Factors Associated with Acute Injurious Falls in Elderly Hospitalized Patients: A Multicenter Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Conditions (CMS-HAC) links Medicare payments to health care quality. Experiencing a serious disability or death associated with a fall in a health care facility based on diagnosis codes has been identified as an opportunity for improvement. Multiple factors contribute to an inpatient fall, including medications that affect cognition in older adults. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the commonly prescribed classes of medications on the CMS-HAC falls and trauma definition in US hospitals in a large inpatient database from 2019 to 2021. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from 835 hospitals in the Vizient Clinical Data Base between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021, on patients ≥ 65 years of age with CMS-HAC patient falls and trauma codes. Using logistic regression and stepwise Poisson regression analysis, the authors identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-related variables associated with falls meeting the CMS-HAC definition. The top 20 prescribed drug classes in these patients were also identified. RESULTS: Among 11,064,024 patient encounters, 5,978 met the CMS-HAC definition of a serious fall. Patients who experienced a serious fall were significantly more likely to be > 79 years of age (p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.37), have a history of prior falls (p < 0.001, OR 2.30, 95% CI 2.11-2.50), have a code for dementia (p < 0.001, OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.40-1.60), and have higher anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scores (p < 0.001, OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.13-1.14). Specific medication classes associated with CMS-HAC falls were first-generation antihistamines (p < 0.00, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.35), second-generation antihistamines (p ≤ 0.001, OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.13-1.19), and atypical antipsychotics (p < 0.001, OR 1.18, CI 1.13-1.29). CONCLUSION: Patients who experience a fall meeting the CMS-HAC fall definition are significantly more likely to have a prior history of falling, dementia, and a higher ACB score. Results from this study may inform future quality improvement work aimed at reducing injurious falls.

Pharmacist Involvement in an Acute Care of the Elderly Team: Impact on Appropriate Medication Use.

Background Currently, our institution does not have a full-time pharmacist rounding with the inpatient acute care of the elderly (ACE) team daily. We sought to evaluate the involvement of a clinical pharmacy service within the ACE team and its impact on appropriate medication use. Objective The primary outcome was the number of drug-related problems (DRPs) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) detected by the pharmacist compared with no pharmacist on the ACE team. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, 30-day re-hospitalization, and accepted DRPs and PIMs recommendations made by the pharmacist. Methods This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study. The control cohort consisted of patients seen over 3 months when no pharmacist was present. The intervention cohort comprised patients seen over 3 months when a pharmacist was present on the ACE team. Patients were excluded if there was not a documented chart note from a geriatric provider or pharmacist. Results A total of 125 patients were included in the intervention group and 106 patients in the control group. Regarding the primary outcome, the control cohort had significantly fewer identified PIMs and DRPs in comparison with the intervention cohort (P < 0.001; P < 0.01, respectively). There was no significant difference in length of stay (P = 0.317). There was a statistical difference between groups regarding 30-day readmission rates (P = 0.007). Conclusion Our study shows that the inclusion of a pharmacist on the ACE team was associated with more DRPs, and PIMs identified, creating a positive impact on patient care and 30-day readmission.

Optimal Injectable Haloperidol Dose Assessment in the Older Hospitalized Inpatient.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol can be used off-label for agitation and/or delirium in older individuals. The recommended initial intramuscular or intravenous dose is 0.5 to 1 mg. However, the evidence to support these doses is nominal. OBJECTIVES: The primary outcome was to determine whether low-dose injectable haloperidol (≤0.5 mg) was similar in effect to higher doses by assessing the need for repeat doses within 4 hours as a surrogate marker. Secondary outcomes include comparison of length of stay, utilization of restraints, and discharge outcomes between dosage groups. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study. Patients aged ≥65 years who received haloperidol injectable who were not on antipsychotics prior to admission were reviewed. RESULTS: In the low-dose group (n = 15), no patients required additional haloperidol doses within 4 hours compared with 1 patient each in the medium-dose (n = 23) and high-dose (n = 19) groups (P = 0.94). There was a difference regarding length of stay, utilization of restraints, and discharge to facility when admitted from home favoring low-dose haloperidol. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While limited by sample size and retrospective design, patients who received low-dose haloperidol demonstrated similar efficacy to those who received higher doses of haloperidol. In addition, secondary outcomes mentioned above favored the use of low-dose haloperidol as well. Based on these findings, low-dose haloperidol is a reasonable initial dose for the agitated older patient.

