Evaluating Pharmacist Impact on Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Limited literature exists evaluating the ability of a pharmacist to quickly and effectively initiate and manage dose titrations of guideline-directed medication therapy (GDMT) in an outpatient setting. METHODS: This pilot study aimed to investigate the impact of pharmacist-managed, outpatient heart failure management on patients' heart failure outcomes, and health-care-related costs. Retrospective chart review performed on patients referred to pharmacist practicing under collaborative practice agreement. End points included time to achieve individualized target doses of GDMT; beta-blocker dose tolerance; and the clinic's impact on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), hospital admission, and emergency department encounter rates. Descriptive statistics were used to report nominal data. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate continuous variables. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients completed full titration utilizing an average of 4.9 visits over 12.7 weeks. Seventy-eight percent (n = 28) achieved full beta-blocker titration. Seventy-six percent of patients had LVEF >35% after titration versus 43% at baseline. A significant reduction in all-cause hospital admissions was seen during both 13-week and 12-month comparison periods (P < .05). We estimated >US$50 000 annual revenue generation from 0.2 full-time equivalent pharmacist. CONCLUSIONS: Although hypothesis generating, our results support the idea that pharmacist-managed medication titration clinics are effective at completing titration, improving LVEF, and generating revenue.

Evaluation of Pharmacist Medication Review Service in an Outpatient Heart Failure Clinic.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of pharmacist medication reviews on drug-related problems (DRPs) in a population with ambulatory heart failure (HF). METHODS: The HF pharmacist medication review service incorporated a comprehensive medication review note provided to the cardiologist in a HF clinic. A retrospective chart review was performed on 64 control patients with no previous pharmacist review and 64 intervention patients who had a pharmacist medication review. The primary end point was the number of DRPs identified per patient in the intervention group 2 weeks after pharmacist medication review compared to the number of DRPs identified per patient in the control group. RESULTS: The average DRPs per patient was reduced from 2.80 to 1.95 in intervention group after pharmacist intervention. There was a statistically significant difference between the average DRPs per patient in the control and intervention groups, 2.55 DRPs versus 1.95 DRPs per patient, respectively (P = .016). Medication adherence (78%), renal dosing (67%), hypertension (58%), and HF DRPs (55%) had the highest acceptance rate. The majority of DRP recommendations in the intervention (87%) and control groups (87%) were high-impact recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist medication reviews in an ambulatory HF clinic lead to significantly fewer DRPs.

Genetic Variation of Hepatic Enzymes Influence on ß-Blocker Dose in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure.

Beta-blockers such as metoprolol, carvedilol, and bisoprolol are indicated for the treatment of patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure. Heart failure treatment guidelines call for titration of these medications to specific target doses for morbidity and mortality benefit. Hepatic enzymes are responsible for metabolizing these medications; however, these enzymes are subject to genetic variations (polymorphisms) that can increase or decrease enzyme activity. Metoprolol relies almost exclusively on this enzyme for degradation to inactive metabolites, whereas carvedilol relies on this enzyme only partially for metabolism, and the portion of drug that is metabolized by CYP2D6 becomes active metabolites. The clinical significance of genetic variations in CYP2D6 in heart failure patients requiring treatment with carvedilol and metoprolol remains unclear, and further research is needed before any strong recommendations on treatment approach can be made. However, based on what is known regarding the incidence of genetic variations of this enzyme, it is reasonable to conclude that heart failure patients of European and Asian ancestry may be at a greater risk of intolerance to guideline-directed doses of metoprolol. Patients of North African ancestry may be at a lower risk of intolerance to metoprolol, although limited data are available to conclude. Additionally, due to the significant prevalence of CYP2D6 enzyme variations among all ethnicities, it may be reasonable to consider switching to carvedilol for patients who are unable to fully titrate metoprolol.

Thromboembolic and Major Bleeding Events With Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin Use in a Real-World Setting.

BACKGROUND: Although randomized trials demonstrate the noninferiority of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the context of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), little is known about how these drugs compare in practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a large health system and to evaluate this association by time in therapeutic range (TTR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with propensity matching in the Cleveland Clinic Health System. The study included patients initiated on warfarin or rivaroxaban for thromboembolic prevention in nonvalvular AF between January 2012 and July 2016. The main outcomes were thromboembolic events and major bleeds. Analyses were stratified by warfarin patients' TTR. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 472 propensity-matched pairs. The mean age was 73.6 years (SD = 11.7), and the mean CHADS2 score was 1.8. The median TTR for warfarin patients was 64%. In the propensity-matched analysis, there was no significant difference in thromboembolic or major bleeding events between groups. Among warfarin patients with a TTR <64% and their matched rivaroxaban pairs, there was also no significant difference in thromboembolic or major bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: Under real-world conditions, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with similar safety and effectiveness, even among those with suboptimal therapeutic control. Individualized decision making, taking into account the nontherapeutic tradeoffs associated with these medications (eg, monitoring, half-life, cost) is warranted.