Comparison of Managing Factor Xa Inhibitor to Unfractionated Heparin Transitions by aPTT Versus a Treatment Guideline Utilizing Heparin Anti-Xa Levels.

BACKGROUND: There are inadequate data on the optimal strategy for transitioning factor Xa inhibitors (FXai; apixaban, rivaroxaban) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusions. OBJECTIVE: In patients transitioning from an FXai to an UFH infusion, this study compared the safety and efficacy of monitoring UFH infusions using an activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) titration scale versus utilizing an UFH-calibrated anti-Xa titration scale aided by a novel institutional guideline. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on adult patients transitioning from an FXai to an UFH infusion at 2 medical centers from June 1, 2018, to November 1, 2020. One institution utilized aPTT while the other institution primarily used UFH-calibrated anti-Xa. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, major bleeding, or new thrombosis during the hospitalization with a planned noninferiority analysis. Secondary outcomes were also collected including the amount and duration of UFH administered between cohorts. RESULTS: The incidence rate of the primary composite endpoint was 6.3% in the anti-Xa group and 11% in the aPTT group (P < 0.001 for noninferiority, P = 0.138 for superiority) meeting noninferiority criteria. No statistical differences were seen in new thrombosis, major bleeding, or any bleeding. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This represents the first report of a comparison between aPTT versus anti-Xa monitoring in relation to clinical outcomes for patients transitioning from an FXai to an UFH infusion. A transition guideline primarily utilizing an UFH-calibrated anti-Xa assay appears to be a safe alternative to aPTT monitoring and can aid facilities in the management of patients during these complex transitions.

The need for PGY2-trained clinical pharmacy specialists.

The American College of Clinical Pharmacy and other stakeholder organizations seek to advance clinical pharmacist practitioners, educators, and researchers. Unfortunately, there remains an inadequate supply of residency-trained clinical specialists to meet the needs of our health care system, and nonspecialists often are called on to fill open specialist positions. The impact of clinical pharmacy specialists on pharmacotherapy outcomes in both acute care and primary care settings demonstrates the value of these specialists. This commentary articulates the need for postgraduate year two (PGY2)-trained clinical specialists within the health care system by discussing various clinical and policy rationales, interprofessional support, economic justifications, and their impact on quality of care and drug safety. The integrated practice model that has grown out of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Pharmacy Practice Model Initiative (PPMI) could threaten the growth and development of future clinical specialists. Therefore, the ways in which PGY2-trained clinical pharmacist specialists are deployed in the PPMI require further consideration. PGY2 residencies provide education and training opportunities that cannot be achieved in traditional professional degree programs or postgraduate year one residencies. These specialists are needed to provide direct patient care to complex patient populations and to educate and train pharmacy students and postgraduate residents. Limitations to training and hiring PGY2-trained clinical pharmacy specialists include site capacity limitations and lack of funding. A gap analysis is needed to define the extent of the mismatch between the demand for specialists by health care systems and educational institutions versus the capacity to train clinical pharmacists at the specialty level.