Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at patient discharge: a tool to reduce healthcare utilization? an observational study in patients 65 years or older.

BACKGROUND: Older patients often experience adverse drug events (ADEs) after discharge that may lead to unplanned readmission. Medication Reconciliation (MR) reduces medication errors that lead to ADEs, but results on healthcare utilization are still controversial. This study aimed to assess the effect of MR at discharge (MRd) provided to patients aged over 65 on their unplanned rehospitalization within 30 days and on both patients' experience of discharge and their knowledge of their medication. METHODS: An observational multicenter prospective study was conducted in 5 hospitals in Brittany, France. RESULTS: Patients who received both MR on admission (MRa) and MRd did not have significantly fewer deaths, unplanned rehospitalizations and/or emergency visits related to ADEs (OR = 1.6 [0.7 to 3.6]) or whatever the cause (p = 0.960) 30 days after discharge than patients receiving MRa alone. However, patients receiving both MRa and MRd were more likely to feel that their discharge from the hospital was well organized (p = 0.003) and reported more frequently that their community pharmacist received information about their hospital stay (p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: This study found no effect of MRd on healthcare utilization 30 days after discharge in patients over 65, but the process improved patients' experiences of care continuity. Further studies are needed to better understand this positive impact on their drug care pathway in order to improve patients' ownership of their drugs, which is still insufficient. Improving both the interview step between pharmacist and patient before discharge and the transmission of information from the hospital to primary care professionals is needed to enhance MR effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04018781 July 15, 2019.

Could venous thromboembolism and major bleeding be indicators of lung cancer mortality? A nationwide database study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is highly prevalent in cancer patients and can cause severe morbidity. VTE treatment is essential, but anticoagulation increases the risk of major bleeding. The purpose was to evaluate the impact of VTE and major bleeding on survival and to identify significant risk factors for these events in lung cancer patients. METHODS: Data were extracted from a permanent sample of the French national health information system (including hospital and out-of-hospital care) from 2009 to 2016. All episodes of VTE and major bleeding events within one year after cancer diagnosis were identified. A Cox model was used to analyse the effect of VTE and major bleeding on the patients' one-year survival. VTE and major bleeding risk factors were analysed with a Fine and Gray survival model. RESULTS: Among the 2553 included patients with lung cancer, 208 (8%) had a VTE episode in the year following diagnosis and 341 (13%) had major bleeding. Almost half of the patients died during follow-up. Fifty-six (60%) of the patients presenting with pulmonary embolism (PE) died, 48 (42%) of the patients presenting with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) alone died and 186 (55%) of those presenting with a major bleeding event died. The risk of death was significantly increased following PE and major bleeding events. VTE concomitant with cancer diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrence beyond 6 months after the first VTE event (sHR = 4.07 95% CI: 1.57-10.52). Most major bleeding events did not appear to be related to treatment. CONCLUSION: VTE is frequent after a diagnosis of lung cancer, but so are major bleeding events. Both PE and major bleeding are associated with an increased risk of death and could be indicators of lung cancer mortality.

Are direct oral anticoagulants an economically attractive alternative to low molecular weight heparins in lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism management?

Venous thromboembolism is highly prevalent in lung cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparins are recommended for long term treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism. Direct oral anticoagulants are however an interesting alternative as they are administered orally and don't require monitoring. There are currently studies comparing both their efficacy and tolerance for cancer patients and more and more guidelines suggest considering direct oral anticoagulants for cancer associated venous thromboembolism treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the budgetary impact that direct oral anticoagulants use would have for lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention in France. An economic model was made to evaluate the cost of venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention among patients with primary lung cancer in France by two strategies: current guidelines versus direct oral anticoagulants use. The model was fed with clinical and economic data extracted from the French national health information system. The analysis was conducted from the national mandatory Health insurance point of view. The time horizon of the study was the evaluation of the annual management cost. Lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism management's mean cost was estimated of 836€ per patient, that is a total cost of about 40 million euros per year at a national level. A 76% decrease of this cost can be expected with direct oral anticoagulants use. However, despite their benefits, these treatments raise new issues (medication interactions, bleeding management), and would likely not be recommended for all patients.

[Hemorrhage treatment: Evaluation of the proper use of fibrinogen concentrate]. / Prise en charge des chocs hémorragiques : évaluation du bon usage des concentrés de fibrinogène.

An increase in fibrinogen concentrate prescriptions was noticed in 2015 after several guidelines regarding their use were published. We tried to evaluate if they were used appropriately. To evaluate the conformity of the prescriptions to these guidelines, we searched for each prescription if a dosage of blood fibrinogen was made, if its result was below the limit recommended to prescribe fibrinogen concentrate, and if the posology was in line with the recommendations. Effect and security of the treatment was also evaluated. We analyzed 202 prescriptions for 117 patients. The indications are respected except for one prescription for which we could not find it. The blood fibrinogen is measured for 76% of the prescriptions, 59% of the results are below the limit recommended to prescribe. The posology is conforming to the guidelines for 73% of the prescriptions, it is below the dose recommended for 20%. Patients who were prescribed low doses seemed less at risk than the others which questions the necessity of the prescriptions. The guidelines respect depends on the emergency of the prescription situation. It would be interesting to conduct a prospective study to better explain why doses below those recommended are prescribed.