Search

Rationale: Little is known about the prescribing of medications with potential to cause QTc‐prolongation in the ambulatory care settings. Understanding real‐world prescribing of QTc‐prolonging medications and actions taken to mitigate this risk will help guide strategies to optimize safety and appropriate prescribing among ambulatory patients. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of clinician action taken to monitor and mitigate modifiable risk factors for QTc‐prolongation when indicated. Methods: This retrospective, cross‐sectional study evaluated clinician action at the time of prescribing prespecified medications with potential to prolong QTc in adult patients in primary care. The index date was defined as the date the medication was ordered. Electronic health record (EHR) data were evaluated to assess patient, clinician and visit characteristics. Clinician action was determined if baseline or follow‐up monitoring was ordered or if action was taken to mitigate modifiable risk factors (laboratory abnormalities or electrocardiogram [ECG] monitoring) within 48 h of prescribing a medication with QTc‐prolonging risk. Descriptive statistics were used to describe current practice. Results: A total of 399 prescriptions were prescribed to 386 patients, with a mean age of 51 ± 18 years, during March 2021 from a single‐centre, multisite health system. Of these, 17 (4%) patients had a known history of QTc‐prolongation, 170 (44%) did not have a documented history of QTc‐prolongation and 199 (52%) had an unknown history (no ECG documented). Thirty‐nine patients (10%) had at least one laboratory‐related risk factor at the time of prescribing, specifically hypokalemia (16 patients), hypomagnesemia (8 patients) or hypocalcemia (19 patients). Of these 39 patients with laboratory risk factors, only 6 patients (15%) had their risk acknowledged or addressed by a clinician. Additionally, eight patients' most recent QTc was ≥500 ms and none had an ECG checked at the time the prescription was ordered. Conclusion: Despite national recommendations, medication monitoring and risk mitigation is infrequent when prescribing QTc‐prolonging medications in the ambulatory care setting. These findings call for additional research to better understand this gap, including reasons for the gap and consequences on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare the effectiveness of 2 clinical decision support (CDS) tools to avoid prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with heart failure (HF): a "commercial" and a locally "customized" alert. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2 CDS tools implemented within a large integrated health system. The commercial CDS tool was designed according to third-party drug content and EHR vendor specifications. The customized CDS tool underwent a user-centered design process informed by implementation science principles, with input from a cross disciplinary team. The customized CDS tool replaced the commercial CDS tool. Data were collected from the electronic health record via analytic reports and manual chart review. The primary outcome was effectiveness, defined as whether the clinician changed their behavior and did not prescribe an NSAID. Results A random sample of 366 alerts (183 per CDS tool) was evaluated that represented 355 unique patients. The commercial CDS tool was effective for 7 of 172 (4%) patients, while the customized CDS tool was effective for 81 of 183 (44%) patients. After adjusting for age, chronic kidney disease, ejection fraction, NYHA class, concurrent prescription of an opioid or acetaminophen, visit type (inpatient or outpatient), and clinician specialty, the customized alerts were at 24.3 times greater odds of effectiveness compared to the commercial alerts (OR: 24.3 CI: 10.20–58.06). Conclusion Investing additional resources to customize a CDS tool resulted in a CDS tool that was more effective at reducing the total number of NSAID orders placed for patients with HF compared to a commercially available CDS tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs frequently in critically ill patients without heparin prophylaxis. Although heparin prevents VTE, VTEs occur frequently despite prophylaxis. A higher heparin dosage may be more effective for preventing VTE. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using the Premier Incorporated Perspective Database to evaluate comparatively the effects of different heparin prophylaxis dosing strategies in the critically ill patient. Critically ill adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 1 day and had an intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay of at least 2 days were included. Patients received 5000 units of heparin either twice/day or 3 times/day. The primary outcome was development of a new VTE. Key secondary outcomes included clinically important bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and mortality. Patients were propensity matched to control for confounding. Multivariable analysis was conducted for VTE risk factors. Results: The study included 30,800 patients from 374 hospitals who were propensity matched by heparin dosage. New VTE occurred in 6.16% of patients treated with 3 times/day heparin versus 6.23% with twice/day heparin (p=0.8). No significant differences in the incidence of pulmonary embolism (0.91% vs 0.8%, p=0.29) or deep vein thrombosis (5.56% vs 5.70% p=0.59) were observed between the two types of heparin dosing. No differences were observed between the two types of heparin dosing in in‐hospital mortality (15.8% vs 15.15%), bleeding (0.23% vs 0.33%), or thrombocytopenia (5.19% vs 5.34%, p>0.08 for all), respectively. Risk factors associated with VTE included intraabdominal and urinary tract infections, loop diuretics, malnutrition, obesity, thrombocytopenia, paralytics, vasopressors, female sex, peripheral