A Survey of Pandemic Impacts on Pharmacy Residency Applications, Interviews, and Selection Factors

Objective. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacy residency application/interview processes, match rate, and factors influencing match rankings at a single college of pharmacy Methods. In spring of 2020 and 2021, an anonymous survey of fourth-year pharmacy school (P4) residency applicants at one college of pharmacy was administered. Survey responses were compared to explore trends in showcase participation, number/type/geographic dispersion of applications submitted, interview invitations, grade point average (GPA), research experience, and match rate. A thematic analysis evaluated common factors influencing match rankings. Results. Responses were collected from 75 of 99 (75.8% response rate) residency-seeking students in 2020 and 79 of 94 (84.0% response rate) in 2021. Students in 2021 reported applying to a higher median number of programs, with no significant differences in mean reported number of interview invitations or match rate. The virtual American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Midyear Showcase led to a median reported savings of $1000 with no significant impact on perceived value. Virtual interviews led to a median reported savings of $430. Thematic analysis revealed feel/culture, location, and learning experience options as the most prevalent deciding factors for match rankings in both years. Conclusion. The pandemic led to an increase in the number of residency applications per student and yielded a net cost savings. There were no differences in number of interviews offered, match rate, or in deciding factors influencing match rankings. As the pandemic evolves, schools should maintain a flexible and dynamic approach to support students.

A Survey of Pandemic Impacts on Pharmacy Residency Applications, Interviews, and Selection Factors.

Objective. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacy residency application/interview processes, match rate, and factors influencing match rankings at a single college of pharmacyMethods. In Spring of 2020 and 2021, an anonymous survey of professional year four (PY4) residency applicants at one college of pharmacy was administered. Survey responses were compared to explore trends in showcase participation, number/type/geographic dispersion of applications submitted, interview invitations, grade point average (GPA), research experience, and match rate. A thematic analysis evaluated common factors influencing match rankings.Results. Responses were collected from 75 of 99 (75.8%) residency-seeking students in 2020 and 79 of 94 (84.0%) in 2021. Students in 2021 reported applying to a higher median number of programs, with no significant differences in mean reported number of interview invitations or match rate. The virtual ASHP Midyear Showcase led to a median reported savings of $1,000 with no significant impact on perceived value. Virtual interviews led to a median reported savings of $430. Thematic analysis revealed feel/culture, location, and learning experience options as the most prevalent deciding factors for match rankings in both years.Conclusion. The pandemic led to an increase in the number of residency applications per student and yielded a net cost savings. There were no differences in number of interviews offered, match rate, or in deciding factors influencing match rankings. As the pandemic evolves, schools should maintain a flexible and dynamic approach to support students.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led drive-up anticoagulation clinic during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic

Background The University of Kentucky HealthCare Anticoagulation Clinic at the Gill Heart and Vascular Institute in Lexington, Kentucky designed and implemented a drive-up clinic for warfarin management with the goal to minimize person-to-person exposure during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect on warfarin management in a pharmacist-led anticoagulation service when transitioned from an in-person clinic to a drive-up clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This is a retrospective observational cohort study of 68 patients seen in the University of Kentucky HealthCare Anticoagulation Clinic on warfarin therapy for any indication. Patients were included if they had scheduled visits at least three times in the period 6 months prior to, during, and following the initiation of the drive-up clinic. The primary outcome is the difference in time in therapeutic range (TTR) prior to and during the drive-up clinic. Results The difference between the mean TTR in period 1 (69.1% ± 23.2%) and period 2 (69.6% ± 19.2%) was not significant (p=0.882). The mean TTR in period 3 (70.5% ± 20.8%) did not differ significantly from either period 1 (p=0.688) or period 2 (p=0.746). Safety outcomes including reported bleeding events and emergency department visits or hospital admissions for bleeding or thrombotic events were consistently low across each period. Conclusion The results of this study illustrate a drive-up clinic for warfarin management may be a reasonable alternative approach to providing care for outpatient anticoagulant management and may support non-traditional clinic models for long-term management of anticoagulation and other chronic disease states.

Comparison of Bivalirudin Versus Unfractionated Heparin for Anticoagulation in Adult Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) contributes to coagulopathy, necessitating systemic anticoagulation to prevent thrombosis. Traditionally, unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been the anticoagulant of choice, however, due to many inadequacies new evidence suggests benefit with the use of direct thrombin inhibitors. This retrospective cohort sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin compared to UFH in ECMO patients. Primary endpoints included incidence of bleeding and thrombosis. Percent time in therapeutic range (TR), time to achieve TR and number of dose titrations required to maintain TR were calculated to assess efficacy of institutional protocols. Overall incidence of thrombosis was low, with one event in the bivalirudin group and no events in the UFH group. No difference was found in rates of bleeding between groups (6% vs . 10%, P = 0.44). Bivalirudin yielded higher percent time in TR (86% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), faster time to TR (2 vs . 18 hr, P < 0.001) and required fewer dose adjustments to maintain TR (2 vs . 11, P < 0.001) compared to UFH. These results suggest bivalirudin and UFH are associated with similar rates of bleeding and thrombosis in patients requiring ECMO support. Our results demonstrate the favorable pharmacokinetic profile of bivalirudin, and its ability to consistently maintain TR when compared to UFH.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hepatitis C outcomes at a health-system specialty pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: The goal of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment is to cure the patient of the infection, defined as a nondetectable HCV RNA at least 12 weeks after treatment completion, or sustained virologic response (SVR). The COVID-19 pandemic has presented new barriers to care in the treatment of patients with HCV that resulted in a transition to tele-health services at many health systems to overcome these barriers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent shift to a telehealth model on collection of SVR data and other HCV treatment outcomes in a health-system setting. METHODS: Subjects who received a referral for an HCV direct-acting antiviral agent between January 1, 2018, and November 30, 2020, and were aged 18 years or older at time of enrollment were placed in either "pre-COVID-19" or "COVID-19" cohorts based on enrollment date. The primary endpoint of this study evaluated confirmed SVR to treatment determined by the absence of HCV RNA by polymerase chain reaction testing at least 12 weeks after completion of drug therapy. Secondary endpoints evaluated completion of medication therapy and adherence to laboratory appointments. RESULTS: 1,504 patients met study inclusion criteria (pre-COVID-19 cohort, n = 1,230; COVID-19 cohort, n = 274). The COVID-19 cohort demonstrated significantly lower therapy completion rates (P = 0.001), were less likely to obtain SVR laboratory tests (P < 0.001), and had a significantly lower confirmed SVR rate (P < 0.001) compared with the pre-COVID-19 cohort. In a subset of patients who completed therapy and had SVR laboratory tests collected, there were no significant differences observed in the rate of patients who achieved SVR (P = 0.959). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with HCV were significantly less likely to complete therapy or participate in SVR laboratory work. Further studies are needed to determine if offering a telehealth option for our patients in a post-COVID-19 environment would offer any additional advantage in increasing access to care for patients with HCV. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Dr Cooper is an employee of the University of Kentucky whose position was partially funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc.