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.

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.