Impact of a pharmacist driven anticoagulation reversal program at a large academic medical center.

In major/life-threatening bleeding, administration of timely and appropriate reversal agents is imperative to reduce morbidity and mortality. Due to complexities associated with the use of reversal agents, a clinical pharmacist-driven anticoagulation reversal program (ARP) was developed. The goal of this program was to ensure appropriateness of reversal agents based on the clinical scenario, optimize selection and avoid unintended consequences. This study describes the impact of a pharmacist-driven anticoagulation program on patient outcomes and cost. A single center retrospective chart review of adult patients whom the ARP was consulted from October 2018 to January 2020 was performed. Patients were included in the efficacy analysis if they were > 18 years of age and presented with acute bleeding. Patients were excluded from the efficacy analysis if the recommended reversal agent was not administered, if a repeat head CT was not available for patients who presented with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or if the patient was not bleeding. All patients were included in the economic evaluation. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved effective hemostasis within 24 h of anticoagulation reversal. Secondary outcomes include incidence of thromboembolic events, in-hospital mortality, and cost avoidance. One hundred twenty-one patients were evaluated by the ARP with 92 patients included in the efficacy analysis. The primary sites of bleeding were ICH in 46% and gastrointestinal (GI) in 29%. Hemostasis was achieved in 84% of patients. Thrombotic events occurred in 7.4% of patients and in-hospital mortality was 26.4%. Total cost avoidance was $1,005,871.78. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven ARP on clinical and economic outcomes. Implementation of a pharmacist-driven ARP was associated with favorable outcomes and cost savings.

A Review of Pharmacologic Neurostimulant Use During Rehabilitation and Recovery After Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic neurostimulants after neurological injuries such as ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI), critically evaluate the available literature, and make recommendations regarding which neurostimulants should be considered for use in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed was performed (1953 to October 2020) to identify relevant articles. Search terms included the following: "neurostimulant, neurorehabilitation" AND "traumatic brain injury, cerebrovascular accident, or stroke." This review is limited to prospective studies and observational trials. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant English-language studies conducted in humans were considered. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cognitive and motor deficits caused by stroke and TBI account for high rates of long-term disability. Although not well-established, pharmacologic agents, broadly characterized as neurostimulants, may be prescribed after brain injury to treat these deficits. When prescribing these medications, it is imperative to be aware of the supporting evidence in order to accurately gauge the risk-benefit profile of each agent. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: The following presents a literature review critically evaluating clinical studies that investigate neurostimulant use after brain injury. The intent of this review is to serve as an evidence-based guide for clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacologic agent with the most supporting literature is amantadine used for cognitive improvement after TBI. Other neurostimulants with positive, despite more limited, evidence include methylphenidate, modafinil, levodopa, and citalopram. Caution is warranted with other neurostimulants given higher rates of adverse effects or lack of benefit observed in clinical trials.

Review of Intravenous Acetaminophen for Analgesia in the Postoperative Setting.

BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen is a non-opioid analgesic commonly utilized for pain control after several types of surgical procedures. METHODS: This scoping primary literature review provides recommendations for intravenous (IV) acetaminophen use based on type of surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous acetaminophen has been widely studied for postoperative pain control and has been compared to other agents such as NSAIDs, opioids, oral/rectal acetaminophen, and placebo. Some of the procedures studied include abdominal, gynecologic, orthopedic, neurosurgical, cardiac, renal, and genitourinary surgeries. Results of these studies have been conflicting and largely have not shown consistent clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: Overall, findings from this review did not support the notion that IV acetaminophen has significant efficacy for postoperative analgesia. Given the limited clinical benefit of IV acetaminophen, especially when compared to the oral or rectal formulations, use is generally not justifiable.

Are NSAIDs Safe? Assessing the Risk-Benefit Profile of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use in Postoperative Pain Management.

In this article, we review controversies in assessing the risk of serious adverse effects caused by administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Our focus is upon NSAIDs used in short courses for the management of acute postoperative pain. In our review of the literature, we found that the risks of short-term NSAID use may be overemphasized. Specifically, that the likelihood of renal dysfunction, bleeding, nonunion of bone, gastric complications, and finally, cardiac dysfunction do not appear to be significantly increased when NSAIDs are used appropriately after surgery. The importance of this finding is that in light of the opioid epidemic, it is crucial to be aware of alternative analgesic options that are safe for postoperative pain control.

Implementation and evaluation of a virtual learning advanced pharmacy practice experience.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 restricted student involvement in direct patient care. Virtual learning is an effective education strategy in pharmacy curriculums. This study aimed to evaluate student perceptions of virtual learning advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPE) utilizing an electronic 12-question survey. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Virtual learning was developed and implemented, and students were surveyed at the end of the APPE. The survey was comprised of one open-ended and 11 Likert scale questions. It assessed implementation and use of virtual learning in place of a standard on-site APPE. FINDINGS: Responses were attained from 19 students. Questions regarding resources provided and virtual learning enabling autonomous, independent learning had the highest percent of strong agreement. No responses indicated strong disagreement. Three questions solicited >10% response rate of somewhat disagree, 16% associated with virtual learning helping the student become a better member of the healthcare team after graduation. Open-ended responses acknowledged appreciation of the virtual APPE and presented material. One in six students commented on the ability to apply the learned information to direct patient care. Feedback was delivered on consideration for increased utility of patient care-orientated applications to facilitate simulation of real-life patient cases. SUMMARY: Students who completed the virtual APPE were satisfied overall. Virtual teaching modalities may be incorporated into APPEs, particularly when direct patient care access is limited, but should not be used to completely replace the experience gained during direct patient care.