Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism and stroke prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies.

PURPOSE: Low-molecular-weight heparins are currently the recommended antithrombotic therapy for treatment and prevention of malignancy-related venous thromboembolism. Currently, the evidence evaluating direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparins or a vitamin K antagonist in cancer patients with hematologic malignancies is limited. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism treatment or stroke prevention for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in patients with hematologic malignancies. METHODS: This was a retrospective evaluation of adult patients with hematologic malignancies who received at least one dose of the Food and Drug Administration-approved direct oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolism treatment or stroke prevention. We determined the frequency of major bleeding events, non-major bleeding events, stroke, systemic embolism, appropriateness of initial direct oral anticoagulant doses, holding practices prior to procedures, and the rate of all-cause mortality. An analysis was also performed to compare the incidence of bleeding between patients with a history of hematopoietic stem cell transplant to non-transplant patients. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were identified, with the majority of patients receiving rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism treatment. Major bleeding events occurred in four patients and no fatal bleeding events occurred. Non-major bleeding occurred in 29 patients, most commonly epistaxis and bruising. Two patients experienced a systemic embolism while on direct oral anticoagulant therapy. CONCLUSION: Direct oral anticoagulants may be a safe and effective alternative for anticoagulation therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies. However, larger prospective studies comparing direct oral anticoagulants to low-molecular-weight heparins or vitamin K antagonists are warranted to compare efficacy and safety outcomes in this patient population.

Using Simulation to Improve First-Year Pharmacy Students' Ability to Identify Medication Errors Involving the Top 100 Prescription Medications.

Objective. To evaluate first-year pharmacy students' ability to identify medication errors involving the top 100 prescription medications. Design. In the first quarter of a 3-quarter pharmacy self-care course, a didactic lecture on the most common prescribing and dispensing prescription errors was presented to first-year pharmacy students (P1) in preparation for a prescription review simulation done individually and as a group. In the following quarter, they were given a formal prescription review workshop before a second simulation involving individual and group review of a different set of prescriptions. Students were evaluated based on the number of correctly checked prescriptions and a self-assessment of their confidence in reviewing prescriptions. Assessment. All 63 P1 students completed the prescription review simulations. The individual scores did not significantly change, but group scores improved from 79 (16.2%) in the fall quarter to 98.6 (4.7%) in the winter quarter. Students perceived improvement of their prescription checking skills, specifically in their ability to fill a prescription on their own, identify prescribing and dispensing errors, and perform pharmaceutical calculations. Conclusion. A prescription review module consisting of a didactic lecture, workshop and simulation-based methods to teach prescription analysis was successful at improving first year pharmacy students' knowledge, confidence, and application of these skills.