The Effect of Levetiracetam Compared with Enzyme-Inducing Antiseizure Medications on Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Peak Plasma Concentrations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Post-stroke epilepsy represents an important clinical challenge as it often requires both treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and antiseizure medications (ASMs). Levetiracetam (LEV), an ASM not known to induce metabolizing enzymes, has been suggested as a safer alternative to enzyme-inducing (EI)-ASMs in patients treated with DOACs; however, current clinical guidelines suggest caution when LEV is used with DOACs because of possible P-glycoprotein induction and competition (based on preclinical studies). We investigated whether LEV affects apixaban and rivaroxaban concentrations compared with two control groups: (a) patients treated with EI-ASMs and (b) patients not treated with any ASM. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we monitored apixaban and rivaroxaban peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) in 203 patients treated with LEV (n = 28) and with EI-ASM (n = 33), and in patients not treated with any ASM (n = 142). Enzyme-inducing ASMs included carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, primidone, and oxcarbazepine. We collected clinical and laboratory data for analysis, and DOAC Cmax of patients taking LEV were compared with the other two groups. RESULTS: In 203 patients, 55% were female and the mean age was 78 ± 0.8 years. One hundred and eighty-six patients received apixaban and 17 patients received rivaroxaban. The proportion of patients with DOAC Cmax below their therapeutic range was 7.1% in the LEV group, 10.6% in the non-ASM group, and 36.4% in the EI-ASM group (p < 0.001). The odds of having DOAC Cmax below the therapeutic range (compared with control groups) was not significantly different in patients taking LEV (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.19-2.67, p = 0.61), but it was 12.7-fold higher in patients taking EI-ASM (p < 0.001). In an analysis in patients treated with apixaban, there was no difference in apixaban Cmax between patients treated with LEV and non-ASM controls, and LEV clinical use was not associated with variability in apixaban Cmax in a multivariate linear regression. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we show that unlike EI-ASMs, LEV clinical use was not significantly associated with lower apixaban Cmax and was similar to that in patients not treated with any ASM. Our findings suggest that the combination of LEV with apixaban and rivaroxaban may not be associated with decreased apixaban and rivaroxaban Cmax. Therefore, prospective controlled studies are required to examine the possible non-pharmacokinetic mechanism of the effect of the LEV-apixaban or LEV-rivaroxaban combination on patients' outcomes.

Is It Safe to Resume Direct Oral Anticoagulants upon Discharge after Hip Fracture Surgery? A Retrospective Study.

This study aimed to examine the incidence rate of early reoperations following hip fracture surgery and determine the safety of resuming direct oral anticoagulants. Many orthopedic surgeons are reluctant to resume chronic anticoagulation therapy for patients after surgical intervention for hip fractures. One of the main reasons is the potential for reoperation in the case of surgical complications. We conducted a retrospective cohort study at an Academic Level I trauma center, reviewing the records of 425 geriatric patients (age > 60) who underwent hip fracture surgery between 2018 and 2020, including a subgroup treated with direct oral anticoagulants prior to hospitalization. The study assessed the incidence rate of complications requiring early reoperation. Out of the 425 patients, only nine (2%) required reoperation within a month after discharge, with two (0.5%) on chronic anticoagulation therapy. None of the reoperations were urgent, and all were performed at least 24 h after re-admission. The findings revealed a very low incidence rate of reoperations in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery, with no reoperations performed within 24 h of re-admission. Consequently, we believe that resuming chronic direct oral anticoagulants is a safe and effective approach when discharging patients after hip fracture surgery.

Fragility fracture management and FLS models in South Africa and Israel.

Osteoporosis is a common disease of the elderly. Many patients at high risk are neither identified nor treated. A Fracture Liaison Service is a coordinated model of care for secondary fracture prevention. Several national quality indicators have been published in each country to improve surgical treatment and osteoporosis medical treatment. Fracture Liaison Services in both countries have been created by local clinicians with different models depending on the medical geographic locations of patients and the local setup. The objective of this review is to describe the national guidelines and the current clinical treatment models for fragility fractures in South Africa and Israel. Successes and barriers to successful implementation have been identified and are summarized.

Fracture Liaison Service for Hip Fractures: Is It A Game Changer?

