ABSTRACT
Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly prescribed for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known regarding pharmacists' practice patterns and preferences in clinical areas of contention, such as initiation dosing, obesity, and renal impairment. Objective: To determine pharmacist trends in practice regarding DOACs for the treatment of VTE overall and within areas of clinical controversy. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to pharmacists in the United States through national and state pharmacy organizations. Responses were collected for 30 days. Results: One hundred fifty-three complete responses were submitted. The majority of pharmacists preferred apixaban (90.2%) for the oral treatment of venous thromboembolism. When initiating apixaban or rivaroxaban for a new VTE, 76% and 64% of pharmacists surveyed, respectively, state the duration of the initiation dose phases are reduced if the patient received parenteral anticoagulation. Fifty-eight percent of pharmacists used body mass index to evaluate the appropriateness of DOACs in obese patients whereas 42% used total body weight. Preference for rivaroxaban (31.4%) was higher in this population compared to the global population (10%). Apixaban was preferred for patients with renal impairment (92.2%). However, as creatinine clearance as calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault equation (CrCl) reduced to ≤15 milliliters/minute (mL/min), preference for warfarin increased (36%). Conclusion: This national survey of pharmacists demonstrated an overall preference for apixaban and significant variability in practice patterns regarding DOACs for patients with new VTE, patients with obesity, and patients with renal impairment. Further research is warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOAC initiation dosing phase modifications. Prospective evaluations of DOACs in obese and renal dysfunction populations would confirm the safety and efficacy of DOACs in these populations.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to characterize clinical outcomes when cefepime was used in a neonatal intensive care population. METHODS: Data were extracted from the medical records of all full-term (40 weeks gestational age) patients up to 2 months of age and preterm patients up to 48 weeks postmenstrual age admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at a freestanding children's hospital between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, who received at least 48 hours of cefepime. The primary outcome measure was a positive clinical response as defined by a normalization of white blood cell count and/or culture clearance. RESULTS: Final analysis included 74 patients. Clinical response was evaluable in 43.2% (32 of 74) of courses. Of these, positive clinical response was observed in 81.3% (26 of 32). Overall patient mortality was 16.2% (12 of 74). Adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 14.9% (11 of 74) of courses. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime can be used safely with reasonable clinical response in a NICU population, but additional studies are needed to further determine cefepime-associated clinical outcomes.