vascular disease, sepsis, neutropenia, and end‐stage renal disease. Antiplatelet therapy, heart failure, diabetes, and substance abuse were associated with reduced VTE (p<0.05 for all). Conclusions: In critically ill patients, prophylactic dosing of heparin 3 times/day versus twice/day was not associated with differences in new VTE or safety outcomes. Several modifiable VTE risk factors were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of as-needed (PRN) labetalol and hydralazine [intravenous (IV) or oral] in hospitalized medicine patients for the treatment of severe asymptomatic hypertension and to examine the potential negative outcomes associated with their use. Methods: The electronic health record of 250 medicine patients hospitalized at the University of Colorado Hospital between November 2014 and April 2016 who received at least one dose of PRN IV or oral hydralazine or labetalol were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was to describe the use of PRN antihypertensive medications in this population. Results: A total of 573 PRN doses of antihypertensive medication were administered. Oral hydralazine was the most common (521 doses, 90.9%). A total of 36% of PRN administrations were given for a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <180 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <110 mmHg (cut-point for acute severe hypertension). No serious adverse events were related to PRN antihypertensive administration. Despite receiving at least one PRN antihypertensive medication during hospitalization, 40.8% of patients were not continued on their home antihypertensive medication(s) while hospitalized, and 62.4% of patients did not have their home regimens intensified at discharge. Conclusion: As-needed oral hydralazine is frequently prescribed for acute blood pressure lowering with administration thresholds often less than what are used to define acute severe hypertension. Many patients are prescribed PRN antihypertensive medication instead of being continued on their home regimens, and most patients do not have the intensity of their home regimens increased. Providers need to be educated about the use of PRN antihypertensive medication for the management of severe asymptomatic hypertension in the hospital setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence broadly identifying medications newly-initiated prior to the occurrence of a urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients with diabetes, heart failure, or both of these conditions is lacking., Objective: The aim was to broadly assess medication filling patterns and incidence of UTIs to identify medications or medication classes most frequently initiated prior to UTI occurrence., Methods: This retrospective study utilizing a national claims database examined medications commonly initiated in the six months preceding a UTI in patients with diabetes and/or heart failure. Patients with a new diagnosis of UTI, a diagnosis of diabetes and/or heart failure, continuous enrollment in the database for at least 12 months prior to the index UTI occurrence, and who initiated at least one new medication in the 6 months preceding the index UTI were evaluated., Results: 12,744 patients met criteria: 10,626 (83.4%) had a diagnosis of diabetes, 838 (6.6%) had a diagnosis of heart failure, and 1,280 (10.0%) had diagnoses for both. Opioids were the most commonly filled medication class among all three groups. Medications from the SGLT2i class were the twelfth, eleventh, and eighteenth most common medications filled prior to the index UTI for all patients, patients with diabetes, and patients with diabetes and heart failure, respectively., Conclusion: Opioids were by far the most commonly initiated medication class in the 6 months prior to UTI incidence in patients with diabetes and/or heart failure. SGLT2i medications were not commonly initiated in the 6 months prior to the occurrence of a UTI., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Background/objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a complex disease that may require treatment with one or several disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Many DMARDs have potential teratogenic effects or are newer agents with limited safety data in pregnancy. This study evaluated 20 common RA medications and the rate of contraceptive prescribing and counseling patterns in women with RA of childbearing ability., Methods: This was an observational study of women with RA and childbearing ability aged 18 to 44 years who were seen at an academic rheumatology clinic from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016. Descriptive statistics and univariate logistic regression were used for analysis., Results: One hundred fifty women were included in the analysis. The majority of patients were taking methotrexate (55.3%), followed by chronic prednisone (31.3%) and hydroxychloroquine (28.7%). A documented method of contraception was noted in 64/150 (42.7%). For women on contraception, most used combined oral contraceptives (31/64, 48.4%) or levonorgestrel intrauterine device (10/64, 15.6%). Of the 86 patients not on contraception, 19 (22.1%) received counseling regarding a pregnancy plan., Conclusions: Most women with RA of childbearing age and ability were not using contraception. Among these patients, only a minority prescribed DMARD therapy had documented pregnancy or contraceptive counseling. Women with RA who were prescribed with a DMARD should discuss the use of effective contraception with their provider if sexually active and not desiring pregnancy or wanting to avoid potential teratogenic effects. Potential strategies are discussed to improve healthcare delivery to this population in hopes of avoiding unintended pregnancy and potential teratogenic effects of RA medications., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)