Longitudinal Evaluation of a Deprescribing Protocol in Skilled Nursing Facilities.

Objective: To determine whether a deprescribing effort reduced several key classes of medications, and the overall number of medication classes per patient, among long-term residents of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Design: Retrospective, longitudinal pre/post evaluation. Data from before and during the implementation of the deprescribing effort (2017 through 2019) were compared with data from the post-intervention year (2020). Setting and Patients: Long-term resident data reported through annual comprehensive reviews conducted at two SNFs located in central New York State between 2017 and 2020 (N = 12,144). Interventions: Multifaceted, interdisciplinary deprescribing effort to reduce medications in SNF residence including clinician education, guideline development, and individual chart reviews began in 2019. Results: The mean number of medications prescribed per resident was lower at both facilities after the intervention (mean = 1.74 at both facilities) versus preintervention (1.90 at Facility 1, 1.86 at Facility 2). Significant decreases were observed in the usage rates for diuretics (-4.2%; P = 0.001), opioids (-3.8%; P = 0.001), and antipsychotics (-2.4%; P = 0.010). The raw antidepressant usage rate increased by 1.5% after the intervention but the change was not significant. Effects were robust to covariate adjustment. Conclusion: A combined, comprehensive approach to deprescribing was associated with a reduction in the overall number of medication classes per resident and in several key classes of medications. Additional research with more data and covariate control is in progress for verification of these findings.

Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease: Summarized Data From EMERGE, ENGAGE, and PRIME Studies.

Objective To review the data informing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). Data Sources At the time of writing there were no peer-reviewed published studies on aducanumab. All data presented are derived directly from the material Biogen submitted to the FDA for approval. The three studies that will be reviewed are: Multiple Dose Study of Aducanumab in Participants With Prodromal or Mild AD (PRIME), 221AD302 Phase 3 Study of Aducanumab in Early AD (EMERGE), 221AD301 Phase 3 Study of Aducanumab in Early AD (ENGAGE). Data Synthesis PRIME, which was a phase 1 study, demonstrated the most common adverse drug reactions were amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which occurred at rates up to 47% (10 mg/kg group), headache (25%), urinary tract infection (16%), and upper respiratory tract infection (19%). EMERGE demonstrated that high-dose aducanumab was clinically significant at slowing down clinical decline. However, ENGAGE was terminated early based on a futility analysis. Prior to termination ENGAGE demonstrated no clinical difference between treatment and placebo regarding the primary endpoint of slowing clinical decline. Conclusion Based on the data to date, it is difficult to accurately assess the role of aducanumab in patients with MCI or mild AD. EMERGE showed benefit with high-dose aducanumab slowing clinical decline. However, ENGAGE did not duplicate this benefit. With conflicting evidence of positive outcomes, future phase III studies are needed to confirm efficacy.

Efficacy and Safety of Megestrol in the Hospitalized Older Person.