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a common medical condition in older ages. A devastating result of osteoporosis may be a hip fracture with up to 30% mortality rate in one year. The compliance rate of osteoporotic medication following a hip fracture is 20% in the western world. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the fracture liaison service (FLS) model in the orthopedic department on patient compliance following hip fracture. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients with hip fracture who were involved with FLS. We collected data regarding kidney function, calcium levels, parathyroid hormone levels, and vitamin D levels at admission. We educated the patient and family, started vitamin D and calcium supplementation and recommended osteoporotic medical treatment. We phoned the patient 6-12 weeks following the fracture to ensure treatment initiation. RESULTS: From June 2018 to June 2019 we identified 166 patients with hip fracture who completed at least one year of follow-up. Over 75% of the patients had low vitamin D levels and 22% had low calcium levels at admission. Nine patients (5%) died at median of 109 days. Following our intervention, 161 patients (96%) were discharged with a specific osteoporotic treatment recommendation; 121 (73%) received medication for osteoporosis on average of < 3 months after surgery. We recommended on injectable medications; however, 51 (42%) were treated with oral biphsophonate. CONCLUSIONS: FLS improved the compliance rate of osteoporotic medical treatment and should be a clinical routine in every medical center.

Clinical pharmacist led hospital-wide direct oral anticoagulant stewardship program.

INTRODUCTION: In the past decade, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been introduced to medical practice for several indications, with a wide range of dosing regimens. As both over- and under-dosing might lead to life-threatening events, development of methods promoting safe and effective utilization of these agents is imperative. The Hadassah Clinical Pharmacy team initiated a hospital-wide program, for monitoring and promoting safe and effective prescription of DOAC during hospitalization. This study describes the types of drug related problems addressed and the program's performance in terms of consultation rates and physician acceptance. METHODS: Electronic medical records throughout the hospital were screened for DOAC orders. All DOAC orders were assessed by a clinical pharmacist for potentially-inappropriate prescribing. When potentially-inappropriate prescribing or a drug-related problem was identified, the clinical pharmacist provided consultation on management options. In specific cases, additional guidance was provided by coagulation and pharmacology specialists. Data on patient characteristics, clinical pharmacist consultations, and physician response was retrospectively retrieved for the first six months of 2017. Characteristics of patients with and without consultations were compared, consultations were categorized by the recommended management of the drug related problem, and physician acceptance rates were evaluated by category. RESULTS: During the evaluated period, 585 patients with DOAC orders were identified. Patients were evenly distributed by gender, and age averaged 78 years. Most patients received apixaban (75%) followed by rivaroxaban (14%) and dabigatran (11%), and most (63%) received "reduced dose" regimens. Clinical pharmacists provided 258 consultations for 210 patients, regarding anticoagulation management, such that more than one in three patients on DOAC had potentially inappropriate prescribing or drug related problems. Consultations included alerts regarding potentially inappropriate DOAC doses and recommendations to increase (29%) or decrease (5%) the dose, potentially inappropriate concomitant antiplatelet agents (20%), need for DOAC level monitoring (23%), and alerts regarding other drug related problems (23%). More than 70% of recommendations were accepted by the attending physician. CONCLUSION: Due to the complexity of DOAC management, potentially-inappropriate prescribing and drug related problems are common. Multidisciplinary collaborative projects including review and consultation by clinical pharmacists are an effective method of improving management of patients on DOAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03527615 .

Management strategies of the interaction between direct oral anticoagulant and drug-metabolizing enzyme inducers.

Little is known regarding the management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with enzyme-inducing drugs (EID). The use of EID may lead to sub-therapeutic concentrations of DOACs and to treatment failure. Thus, many patients on EIDs cannot benefit from the advantages of DOACs. This was a retrospective study, evaluating the management of hospitalized patients with DOACs. Characteristics of hospitalized patients with a prescription for DOACs, with and without EIDs, were summarized and evaluated, and management strategies addressing the potential interaction were documented, including the use of DOAC concentration monitoring. During the period evaluated, 1596 hospitalized patients with prescriptions for DOACs were identified. Most patients received apixaban (n = 1227, 77%), followed by rivaroxaban (240, 15%), and dabigatran (129, 8%). Twenty-two patients (1.4%) had concomitant EIDs. Demographic and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with DOACs were similar in those receiving EID and those not. Management strategies included stopping DOAC or EID (41%), and DOAC dose increase (14%). During management of these interactions, DOAC concentrations were measured for 11 of 22 patients and were below the 5th percentile of expected concentration for six of these patients. The management of patients with DOAC concentration measurement differed significantly from those without (p = 0.005), as they were much less likely to have one of the medications stopped and more often had the DOACs' dose increased. Among hospitalized patients with DOACs, EIDs are not rare. DOAC concentrations are often low in the presence of EIDs. DOAC concentration monitoring may be useful in settings requiring both DOAC and EIDs.