Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis: What have we learnt from the OPTIMEV study?

The OPTIMEV (OPTimisation de l'Interrogatoire dans l'évaluation du risque throMbo-Embolique Veineux) study has provided some important and innovative information for the management of lower extremity isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (distal DVT). Indeed, if distal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) therapeutic management is nowadays still debated, before the OPTIMEV study, the clinical relevance of these DVT itself was questioned. Via the publication of 6 articles, between 2009 and 2022, assessing risk factors, therapeutic management, and outcomes of 933 patients with distal DVT we were able to demonstrate that: - When distal deep veins are systematically screened for suspicion of DVT, distal DVT are the most frequent clinical presentation of the venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). This is also true in case of combined oral contraceptive related VTE. - Distal DVT share the same risk factors as proximal DVT and constitute two different clinical expressions of the same disease: the VTE disease. However, the weight of these risk factors differs: distal DVT are more often associated with transient risk factors whereas proximal DVT are more associated with permanent risk factors. - Deep calf vein and muscular DVT share the same risk factors, short and long-term prognoses. - In patients without history of cancer, risk of unknown cancer is similar in patients with a first distal or proximal DVT. - After 3years and once anticoagulation has been stopped, distal DVT recur twice less as proximal DVT and mainly as distal DVT; However, in cancer patients, prognosis of distal and proximal DVT appear similar in terms of death and VTE recurrence.

Characteristics of Pharmacists' Interventions Related to Proton-Pump Inhibitors in French Hospitals: An Observational Study.

Methods: The study was based on a retrospective analysis of pharmacist interventions for DRPs detected during the medication order review and documented into the French Act-IP© database over a 12-year period. DRPs and PIs were analyzed, and independent factors of physician acceptance were assessed via multiple logistic regression. Results: Out of the 620,620 PIs registered, 29,694 targeted a PPI (4.8%). PPI's DRPs were mostly related to the prescription of a "drug not available at the hospital" (26.1%) and a "drug use without indication" (18.3%); PIs were mostly "drug switch" (35.9%) and "drug discontinuation" (26.1%). In all, 18,919 PIs were accepted by physicians (63.7%). Acceptance was significantly associated with patient age: less accepted for the 18-75 years group (OR = 0.59, 95 CI [0.46-0.76]), and the >75 years group (OR = 0.57, 95 CI [0.44-0.73]) vs. <18 years group; for the type of DRP, "drug use without indication" was the less accepted (OR = 0.73, 95 CI [0.63-0.85]); for the type of PI, "dose adjustment" was the less accepted (OR = 0.32, 95 CI [0.23-0.45]). Conclusion: Pharmacists contribute to preventing DRPs associated with PPI prescriptions during the medication order review process. Moreover, they often detect PPIs used without indication and they propose drug discontinuation, which contributes to the PPI deprescribing process. PIs should be further developed in the future to reduce PPI overprescription.