Search

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.

Background 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. Objectives We aimed to quantify the degree of polypharmacy and burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) that older hospitalized adults are taking which 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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) therapeutic trial. Next, we identified medications that were flagged by MedSafer as being 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 anti‐diabetic 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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

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.

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 Montreal, 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.

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.

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 100mg/25mg, 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°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 absorption 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.