COVID vaccine evaluation of barriers and resources among families of children with diagnosed allergies.

Background: We aimed to determine vaccine hesitancy and the main barriers associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccination among families of children diagnosed with food/drug/environmental allergies. Methods: Between May and June 2021, we approached 146 families seen at the outpatient allergy clinic at the Montreal Children's Hospital and a community allergy practice were invited to complete an anonymous online survey on COVID-19 and vaccination attitudes and behaviour. Uni and multivariable logistic regressions were compared to estimate factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Results: Among all patients, 24.1% reported vaccine hesitancy. The large majority of parents (95.2%) believed that vaccines work. The most common barrier to vaccination was fear of adverse side effects (57.0%). One-third of participants (31.5%) reported that a history of food, venom and drug allergy was a contraindication for COVID-19 vaccination. Fifty-nine (60.8%) participants stated that the dissemination of additional information would increase their willingness to be vaccinated. Most (96.9%) parents reported that their children's vaccinations were up to date. Hesitant families were more likely to be parents of children aged 6-10 years, be of Asian descent, report that mRNA vaccines are riskier than traditional vaccines, and report that the vaccine should not be given if the child has a history of allergic reaction to vaccines. Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy exists mainly among certain ethnic groups and families with young children. Allergies to food, venom and drug allergy are commonly perceived as contraindications for COVID-19 vaccination. Knowledge translation activities addressing parental concerns will help increase vaccination rates.

A retrospective study comparing postoperative opioid prescribing practices in an academic medical centre.

Background: In the midst of the North American opioid crisis, identifying and intervening on drivers of high-risk opioid prescriptions is an important step towards reducing iatrogenic harm. Objectives: We aimed to identify factors associated with variations in high-risk opioid discharge prescriptions, following select surgical procedures, to guide future quality improvement initiatives. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 1322 patients who underwent select open pelvic and open abdominal surgeries between January 1 and December 31, 2017, in a tertiary health care centre in Montreal. Results: Patients who underwent open abdominal surgeries were prescribed significantly higher daily doses of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (45 mg; interquartile range, 30-60), than patients who underwent either a caesarean delivery (20 mg, 20-20) or a hysterectomy (30 mg, 22-30). After adjustment for multiple potential confounders, abdominal surgery was associated with 4 times the odds of receiving more than 50 MME at hospital discharge compared with pelvic surgeries (odds ratio, 3.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-11.97). The availability of postoperative preprinted order sets with fixed high doses of opioids was also highly associated with the outcome. Conclusion: In our institution, some surgeries were more likely to receive high-risk opioid prescriptions at discharge. Efforts to optimize safer prescribing practices should address the creation and/or updating of preprinted order sets to reflect current best practice guidelines. This initiative could be overseen by hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committees.

The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE). RESULTS: A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

Smart about medications (SAM): a digital solution to enhance medication management following hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVE: To outline the development of a software solution to improve medication management after hospital discharge, including its design, data sources, intrinsic features, and to evaluate the usability and the perception of use by end-users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were directly involved in the development using a User Center Design (UCD) approach. We conducted usability interviews prior to hospital discharge, before a user started using the application. A technology acceptance questionnaire was administered to evaluate user self-perception after 2 weeks of use. RESULTS: The following features were developed; pill identification, patient-friendly drug information leaflet, side effect checker, and interaction checker, adherence monitoring and alerts, weekly medication schedule, daily pill reminders, messaging service, and patient medication reviews. The usability interviews show a 98.3% total success rate for all features, severity (on a scale of 1-4) 1.4 (SD 0.79). Regarding the self-perception of use (1-7 agreement scale) the 3 highest-rated domains were: (1) perceived ease of use 5.65 (SD 2.02), (2) output quality 5.44 (SD 1.65), and (3) perceived usefulness 5.29 (SD 2.11). DISCUSSION: Many medication management apps solutions have been created and most of them have not been properly evaluated. SAM (Smart About Medications) includes the user perspective, integration between a province drug database and the pharmacist workflow in real time. Its features are not limited to maintaining a medication list through manual entry. CONCLUSION: We can conclude after evaluation that the application is usable and has been self-perceived as easy to use by end-users. Future studies are required to assess the health benefits associated with its use.

