Impact of a Clinical Pharmacy Specialist in an Emergency Department for Seniors.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study assesses outcomes associated with the implementation of an emergency department (ED) for seniors in which a clinical pharmacy specialist, with specialized geriatric training that included medication management training, is a key member of the ED care team. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients aged 65 years or older who presented at an ED between November 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013. Three groups of seniors were assessed: treated by the clinical pharmacy specialist in the ED for seniors, treated in the ED for seniors but not by the clinical pharmacy specialist, and not treated in the ED for seniors. Outcomes included rates of an ED return visit, mortality and hospital admissions, and follow-up total health care costs. Multivariable regression modeling was used to adjust for any potential confounders in the associations between groups and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4,103 patients were included, with 872 (21%) treated in the ED for seniors and 342 (39%) of these treated by the clinical pharmacy specialist. Groups were well matched overall in patient characteristics. Patients who received medication review and management by the clinical pharmacy specialist did not experience a reduction in ED return visits, mortality, cost of follow-up care, or hospital admissions compared with the other groups. Of the patients treated by the clinical pharmacy specialist, 154 (45.0%) were identified as having at least 1 medication-related problem. CONCLUSION: Although at least 1 medication-related problem was identified in almost half of patients treated by the clinical pharmacy specialist in the ED for seniors, incorporation of a clinical pharmacy specialist into the ED staff did not improve clinical outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial of empiric warfarin dose reduction with the initiation of doxycycline therapy.

BACKGROUND: When interacting medications, such as doxycycline, are initiated during warfarin therapy, one method to correct for non-therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) is adjusting the warfarin dose, if necessary. Another approach is preemptive warfarin dose adjustment. This study's objective was to evaluate the utility of preemptive warfarin dose adjustment for preventing non-therapeutic INR following doxycycline-warfarin co-administration. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either a 10% to 20% preemptive warfarin dose reduction (intervention) or reactive warfarin dose adjustment (control) within 72 hours of warfarin-doxycycline co-administration. Subjects received a follow-up INR within 7 days (index INR). Primary outcome was the occurrence of index INR ≥ 1 point over the INR goal range upper limit. Secondary outcomes included INR control, purchases of prescription vitamin K, and warfarin-associated adverse events in the 30 days after doxycycline initiation. RESULTS: Twenty and 17 patients comprised the intervention and control groups. The intervention group's warfarin dose was reduced by a median of 11%. More control patients (n=2) experienced an INR ≥ 1 point over the INR goal range upper limit compared to intervention (n=0); however, the difference (12% vs. 0%) was not statistically significant (p=0.20). A higher percentage of intervention patients had subtherapeutic index INRs compared to control (35% vs. 6%, p<0.05). One patient from each group experienced warfarin-associated bleeding. No thromboembolic complications or vitamin K use were observed. CONCLUSIONS: For warfarin patients initiating doxycycline therapy, preemptive warfarin dose reduction did not result in supratherapeutic INRs but increased the likelihood of subtherapeutic INRs compared to INR monitoring with reactive warfarin dose adjustment.

Empiric warfarin dose adjustment with prednisone therapy. A randomized, controlled trial.

Typically, the international normalized ratio (INR) is monitored and warfarin dose adjusted, if necessary, to correct non-therapeutic INR after interacting medications, like prednisone, are initiated during warfarin therapy. Preemptively adjusting the warfarin dose is another approach. To evaluate the utility of preemptive warfarin dosage adjustment for preventing non-therapeutic INR following prednisone-warfarin co-administration. Patients were randomized to either a preemptive warfarin dose reduction between 10 and 20% (intervention) or reactive warfarin dose adjustment (control) within 72 h of warfarin-prednisone co-administration. Subjects received a follow-up INR within 7 days. Primary outcome was the occurrence of follow-up INR ≥ 1 point over the INR goal range upper limit. Secondary outcomes included INR control, purchases of prescription vitamin K, and warfarin-associated adverse events in the 30 days after prednisone initiation. Twenty and 17 patients comprised the intervention and control groups. The intervention group's warfarin dose was reduced by a median of 11.8%. More control patients (n = 5) experienced an INR ≥ 1 point over the INR goal range upper limit compared to intervention (n = 2); however, the actual difference (29.4 vs.10.0%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.21). A higher percentage of intervention patients had a subtherapeutic follow-up INR compared to control (40 vs. 5.9%, P = 0.02). One patient from each group experienced warfarin-associated bleeding. No thromboembolic complications or vitamin K purchases were observed. For patients initiating prednisone therapy, preemptive warfarin dose reduction resulted in a non-significant reduction in supratherapeutic INR but increased the likelihood of subtherapeutic INR compared to INR monitoring with reactive warfarin dose adjustment.

Oral vitamin K versus placebo to correct excessive anticoagulation in patients receiving warfarin: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose oral vitamin K decreases the international normalized ratio (INR) in overanticoagulated patients who receive warfarin therapy. Its effects on bleeding events are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To see whether low-dose oral vitamin K reduces bleeding events over 90 days in patients with warfarin-associated coagulopathy. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, and participants were allocated to trial groups by using sequentially numbered study drug containers. Patients, caregivers, and those who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. SETTING: 14 anticoagulant therapy clinics in Canada, the United States, and Italy. PATIENTS: Nonbleeding patients with INR values of 4.5 to 10.0. INTERVENTION: Oral vitamin K, 1.25 mg (355 patients randomly assigned; 347 analyzed), or matching placebo (369 patients randomly assigned; 365 analyzed). MEASUREMENTS: Bleeding events (primary outcome), thromboembolism, and death (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: 56 patients (15.8%) in the vitamin K group and 60 patients (16.3%) in the placebo group had at least 1 bleeding complication (absolute difference, -0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -6.1 to 5.1 percentage points]); major bleeding events occurred in 9 patients (2.5%) in the vitamin K group and 4 patients (1.1%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 1.5 percentage points [CI, -0.8 to 3.7 percentage points]). Thromboembolism occurred in 4 patients (1.1%) in the vitamin K group and 3 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, -1.4 to 2.0 percentage points]). Other adverse effects were not assessed. The day after treatment, the INR had decreased by a mean of 1.4 in the placebo group and 2.8 in the vitamin K group (P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Patients who were actively bleeding were not included, and warfarin dosing after enrollment was not mandated or followed. CONCLUSION: Low-dose oral vitamin K did not reduce bleeding in warfarin recipients with INRs of 4.5 to 10.0. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Italian Ministry of Universities and Research.