BackgroundScant literature exists evaluating utilization patterns for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).ObjectivesThe primary objective was to assess DOAC prescribing in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in outpatient clinics. Secondary objectives were to compare utilization between family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) clinics, characterize potentially inappropriate use, and identify factors associated with adverse events (AEs).MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of adults with NVAF or VTE who received a DOAC at FM or IM clinics between 10/19/2010 and 10/23/2014. Descriptive statistics were utilized for the primary aim. Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate differences in prescribing using an adapted medication appropriateness index. Logistic regression evaluated factors associated with inappropriate use and AEs.ResultsOne-hundred twenty patients were evaluated. At least 1 inappropriate criterion was met in 72 patients (60.0%). The most frequent inappropriate criteria were dosage (33.0%), duration of therapy (18.4%), and correct administration (18.0%). Apixaban was dosed inappropriately most frequently. There was no difference in dosing appropriateness between FM and IM clinics. The odds of inappropriate choice were lower with apixaban compared to other DOACs (odds ratio [OR]=0.088; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.008–0.964; p=0.047). Twenty-seven patients (22.5%) experienced an AE while on a DOAC, and the odds of bleeding doubled with each inappropriate criterion met (OR=1.949; 95% CI 1.190–3.190; p=0.008).ConclusionPotentially inappropriate prescribing of DOACs is frequent with the most common errors being dosing, administration, and duration of therapy. These results underscore the importance of prescriber education regarding the appropriate use and management of DOACs.

Objective To determine if asthma control improves in patients who receive physician-pharmacist collaborative management (PPCM) during visits to primary care medical offices. Design Prospective pre-post study of patients who received the intervention in primary care offices for 9 months. The primary outcome was the sum of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations at 9 months before, 9 months during, and 9 months following the intervention. Events were analyzed using linear mixed effects regression. Secondary analysis was conducted for patients with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT]<20). Additional secondary outcomes included the ACT, the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire by Marks (AQLQ-M) scores, and medication changes. Intervention Pharmacists provided patients with an asthma self-management plan and education and made pharmacotherapy recommendations to physicians when appropriate. Results Of 126 patients, the number of emergency department (ED) visits and/or hospitalizations decreased 30% during the intervention (p=0.052) and then returned to pre-enrollment levels after the intervention was discontinued (p=0.83). Secondary analysis of patients with uncontrolled asthma at baseline (ACT<20), showed 37 ED visits and hospitalizations prior to the intervention, 21 during the intervention, and 33 after the intervention was discontinued (p=0.019). ACT and AQLQ-M scores improved during the intervention (ACT mean absolute increase of 2.11, AQLQ-M mean absolute decrease of 4.86, p<0.0001 respectively) and sustained a stable effect after discontinuation of the intervention. Inhaled corticosteroid use increased during the intervention (p=0.024). Conclusions The PPCM care model reduced asthma-related ED visits and hospitalizations and improved asthma control and quality of life. However, the primary outcome was not statistically significant for all patients. There was a significant reduction in ED visits and hospitalizations during the intervention for patients with uncontrolled asthma at baseline. Our findings support the need for further studies to investigate asthma outcomes achievable with the PPCM model.

BackgroundThe Student Perceptions of Physician-Pharmacist Interprofessional Clinical Education (SPICE) instrument contains 10 items, 3 factors (interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice, roles/responsibilities for collaborative practice, and patient outcomes from collaborative practice), and utilizes a five-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Given the SPICE instrument’s demonstrated validity and reliability, the objective of this study was to evaluate whether it was capable of measuring changes in medical (MS) and pharmacy students’ (PS) perceptions following an interprofessional education (IPE) experience.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, MS and PS completed the SPICE instrument before and after participation in a predefined IPE experience. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize students and pre-post responses. Independent samples t tests and Fisher’s Exact tests were used to assess group difference in demographic variables. Mann Whitney U tests were used to assess between-group differences in item scores. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests were used to evaluate post-participation changes in item scores. Spearman correlations were calculated to assess associations between ordinal demographic variables and item scores, and whether the number of clinic visits completed was associated with post-test responses. Paired samples t tests were used to calculate mean score changes for each of the factors.ResultsThirty-four MS and 15 PS were enroled. Baseline differences included age (25.3. ± 1.3 MS vs. 28.7 ± 4.4 PS; p = 0.013), years full-time employment (0.71 ± 0.97 MS vs. 4.60 ± 4.55 PS; p < 0.001), and number of prior IPE rotations (1.41 ± 1.74 MS vs. 3.13 ± 2.1 PS; p < 0.001). Two items generated baseline differences; 1 persisted post-participation: whether MS/PS should be involved in teamwork (3.91 MS vs. 4.60 PS; p < 0.001). For all students, significant mean score increases were observed for role clarity (“my role” [3.72 vs. 4.11; p = 0.001] and “others’ roles” [3.87 vs. 4.17; p = 0.001]), impact of teamwork on patient satisfaction (3.72 vs. 4.34; p < 0.001), and ideal curricular location for IPE (4.06 vs. 4.34; p = 0.002). Significant increases were observed for all three factors (teamwork, p = 0.003; roles/responsibilities and patient outcomes, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrated the SPICE instrument’s ability to measure changes in perception for medical and pharmacy students exposed to an IPE experience, both at the individual item level and at the factor level.