the opioid crisis was at least partially caused by overprescribing, rural EMS providers who participated in this study recognized the critical role of social determinants of health in perpetuating opioid-related harm. Participants in this study reported that education and increased access to treatment facilities and appropriate pain management, along with recognition of the role of social determinants of health in opioid dependency, were necessary steps to address the opioid crisis.

Community Pharmacist Utilization of Legislation That Allows Impact on the Opioid Crisis in the State of Minnesota: A Mixed-Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: As opioid overdose deaths climb, legislation supporting pharmacists in developing their role to address the crisis has expanded. Although Minnesota pharmacists are encouraged to utilize opiate antagonist, syringe access and authorized collector legislation, the use patterns of these tools are unknown. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to survey 8405 Minnesota-licensed pharmacists on their practices related to the opioid crisis. An analysis of community pharmacist utilization of opioid-related legislation was conducted. RESULTS: The majority (88.64%) of respondents indicated that they had not dispensed naloxone in the past month using a protocol; 59.69% reported that they had not dispensed naloxone by any method in the past month. Over sixty percent (60.61%) of respondents agreed they are comfortable with dispensing syringes and would dispense noninsulin syringes in their pharmacy under the statewide Syringe Access Initiative; 25.86% reported that they are not comfortable dispensing syringes. The majority (78.64%) of respondents reported that they do not participate in collecting unwanted pharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: While pharmacists have the potential to play a key role in efforts focused on addressing the opioid crisis through harm reduction strategies, this role and the use of supporting legislation is currently underutilized in the state of Minnesota.