Antithrombotic Questionnaire Tool for Evaluation of Combined Antithrombotic Therapy in Community Pharmacies

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to assess the diagnostic value of an antithrombotic questionnaire tool compared with the hospital's medical record information tool. The hypothesis of this study was that the antithrombotic questionnaire tool could identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in eight community pharmacies in the Netherlands. A standardized questionnaire was developed as antithrombotic questionnaire tool. The pharmacist assessed whether the antithrombotic therapy was correct or potentially incorrect based on answers given by patients and based on the medical record. The primary outcome of the study was the sensitivity and specificity of the antithrombotic questionnaire tool to identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy.

RESULTS

For 95 patients, the pharmacist assessed that in 81 (85%) the antithrombotic therapy was correct and in 14 (15%) potentially incorrect. Based on the medical record, 86 patients (91%) were assessed as correct and 9 (9%) as potentially incorrect. The sensitivity of the tool was 100% and the specificity 94%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the antithrombotic questionnaire tool is a suitable tool to assess whether the patient's antithrombotic therapy is potentially incorrect. It can be applied to identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy.

Exploring the pharmacists' role in optimising antithrombotic therapy in primary care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

In antithrombotic therapy, the balance between efficacy and safety is delicate, which makes it challenging for healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, to optimise therapy. Pharmacists may play an important role in optimising antithrombotic therapy, but especially in primary care, this role has not been elucidated. Here, we study how community pharmacists (pharmacists in primary care) perceive their current and future role in antithrombotic therapy.

DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol and subsequent analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the findings were interpreted with the Capability Opportunity Motivation - Behaviour System.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The interview participants were community pharmacists, located across the Netherlands, from the Utrecht Pharmacy Practice network for Education and Research.

RESULTS

We interviewed 16 community pharmacists between February and August 2021 and identified several major themes which were important for the pharmacist's role in antithrombotic therapy. Pharmacists felt responsible for the outcome of antithrombotic treatment and intended to invest in their role in antithrombotic therapy. Pharmacists did, however, experience barriers to their role in antithrombotic therapy, like a lack of access to clinical information such as the indication of antithrombotic treatment and a lack of specific knowledge on this treatment.

CONCLUSION

Community pharmacists perceive a role for themselves in antithrombotic therapy. To fulfil this role, several preconditions must be met.

Management of combined oral antithrombotic therapy by an Antithrombotic Stewardship Program: a prospective study

AIMS

Antithrombotic management initiatives could prevent inappropriate prescribing and improve patient outcomes especially in patients on combined antithrombotic therapy. To investigate this, a multidisciplinary antithrombotic stewardship program (ASP) was implemented in our hospital. The primary aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of this ASP by assessing the number of patients on combined antithrombotic therapy for whom one or more interventions were needed.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study in a large teaching hospital was conducted. Hospitalized patients were included who received combined antithrombotic therapy in which an oral anticoagulant was combined with one (double therapy) or two (triple therapy) platelet aggregation inhibitors. The ASP proactively evaluated the appropriateness of this combined antithrombotic therapy. If needed, ASP improved the concerned therapy. Each improvement measurement recommended by the ASP was counted as one intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 460 patients were included over a period of 12 months. 251 (54.6%) patients required at least one intervention from the ASP. The most common interventions were: 1) to define and document the maximum duration of the combined antithrombotic therapy needed instead of lifetime use of the combination (65.5%), 2) to discontinue antithrombotic therapy as the proper indication was lacking (19.4%), and 3) to adjust the dosage (8.1%).

CONCLUSION

An intervention was needed in more than half of the patients on combined antithrombotic therapy. Implementation of an dedicated ASP evaluating combined antithrombotic therapy improves the use and safety of antithrombotic medication.

Unintentional guideline deviations in hospitalized patients with two or more antithrombotic agents: an intervention study

PURPOSE

Treatment schedules for antithrombotic therapy are complex, and there is a risk of inappropriate prescribing or continuation of antithrombotic therapy beyond the intended period of time. The primary aim of this study was to determine the frequency of unintentional guideline deviations in hospitalized patients. Secondary aims were to determine whether the frequency of unintentional guideline deviations decreased after intervention by a pharmacist, to determine the acceptance rate of the interventions and to determine the type of interventions.

METHODS

We performed a non-controlled prospective intervention study in three teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. We examined whether hospitalized patients who used the combination of an anticoagulant plus at least one other antithrombotic agent had an unintentional guideline deviation. In these cases, the hospital pharmacist contacted the physician to assess whether this deviation was intentional. If the deviation was unintentional, a recommendation was provided how to adjust the antithrombotic regimen according to guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

Of the 988 included patients, 407 patients had an unintentional guideline deviation (41.2%). After intervention, this was reduced to 22 patients (2.2%) (p < 0.001). The acceptance rate of the interventions was 96.6%. The most frequently performed interventions were discontinuation of an low molecular weight heparin in combination with a direct oral anticoagulant and discontinuation of an antiplatelet agent when there was no indication for the combination of an antiplatelet agent and an anticoagulant.

CONCLUSION

A significant number of hospitalized patients who used an anticoagulant plus one other antithrombotic agent had an unintentional guideline deviation. Intervention by a pharmacist decreased unintentional guideline deviations.

Guidelines for mono, double and triple antithrombotic therapy

Guidelines for antithrombotic therapy are complex, especially if a patient has several indications that require antithrombotic therapy. In general, no patient should receive lifelong double or triple antithrombotic therapy. In this overview, we outline the most common indications for mono, double and triple antithrombotic therapy; the preferred antithrombotic therapy and the recommended duration of therapy. Both antiplatelet therapy and therapeutic anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants were included. European guidelines were used or, if no European guidelines were available, the Dutch guidelines were used.

Inpatient prescribing of dual antiplatelet therapy according to the guidelines: a prospective intervention study

Background:

In dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), low-dose acetylsalicylic acid is combined with a P2Y12 inhibitor. However, combining antithrombotic agents increases the risk of bleeding. Guidelines on DAPT recommend using this combination for a limited period of between three weeks and 30 months. This implies the risk of DAPT being erroneously continued after the intended stop date.

Objective:

The primary objective of this study is to assess the proportion of hospitalized patients treated with DAPT whose treatment deviated erroneously and unintentionally from the guidelines. We also assessed risk factors and the effect of a pharmacist intervention.

Methods:

All patients admitted to the Spaarne Gasthuis (Haarlem/ Hoofddorp, the Netherlands) who used DAPT between March 25 ^th , 2019, and June 14 ^th , 2019, were, in addition to receiving regular care, reviewed to assess whether their therapy was in line with the guidelines’ recommendation and whether deviations were unintended and erroneous. In the event of an unintended deviation, the pharmacist intervened by contacting the prescriber by phone and giving advice to adjust the antithrombotic therapy in line with the guideline.

Results:

We included 411 patients, of whom 21 patients (5.1%) had a treatment that deviated from the guidelines. For 11 patients (2.7%), the deviation was unintended and erroneous. The major risk factor for erroneous deviation was the use of DAPT before hospital admission (OR 18.7; 95%CI 4.79–72.7). In patients who used DAPT before admission, 18 out of 58 (31.0%) had a deviation from the guidelines of whom 8 (13.8%) were erroneous. For these eight patients, the pharmacist contacted the prescriber, and in these cases the therapy was adjusted in line with the guidelines.

Conclusions:

Adherence to the guidelines recommending DAPT was high within the hospital. However, patients who used DAPT before hospital admission had a higher risk of erroneous prescription of DAPT. Intervention by a pharmacist increased adherence to guidelines and may reduce the number of preventable bleeding cases.