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of megestrol for off-label use in older patients with weight loss. Design Retrospective, nonblinded cohort study. Setting Upstate University Hospital is a 420-bed facility and academic medical center with a level 1 trauma center. Upstate Community Hospital is a 314-bed acute care/hospital/ambulatory care center and long-term care hospital that also provides teaching services. Participants Patients 65 years of age and older without malignancy or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome who were initiated and continued megestrol therapy at the Upstate University hospitals for at least two weeks were included. Of the 1,290 patients initially screened, 16 patients on megestrol were evaluated. An age- and gender-matched control group of 16 patients was utilized for comparison of changes in weight and other variables. Interventions Patients in the megestrol group have received daily doses of megestrol between 160 mg to 800 mg for an average duration of 19 days. Patients in the control group had no history or current use of megestrol utilization. Main Outcome Measurements The primary outcome was an increase in weight. Secondary outcome measures included albumin and thromboembolic events. Changes in weight and albumin were also compared with the control group. Results At a mean duration of 19 days, there was no significant difference in weight gain (0.95 kg, OR = 1.33 [95% CI -1.615-3.527]). Albumin decreased by (0.4 g/dL OR = 0.916 [95% CI 0.12-0.78]) and none of the patients developed a thromboembolic event. Conclusion In older hospitalized patients, megestrol did not increase weight, and did not improve albumin. No thromboembolic events were observed, but this may be because of a limited duration of observation of therapy and the routine use of anticoagulation prophylaxis in the inpatient setting.

Impact of a Clinical Pharmacist Telehealth Service in a Geriatrics Assessment Clinic.

Objective Evaluate the impact of a telepharmacy service at a geriatrics assessment clinic. Design Retrospective, single-center, nonblinded cohort study. Setting Geriatrics assessment clinic. Patients The intervention/pharmacist and the control/no-pharmacist (provider) group included patients new to the clinic 50 years of age or older from over the span of 4 months. Patients who the pharmacist was unable to reach and those who missed appointments with the provider were excluded. Interventions The pharmacist phoned new patients approximately one week prior and one week after their first appointments with a provider. Main Outcome Measure Primary outcome: number of drug-related problems (DRPs) detected by the pharmacist compared with the provider. Secondary outcomes: number of medication history discrepancies, accepted medication-related recommendations, potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) deprescribed, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) detected. Results In the intervention/pharmacist (n = 204) vs control/no pharmacist (n = 200) groups, the number of DRPs was significantly greater (338 vs 218; P = 0.031) and driven by unnecessary drug therapies, doses too high, ADRs, and drug-drug interactions (230 vs 147, P = 0.045; 37 vs 7, P = 0.010; 36 vs 17, P = 0.023; 32 vs 1, P = 0.003, respectively). The difference in number of recommendations made by the pharmacist vs medication changes made by the provider was significant: 457 vs 319, P < 0.001, respectively. Conclusions The addition of a clinical pharmacist conducting telepharmacy at a geriatrics assessment clinic had a positive impact on patient care as it relates to DRPs, deprescribing PIMs, and optimizing medication adherence.

Verifying Medication Orders in the Older Population: Are We Using Enough Caution?

OBJECTIVE: To test the common hypothesis that pharmacists may use more caution and resources when processing pediatric versus geriatric medication orders in the hospital setting.
DESIGN: A 26-item electronic survey was distributed to a sample of participating academic medical-center pharmacy directors with the request to disseminate it to staff pharmacists. The survey was resent at two-week intervals on two occasions.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): To identify if pharmacists take more caution when processing geriatric or pediatric medication orders, to characterize the frequency pharmacists use drug information resources when processing these orders, and to assess the level of importance pharmacists place on guidelines for medication error prevention when processing medication orders.
RESULTS: A total of 173 out of 271 pharmacists completed the survey, resulting in a high final completion rate of 63.8%. Most were clinical, residencytrained pharmacists. A majority of respondents stated that they take more caution when verifying pediatric medication orders than they do for orders for older people (125 out of 172, or 72.7%). Pharmacists report they were 4.2 times more likely to refer to a drug information resource for ≥ 50% of pediatric orders versus geriatric orders (pediatric: 118 out of 171, or 69.0% vs. geriatric: 59 out of 172, or 34.3%; P < 0.001, or 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.156 [2.647-6.524]). Finally, pharmacists familiar with the guidelines for medication error prevention were 2.3 times more likely to state the pediatric guidelines were very important (pediatric: 51/171, or 29.8% vs. geriatric: 27/172, or 15.7%; P = 0.002, or 95% CI 2.28 [1.35-3.86]).
CONCLUSION: This survey reveals evidence for attitudinal differences in work practices for pharmacists working with medication orders relating to different age groups. Given the challenges involved in drug treatment for the older patient population, a similar level of caution, preparedness to refer to drug information, and to use guidelines should apply for both pediatric medication orders and those for older people, in order to provide safe and comprehensive care.

