Platelet Reactivity Testing for Aspirin Patients Who Sustain Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Patients who take aspirin and sustain traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH) are often transfused platelets in an effort to prevent bleeding progression. The efficacy of platelet transfusion is questionable, however, and some medical societies recommend that platelet reactivity testing (PRT) should guide transfusion decisions. The study hypothesis was that utilization of PRT to guide platelet transfusion for tICH patients suspected of taking aspirin would safely identify patients who did not require platelet transfusion. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with blunt tICH who received PRT for known or suspected aspirin use between June 2014 and December 2017 at a level I trauma center. Chart abstraction was conducted to determine home aspirin status, and PRT values were used to classify patients as therapeutic or nontherapeutic on aspirin. Differences were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. RESULTS: 157 patients met study inclusion criteria, and 118 (75%) patients had documented prior aspirin use. PRT results were available approximately 1.7 h (IQR: 0.9, 3.2) after arrival. Upon initial PRT, 70% of patients were considered inhibited and 88% of those patients had aspirin documented as a home medication. Conversely, 18% of patients with home aspirin use had normal platelet reactivity. Clinically significant worsening of the tICH did not significantly differ when comparing those who received platelet transfusion with those who did not (8% versus 7%, P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Platelet reactivity testing can detect platelet inhibition related to aspirin and should guide transfusion decisions for head injured patients in the initial hours after trauma.

Not all head injured patients on antiplatelet drugs need platelets: Integrating platelet reactivity testing into platelet transfusion guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Antiplatelet medication use continues to rise in an aging population, and these agents can have a deleterious effect for patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH). The purpose of the current investigation is to assess the safety and efficacy of using platelet reactivity testing (PRT) to direct platelet transfusion for tICH patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Level I trauma center adopted a targeted platelet transfusion guideline using PRT to determine whether platelets were inhibited by an antiplatelet medication (aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitors). Non-inhibited patients were monitored without platelet transfusion, regardless of severity of the head injury. The guideline was analyzed retrospectively to evaluate patient outcomes during the study period (June 2014-December 2016). All patients sustained blunt tICH and received a PRT for known or suspected antiplatelet medication use. Differences were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's Exact tests. RESULTS: 166 patients met study inclusion criteria. PRT results indicated that 48 patients (29%) were not inhibited by an antiplatelet medication, and 92% of those patients (n = 44) were spared platelet transfusion. Seven percent (n = 11) of all patients had a clinically significant progression of the head bleed, but this did not differ by inhibition or transfusion status. Implementation of this guideline reduced platelet transfusions by an estimated 30-50% and associated healthcare costs by 42%. CONCLUSIONS: A targeted platelet transfusion guideline using PRT reduced platelet usage for patients with tICH. If appropriately tested, results suggest that not all tICH patients taking or suspected of taking antiplatelet drugs need platelet transfusion. Platelet reactivity testing can significantly reduce healthcare costs and resource usage.

A faculty-led mock residency interview exercise for fourth-year doctor of pharmacy students.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a faculty-led mock-interview activity enhanced pharmacy student preparation for the residency interview process and increased match rates. METHODS: Twenty-eight doctor of pharmacy students volunteered for a 40-minute mock-interview session with 2-person faculty teams. A standard roster of 12 interview questions was derived from published literature and the faculty members' experience. Feedback on the student's interview performance was provided verbally during the session. Following the interview, students were given a 2-part survey instrument. The first part of the survey was administered immediately following the mock-interview session and the second part was administered after the standard date for residency program results (known as "Match Day"). Participant match rates were compared to American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) national rates. RESULTS: 82.5% (23 of 27) of students in the mock-interview group matched a postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) program. Compared to national rates (61.9%), more students in our surveyed mock-interview group matched a PGY1 residency (P = .015; odds ratio [OR] 3.546, 95% CI 1.161-12.116). CONCLUSIONS: Higher match rates were seen in the students completing the mock residency interview compared to ASHP national rates. In general, students completing the mock interview found the process helpful and felt better prepared for their residency interviews.

Knowledge and attitudes of American pharmacists concerning sulfonamide allergy cross-reactivity.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacists are commonly confronted with patients with a history of sulfonamide allergy. Basic immunologic and clinical data suggest a low likelihood of a patient with a history of sulfonamide hypersensitivity developing an allergic reaction to a non-antimicrobial sulfonamide drug. We conducted a survey to describe the knowledge and attitudes of licensed pharmacists concerning sulfonamide allergy cross-reactivity. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed and sent to all licensed pharmacists in the state of Iowa. The survey recorded demographic information and included six patient scenarios designed to elicit responses concerning sulfonamide allergy cross-reactivity with a number of non-antimicrobial sulfonamides. RESULTS: A total of 421 surveys were returned for a 39% response rate. There was a wide discrepancy in approaches to patients with a history of sulfonamide allergy prescribed a sulfonamide containing non-antibiotic. Differences depended on previous history of tolerating the medication in question, the degree of cautionary statements in product literature, and the familiarity the pharmacist had with the product. CONCLUSION: Our survey suggests a significant diversity in knowledge and attitudes of pharmacists concerning cross-reactivity of sulfonamide antimicrobials and other drugs with a sulfonamide moiety. Depth of training in this area may be an associative factor.