COVID-SAFER: Deprescribing Guidance for Hydroxychloroquine Drug Interactions in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection causes high morbidity and mortality in older adults with chronic illnesses. Several trials are currently underway evaluating the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for acute infection. However, polypharmacy predisposes patients to increased risk of drug-drug interactions with hydroxychloroquine and may render many in this population ineligible to participate in trials. We aimed to quantify the degree of polypharmacy and burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) that older hospitalized adults are taking that would interact with hydroxychloroquine. METHODS: We reanalyzed data from the cohort of patients 65 years and older enrolled in the MedSafer pilot study. We first identified patients taking medications with potentially harmful drug-drug interactions with hydroxychloroquine that might exclude them from participation in a typical 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) therapeutic trial. Next, we identified medications that were flagged by MedSafer as potentially inappropriate and crafted guidance around medication management if contemplating the use of hydroxychloroquine. RESULTS: The cohort contained a total of 1,001 unique patients with complete data on their home medications at admission. Of these 1,001 patients, 590 (58.9%) were receiving one or more home medications that could potentially interact with hydroxychloroquine, and of these, 255 (43.2%) were flagged as potentially inappropriate by the MedSafer tool. Common classes of PIMs observed were antipsychotics, cardiac medications, and antidiabetic agents. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of medication optimization and deprescribing PIMs in older adults. By acting now to reduce polypharmacy and use of PIMs, we can better prepare this vulnerable population for inclusion in trials and, if substantiated, pharmacologic treatment or prevention of COVID-19. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1636-1646, 2020.

Evaluation of a Mobile Application to Enhance Medication Management Following Hospital Discharge: Study Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Over 3 million hospitalizations and 17 million ER visits occur in Canada each year. A substantial proportion of these encounters are preventable and attributable to medication non- adherence. Non-adherence to medication changes during discharge increases the risk of adverse events post-discharge. A mobile application was developed to improve medication management of post-discharge patients. A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the application's usability and efficacy in decreasing non-adherence to medication changes made at discharge.

The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is common, costly, and harmful for hospitalized older adults. Scalable strategies to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are needed. We sought to leverage medication reconciliation in hospitalized older adults by pairing with MedSafer, an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing. DESIGN: This was a nonrandomized controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: The study took place on four internal medicine clinical teaching units. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were aged 65 years and older, had an expected prognosis of 3 or more months, and were taking five or more usual home medications. INTERVENTION: In the baseline phase, patients received usual care that was medication reconciliation. Patients in the intervention arm also had a "deprescribing opportunity report" generated by MedSafer and provided to their in-hospital treating team. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ascertained at the time of hospital discharge and was the proportion of patients who had one or more PIMs deprescribed. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were enrolled, and deprescribing opportunities were present for 873 (82%; 418 during the control and 455 during the intervention phases, respectively). The proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge increased from 46.9% in the control period to 54.7% in the intervention period with an adjusted absolute risk difference of 8.3% (2.9%-13.9%). Not all classes of drugs in the intervention arm were associated with an increase in deprescribing, and new PIM starts were equally common in both arms of the study. CONCLUSION: Using an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing, we increased the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at hospital discharge as compared with usual care. Although this type of intervention may help address medication overload in hospitalized patients, it also underscores the importance of powering future trials for a reduction in adverse drug events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918058. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1843-1850, 2019.

Inpatient Z-drug use commonly exceeds safe dosing recommendations.

IMPORTANCE: In 2016 recommendations for safer prescribing practices were circulated to all doctors in one of Canada's largest provinces, by the college of physicians, following a coroner's inquest into a vehicular death related to Z-drug use. We sought to determine how frequently Z-drug prescriptions in our institution were not adhering to these recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: McGill University Health Centre, an 832-bed tertiary care institution in Montréal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All adult non-obstetrical patients admitted between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016. EXPOSURE: The receipt of at least one dose of Z-drug as determined by pharmacy records. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Adherence to four recommendations related to starting dose, maximal dose, concomitant drug administration, and duration of use were evaluated. RESULTS: 1,409 unique patients received a Z-drug during 1,783 admissions representing use in 9.3% of non-obstetrical patients. Standing orders were seen in 42% (745/1783) of admissions. Non-conformity with the coroner's recommendations was common. Overall, 672/1783 (38%) admissions involved a patient receiving more than the recommended daily maximum dose (643/999 older patients, 64%). Of 607 admissions which were longer than 10 days, 257 (39%) involved a prescription which exceeded 10 days. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A coroner's recommendation that doctors receive instructions about safe Z-drug prescribing is unprecedented, and was likely required given that use of Z-drugs occurs at doses and durations that often exceed best practice recommendations. Similar interventions may be required in other jurisdictions.

