ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is no standard approach for managing the use or dose of loop diuretics after initiating sacubitril/valsartan. OBJECTIVE: To investigate longitudinal trends in loop diuretic therapy use and doses during the initial 6 months following sacubitril/valsartan initiation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients who were initiated on sacubitril/valsartan in cardiology clinics. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction ≤40%) and initiated on sacubitril/valsartan in an outpatient setting. We investigated longitudinal trends in the prevalence of loop diuretic use and furosemide equivalent dose at baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 month and 6 months following sacubitril/valsartan initiation. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients were included in the final cohort. Compared to the baseline loop diuretic use and dose, there were no significant longitudinal changes in the prevalence of loop diuretic use or the furosemide equivalent dose over the 6 months following sacubitril/valsartan initiation. The use of sacubitril/valsartan was not significantly associated with reductions in the use or dose of loop diuretics over a 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION: The use of sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly change the use or dose of loop diuretics over 6-month follow-up period. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan may not need a pre-emptive loop diuretic dose reduction.
ABSTRACT
Background: While barriers to accessing buprenorphine (BUP) therapy have been well described, little is known about pharmacy-related barriers. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of patient-reported problems filling BUP prescriptions and determine whether these problems were associated with illicit use of BUP. The secondary objectives included identifying motivations for illicit BUP use and the prevalence of naloxone acquisition among patients prescribed BUP. Methods: Between July 2019 and March 2020, 139 participants receiving treatment for an opioid use disorder (OUD) at two sites within a rurally-located health system, completed an anonymous 33-item survey. A multivariable model was used to assess the association between pharmacy-related problems filling BUP prescriptions and illicit substance use. Results: More than a third of participants reported having problems filling their BUP prescription (34.1%, n = 47) with the most commonly reported problems being insufficient pharmacy stock of BUP (37.8%, n = 17), pharmacist refusal to dispense BUP (37.8%, n = 17), and insurance problems (34.0%, n = 16). Of those who reported illicit BUP use (41.5%, n = 56), the most common motivations were to avoid/ease withdrawal symptoms (n = 39), prevent/reduce cravings (n = 39), maintain abstinence (n = 30), and treat pain (n = 19). In the multivariable model, participants who reported a pharmacy-related problems were significantly more likely to use illicitly obtained BUP (OR=8.93, 95% CI: 3.12, 25.52, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Efforts to improve BUP access have primarily focused on increasing the number of clinicians waivered to prescribe; however, challenges persist with BUP dispensing and coordinated efforts may be needed to systematically reduce pharmacy-related barriers.
