Warfarin dosage in a postpartum woman while breastfeeding: A case report.

Warfarin is the only oral anticoagulant recommended in women who are breastfeeding. Although warfarin is a compatible and recommended agent in the postpartum period and during lactation, little is known regarding changes to warfarin dose requirements in this patient population. Here, we report the case of a 40-year-old woman who transitioned from enoxaparin monotherapy back to warfarin at 2 months postpartum, while she was breastfeeding. Despite resuming warfarin at her previously therapeutic dose, her international normalized ratio (INR) remained subtherapeutic and required multiple dose increases. She ultimately required a 100% increase in her warfarin dose postpartum, compared to pre-pregnancy, to achieve a therapeutic INR. This case suggests patients may require higher warfarin doses postpartum, compared to pre-pregnancy, especially if breastfeeding. Clinicians should closely monitor these patients and adjust warfarin doses as necessary.

Prescribing Pattern of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Obesity.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited efficacy and safety data for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with obesity, and it has been suggested to avoid DOACs in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prescribing pattern of oral anticoagulants in obese patients in an urban university setting and assess efficacy, safety, and adherence. METHODS: Retrospective, cohort study in patients ≥18 years with a history of VTE and/or atrial fibrillation. Patients with a BMI >40 kg/m2 and/or weight >120 kilograms and a prescription for warfarin or a DOAC from August 25, 2014 until August 25, 2017 are included. The primary outcome is the number of warfarin or DOAC prescriptions. Secondary outcomes include thromboembolism and bleeding events. Patient adherence was evaluated using time in therapeutic range (TTR), adherence rate to clinic appointments, and medication possession ratio (MPR). RESULTS: Of the 276 patients who met eligibility criteria, 158 (57.2%) were prescribed warfarin and 118 (42.8%) were prescribed a DOAC. There was no difference in the rate of stroke or recurrent VTE between groups (3.2% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.944). There was also no difference in the rate of bleeding between groups (16.1% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.707). The TTR for the warfarin group was 44.8 ± 23%, and appointment adherence was 78.6 ± 20%. The MPR for the DOAC group was 0.93 ± 0.24. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited data in obese patients, DOACs are prescribed in this population. Results suggest no difference in safety and efficacy compared to warfarin, but barriers to quality anticoagulation may exist in this population.

Development of pulmonary embolism in a nonhospitalized patient with COVID-19 who did not receive venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with thrombotic complications such as stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and VTE prophylaxis for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is recommended. However, extended postdischarge VTE prophylaxis and VTE prophylaxis for nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 are not routinely recommended due to uncertain benefit in these populations. SUMMARY: Here we report development of a pulmonary embolism (PE) in a young patient without other VTE risk factors who was treated for COVID-19 in an emergency department (ED) and discharged home without VTE prophylaxis, which was consistent with current recommendations. The patient presented to the ED 12 days later with complaints of chest pain for 1 day and was found to have a PE within the segmental and subsegmental branches of the left lower lobe. CONCLUSION: This case suggests that nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 may be at higher risk for VTE than patients with other medical illnesses and warrants further research into the risk of VTE in outpatients with COVID-19.

Implementation of a Direct Oral Anticoagulation Screening Service at a Large Academic Medical Center Provided by a Pharmacist-managed Antithrombosis Clinic as a Method to Expand Antithrombotic Stewardship Efforts.

BACKGROUND: How and when to monitor direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for safety and efficacy is a question many anticoagulation clinics are trying to answer. A pharmacist-led antithrombosis clinic (ATC) initiated a clinical service to provide oversight for all prescribed DOACs. OBJECTIVE: Describe the implementation and outcomes of a DOAC screening service. METHODS: The service was initiated utilizing a daily electronic prescribing report of DOAC prescriptions. Prescriptions were reviewed by clinical pharmacists to assess patient insurance, eligibility, and accuracy of prescribed doses. RESULTS: In the first year since service implementation in April 2016, 317 new prescriptions and 595 refill prescriptions were reviewed. A DOAC service pharmacist was able to reach 125 (39.4%) of 317 patients about their new prescription and 59 (9.9%) of 595 refill patients to provide education and follow-up on management as needed. Interventions were performed for 79 (28%) of 317 new prescriptions and 86 (14.5%) of 595 refill prescriptions. Common interventions with new prescriptions include contacting the prescriber for a medication or dose change (25.4%), assistance with medication access (21.5%), and coordinating appropriate lab and provider follow up (21.5%). Common interventions with refill prescriptions include recommending appropriate follow-up (50%) and contacting the prescriber for medication or dosage change (24.4%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a DOAC screening service identified and resolved dosing errors, improved medication access, provided patient education, and improved follow-up.

Assessment of venous thromboembolism treatment in patients with cancer on low molecular weight heparin, warfarin, and the direct oral anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not recommended for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment in patients with cancer because their safety and efficacy have not been compared to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in large trials. Routine anti-Xa monitoring in cancer patients on LMWH is also not recommended due to limited data correlating anti-Xa levels and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Compare the safety and efficacy of DOACs to LMWH and warfarin and assess the relationship of anti-Xa monitoring and outcomes in patients with cancer taking LMWH in an urban university setting. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study analyzed the recurrence of VTE and number of bleeding events in patients with cancer. RESULTS: There were 131 patients included in the analysis. There was no difference seen in the rate of recurrent VTEs between the LMWH, warfarin and DOAC groups (9.3%, 5.9%, 9.1%, p = 0.89). There was also no difference in the rate of bleeding between groups (10.5%, 14.7%, 9.1%, p = 0.576). There was an increased rate of mortality seen in the LMWH group (26.7% vs. 2.9% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.006). There was no difference seen in recurrent VTE (10.3% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.53) or bleeding (10.3% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.661) between the monitored and unmonitored LMWH patients. CONCLUSION: Results of this analysis suggest DOACs may be as safe and effective as LMWH and warfarin for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and there may be no clinical benefit to routine anti-Xa monitoring in patients on LMWH treatment. However, larger studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Quality of Pharmacist-Managed Anticoagulation Therapy in Long-Term Ambulatory Settings: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to evaluate the quality of warfarin anticoagulation control in outpatient pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services (PMAS) compared with routine medical care (RMC). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, IPA, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from inception to May 2017. Search terms employed: ("pharmacist-managed" OR "pharmacist-provided" OR "pharmacist-led" OR "pharmacist-directed") AND ("anticoagulation services" OR "anticoagulation clinic" OR "anticoagulation management" OR "anticoagulant care") AND ("quality of care" OR "outcomes" OR "bleeding" OR "thromboembolism" OR "mortality" OR "hospitalization" OR "length of stay" OR "emergency department visit" OR "cost" OR "patient satisfaction"). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Criteria used to identify selected articles: English language; original studies (comments, letters, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, editorials were excluded); warfarin use; outpatient setting; comparison group present; time in therapeutic range (TTR) included as a measure of quality of anticoagulant control; study design was not a case report. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 177 articles identified, 25 met inclusion criteria. Quality of anticoagulation control was better in the PMAS group compared with RMC in majority of the studies (N = 23 of 25, 92.0%). Clinical outcomes were also favorable in the PMAS group as evidenced by lower or equal risk of major bleeding (N = 10 of 12, 83.3%) or thromboembolic events (N = 9 of 10, 90.0%), and lower rates of hospitalization or emergency department visits (N = 9 of 9, 100%). When reported, PMAS have also resulted in cost-savings in all (N=6 of 6, 100%) of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with routine care, pharmacist-managed outpatient-based anticoagulation services attained better quality of anticoagulation control, lower bleeding and thromboembolic events, and resulted in lower health care utilization.