Ranking of healthcare programmes based on health outcome, health costs and safe delivery of care in hospital pharmacy practice.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a consensual and coherent ranking of healthcare programmes that involve the presence of ward-based and clinic-based clinical pharmacists, based on health outcome, health costs and safe delivery of care. METHODS: This descriptive study was derived from a structured dialogue (Delphi technique) among directors of pharmacy department. We established a quantitative profile of healthcare programmes at five sites that involved the provision of ward-based and clinic-based pharmaceutical care. A summary table of evidence established a unique quality rating per inpatient (clinic-based) or outpatient (ward-based) healthcare programme. Each director rated the perceived impact of pharmaceutical care per inpatient or outpatient healthcare programme on three fields: health outcome, health costs and safe delivery of care. They agreed by consensus on the final ranking of healthcare programmes. KEY FINDINGS: A ranking was assigned for each of the 18 healthcare programmes for outpatient care and the 17 healthcare programmes for inpatient care involving the presence of pharmacists, based on health outcome, health costs and safe delivery of care. There was a good correlation between ranking based on data from a 2007-2008 Canadian report on hospital pharmacy practice and the ranking proposed by directors of pharmacy department. CONCLUSIONS: Given the often limited human and financial resources, managers should consider the best evidence available on a profession's impact to plan healthcare services within an organization. Data are few on ranking healthcare programmes in order to prioritize which healthcare programme would mostly benefit from the delivery of pharmaceutical care by ward-based and clinic-based pharmacists.

Early venous thromboembolic event prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury with low-molecular-weight heparin: risks and benefits.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients are known to be at high risk for venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). The Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines (2007) state that low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin should be used to prevent VTE complications, but suggest that there is an increased risk of expansion of intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) with VTE prophylaxis. In addition, it is unclear which treatment regimen (i.e., medication, dose, and timing) provides the best risk:benefit ratio in TBI patients. We reviewed all moderate-to-severe TBI patients admitted over a 5-year period to: (1) examine the occurrence of VTEs and their timing; (2) examine the symptomatic expansion of ICH while on VTE prophylaxis; and (3) compare the efficacy of two prophylactic agents: enoxaparin and dalteparin. Two-hundred eighty-seven patients were included. VTE prophylaxis was started 48-72 h post-trauma in all individuals who had no confounding coagulopathy, when two consecutive computed tomography (CT) scans revealed hemorrhage stability. VTEs occurred in 7.3% of treated patients, mostly within 2 weeks after trauma. Proximal VTEs occurred in 3.1% of treated patients. No significant difference in VTE rates was seen between enoxaparin (7.0%) and dalteparin (7.5%; p = 0.868). Moreover, the group treated with dalteparin was more severely injured (higher Injury Severity Score [p = 0.002]), had lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores (p = 0.003), and had more inferior vena cava (IVC) filters placed (p = 0.007). The two groups did not show significant differences in the development of VTE when controlled for ISS and IVC filters (p = 0.819). Importantly, only one patient suffered a symptomatic expansion of ICH while on VTE prophylaxis, at 15 days post-trauma. These results suggest that current regimens of VTE prophylaxis used in our TBI population provide a relatively high level of protection against VTEs, and an extremely low risk of expanding ICH. They also suggest that there was no difference in VTE between dalteparin- and enoxaparin-treated patients.

An interaction between levodopa and enteral nutrition resulting in neuroleptic malignant-like syndrome and prolonged ICU stay.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a probable interaction between enteral feeds and levodopa leading to neuroleptic malignant-like syndrome (NMLS) in a polytrauma patient with Parkinson's disease (PD). CASE SUMMARY: A 63-year-old morbidly obese male polytrauma patient with PD and type 2 diabetes mellitus was admitted to our intensive care unit postoperatively. Enteral feeds were administered per nasogastric tube and provided 0.88 g /kg/day of protein based on ideal body weight (IBW). His PD medications (pramipexole, entacapone, and immediate-release levodopa/carbidopa 100 mg/25 mg, 1.5 tablets 4 times daily) were administered via nasogastric tube. To achieve better glycemic control, his enteral feeds were changed to a formula that provided 1.8 g/kg/day of protein based on IBW. In the following 24 hours, the patient's mental status deteriorated and he was reintubated. He developed a high fever (40.5 degrees C), leukocytosis, elevated serum creatine kinase (CK) (480-1801 units/L), and acute renal impairment. His enteral nutrition was changed to decrease protein intake to 1.0 g/kg/day based on IBW and he was given bromocriptine 5 mg 3 times daily via nasogastric tube. Within 24 hours, the patient's mental status improved, his temperature and CK decreased, and his renal function began to improve; the values returned to baseline levels on the 18th day of admission. DISCUSSION: Withdrawal or dose reduction of levodopa in patients with PD has been reported to precipitate NMLS, which is potentially fatal. Because dietary protein can decrease the absorp0tion of levodopa, a potential for an interaction between levodopa and enteral feedings exists, although published reports of such an interaction are limited. In this patient, the likelihood that a drug-nutrient interaction occurred between levodopa and enteral feedings is considered to be probable based on the Naranjo probability scale and the Horn Drug Interaction Probability Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care professionals should be aware of the interaction between levodopa and protein content of enteral nutrition to avoid the occurrence of NMLS in patients with PD.