Targeted Medication Deprescribing in the Elderly: Results of a Pharmacist-Driven Procedure in a Transitional Care Unit.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of a pharmacist-driven deprescribing procedure on reduction of target medications at discharge among geriatric patients receiving care in a hospital-based transitional care unit.
DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center chart review.
SETTING: Transitional care unit located within a hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years of age and older were included if they were admitted to the transitional care unit between June 1, 2017, and December 15, 2017, on one or more of the following target medication classes: antihistamines, benzodiazepines, hypnotic sleep aids, proton-pump inhibitors, and skeletal muscle relaxants.
INTERVENTIONS: Pharmacists performed a structured review of patient's medications upon admission and utilized the deprescribing procedure developed by our institution to identify and deprescribe target medications in an attempt to optimize the patient's medication regimen prior to discharge.
RESULTS: Overall, 129 patients on 198 target medications were included in the study. Patients were on an average of 1.5 ± 0.78 target medications at admission, which was reduced to 0.78 ± 0.73 at discharge (P < 0.001). Overall, a 50% reduction of target medications was achieved.
CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-driven deprescribing procedure significantly reduced the quantity of target medications that older patients were discharged on.

Bupivacaine liposomal versus bupivacaine: comparative review.

Bupivacaine liposomal injection was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a local anesthetic for use in management of postsurgical pain in adults. When compared to placebo, bupivacaine liposomal decreases postoperative pain and opioid use. This review examines the efficacy of bupivacaine liposomal when compared to conventional bupivacaine ± epinephrine using published and unpublished data provided to the FDA by the manufacturer.

Compounding pharmacy conundrum: "we cannot live without them but we cannot live with them" according to the present paradigm.

Compounding pharmacies serve a critical role in modern health care to meet special patient care needs. Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has clearly delineated jurisdiction over drug companies and products manufactured under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulations to ensure quality, potency, and purity, compounding pharmacies are regulated by the State Boards and are not registered by the FDA. In recent years, some compounding pharmacies acted like a manufacturer, preparing large amounts of injectable drugs with interstate activities. Multiple outbreaks have been linked to compounding pharmacies, including a recent outbreak of fungal meningitis related to contaminated methylprednisolone, exposing > 14,000 patients in multiple states. This tragedy underscores the urgency of addressing safety related to compounding pharmacies. There is a call for action at the federal and state levels to set minimum production standards, impose new labeling conditions on compounded drugs, and require large-scale compounders be regulated by the FDA. "Industrial" compounding must come under FDA oversight, require those pharmacies to meet GMP standards, and ensure quality and safe products for patient use. Moreover, compliance with the Institute for Safe Medication Practices 2011 recommendations that any type of sterile compounding must be in compliance with the United States Pharmacopoeia chapter 797 guidelines will reduce the risk of patient harm from microbial contamination. Finally, other critical factors that require close attention include addressing injectable products compounded in hospitals and other outpatient health-care centers. The FDA and State Boards of Pharmacy must be adequately funded to exercise the oversight effectively.

To bind or to let loose: effectiveness of sodium polystyrene sulfonate in decreasing serum potassium.

Background. The use of sodium polystyrene sulfonate in decreasing serum potassium has recently been questioned due to the lack of documented effectiveness. Methods. A retrospective cohort analysis of all hospitalized patients who received sodium polystyrene sulfonate over four months was performed. The change in serum potassium was noted over a period of 24 hours. Patients who received any other form of potassium-altering drug or treatment were excluded. Results. The administration of sodium polystyrene sulfonate reduced serum potassium by 16.7% (P < 0.001) as compared to the baseline serum potassium over a period of 24 hours. During this same time, no change in serum creatinine was identified (P = 0.73). In addition, there was no correlation between potassium and creatinine change (r(2) = 0.0004 and P = 0.99). Patients with higher initial serum potassium (≥5.6 mEq/L) reduced their potassium concentration 4% more than those with initial serum potassium of <5.6 mEq/L; however, this reduction did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.32). There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of 15 gm and 30 gm resin preparation (P = 0.54). Thirteen deaths were noted in our cohort, of which one death was due to ischemic colitis. Conclusion. We conclude that sodium polystyrene sulfonate is effective in lowering serum potassium.

Rhabdomyolysis associated with phentermine.

PURPOSE: A case of rhabdomyolysis associated with the use of phentermine is reported. SUMMARY: A 32-year-old Caucasian man with a recent history of strenuous exercise sought treatment for significant back, shoulder, and radiating inguinal pain. The patient's home medications included the following, administered orally: esomeprazole, levothyroxine, irbesartan- hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol succinate, metoclopramide, dicyclomine, oxycodone-acetaminophen, and oxycodone extended-release. He also used testosterone topical gel. During the hospital stay, it was discovered that the patient had been taking phentermine hydrochloride 37.5 mg twice daily, double the recommended dosage, for approximately one week before and on the day his symptoms started. His initial laboratory test values were as follows: troponin I, 17.46 ng/mL; creatine kinase (CK), 114,383 units/L; CK-MB, 745.5 ng/mL; and serum creatinine (SCr), 2.8 mg/dL. The patient was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis of the left deltoid muscle, shoulder, posterior scapula, and upper thorax and with secondary acute renal failure. The patient's urine output was initially poor and rapidly declined to anuria on day 2 of admission. He received i.v. hydration with 0.45% sodium chloride at an initial rate of 200 mL/hr with 75 meq/L of sodium bicarbonate for urinary alkalinization. He did not require renal replacement therapy, and his urine output began to improve to 0.5 mL/kg/hr on hospital day 5 and was 1.42 mL/kg/hr before discharge. Use of the Naranjo et al. adverse-event probability scale revealed that phentermine was the probable cause of the patient's rhabdomyolysis. CONCLUSION: A 32-year-old man developed rhabdomyolysis after ingesting double the recommended dosage of phentermine for a week in addition to engaging in strenuous activity.

Mixing and compatibility guide for commonly used aerosolized medications.

PURPOSE: A mixing and compatibility guide for commonly used aerosolized medications was developed. SUMMARY: Compatibility guides for injectable drugs are available as a reference for pharmacists, nurses, and medical personnel. These charts are commonly used in hospitals and other health care institutions and provide a quick, easy reference for compatibility of frequently used intravenous medications. Respiratory therapists are frequently directed to administer various aerosolized medications and are often faced with the challenge of uncertain compatibility of these drugs when mixed together. However, there appear to be limited data regarding the compatibility of these aerosolized admixtures. After a careful review of the literature, a compatibility chart was developed that should provide significant value to pharmacists, nurses, and respiratory therapists who administer aerosolized medications. The authors of a recently published evaluation of the compatibility of common inhalation solutions summarized their findings in a concise table. This table served as a template to develop a more comprehensive mixing and compatibility guide in the form of an easy-to-use reference chart, which includes additional agents, compatibility references on the chart, and compatibility information for pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and respiratory therapists. CONCLUSION: A compatibility guide for aerosolized medications was developed for use by staff who administer these agents.

Controversy and conflict in the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure: limited role for nesiritide.

The use of nesiritide for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) has been clouded with controversy since its approval in 2001. Extensive marketing and many review articles have established this drug as a safe and superior product to current standards. However, its safety has been called into question by the results of a meta-analysis, and its superiority of important outcomes (length of stay, mortality, decreased readmission rate) has never been proved by a randomized trial against agents with similar vasodilator properties (e.g., nitroglycerin). A review of the available literature on nesiritide in the areas of mortality, renal effects, retrospective studies, use in off-label indications, length of stay, and mortality is presented and illustrates why its use should be limited or even eliminated. After review of this article, the reader should be able to answer the question--if nesiritide had never been approved for use in patients with ADHF, would we have missed it?--with a negative reply.