Abstract
Background
Anticoagulant therapies provide management options for potentially life-threatening thromboembolic conditions. They also carry significant safety risks, requiring careful consideration of medication dose, close monitoring, and follow-up. Inpatients are particularly at risk, considering the widespread use of anticoagulants in hospitals. This has prompted the introduction of safety goals for anticoagulants in Canada and the USA, which recommend increased pharmacist involvement to reduce patient harm. The goal of this review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacist-led inpatient anticoagulation services compared to usual or physician-managed care.
Methods
This narrative review includes articles identified through a literature search of PubMed, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, as well as hand searches of the references of relevant articles. Full publications of pharmacist-managed inpatient anticoagulation services were eligible if they were published in English and assessed clinical outcomes.
Results
Twenty-six studies were included and further divided into two categories: 1) autonomous pharmacist-managed anticoagulation programs (PMAPs) and 2) pharmacist recommendation. Pharmacist management of heparin and warfarin appears to result in improvements in some surrogate outcomes (international normalized ratio [INR] stability and time in INR goal range), while results for others are mixed (time to therapeutic INR, length of stay, and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT] measures). There is also some indication that PMAPs may be associated with reduced patient mortality. When direct thrombin inhibitors are managed by pharmacists, there seems to be a shorter time to therapeutic aPTT and a greater percentage of time in the therapeutic range, as well as a decrease in the frequency of medication errors. Pharmacist recommendation services have generally resulted in a greater time in therapeutic INR range, greater INR stability, decreased length of stay, and reduced major drug interactions, with no significant differences in safety outcomes.
Conclusion
Pharmacist-led inpatient anticoagulation management seems to result in superior outcomes, as compared to usual or physician-managed care. This conclusion is limited by small, poorly designed studies lacking statistical power, focusing mainly on surrogate outcomes.
Introduction
Anticoagulants are complex therapies that are used in the treatment and prevention of thrombosis and can themselves result in significant morbidity and mortality. In the outpatient setting, pharmacist-managed anticoagulation has been shown to decrease bleeding and thromboembolic events, as well as increase the likelihood of a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) for patients on warfarin.Citation1 The widespread use of anticoagulant therapies in the inpatient setting poses significant risks to hospitalized patients. Anticoagulants, including the new direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs), have been included on the Institute of Safe Medication Practices’Citation2 list of high-alert medications.
In the past decade, national accrediting bodies in the USA and Canada have incorporated anticoagulant safety goals into their accreditation standards for hospitals.Citation3,Citation4 For example, the Joint Commission’s National Patient Safety Goal NPSG.03.05.01 focuses specifically on reducing patient harm associated with the use of anticoagulant therapies.Citation3 As a result, an increasing number of hospitals have implemented pharmacist-led inpatient anticoagulation services to improve the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapies.
In 2008, Donovan et alCitation5 published a review of pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services in the inpatient setting. More specifically, their review assessed the efficacy, financial impact, and community acceptance of pharmacy-managed anticoagulation. The authors concluded that efficacy outcomes associated with pharmacy-managed anticoagulation (ie, warfarin and heparin therapy) appear equal or superior to the outcomes with usual care. However, they highlight “two significant caveats” to their conclusion: 1) experimental design in the majority of studies was poor and 2) observance of guidelines and protocols by pharmacists may be the reason for apparent superiority in a number of studies evaluated.Citation5
We identified an apparent surge of publications in the literature comparing pharmacist-led anticoagulation to usual medical care since 2008, warranting an updated review. The goal of this narrative review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacist-led inpatient anticoagulation services compared to usual or physician-managed care.
Literature search and methods
Relevant articles were identified through a search of the National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed database (1946 to May 2015), Ovid Embase (1980 to May 2015), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to May 2015). Our search terms included “pharmacist” and/or “pharmacy”, “inpatient”, “hospital”, “anticoagulation”, and/or “anticoagulant”, combined with each of the following terms: “warfarin”, “heparin”, “novel anticoagulants”, “target-specific anticoagulants”, and “direct oral anticoagulants”. We hand-searched the references of all relevant studies to identify any papers not found in our initial search. Full publications of trials assessing clinically relevant outcomes of pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services compared to usual or physician-led care were eligible for inclusion. Articles were excluded if they were published in languages other than English, were quality assessment studies without a control group for comparison, and were based on technological interventions (eg, computer-based dosing programs), as well as if the articles were available only as abstracts. A total of 26 papers were included, divided into two categorizes based on the type of pharmacist-managed anticoagulation service: 1) autonomous pharmacist-managed anticoagulation programs (PMAPs) – those that examined pharmacist-managed inpatient anticoagulation programs in which the pharmacists provided autonomous patient care and 2) pharmacist recommendation – those that examined programs whereby the pharmacist made treatment recommendations but did not have the authority to provide independent care.
Autonomous PMAPs
Nineteen studies evaluating autonomous inpatient PMAPs versus usual or physician-managed care were included in our review (). The types of programs varied between pharmacist use of established anticoagulation dosing protocols/nomograms and programs that allowed for anticoagulation management at the discretion of the pharmacist’s clinical judgment. Medications managed by the PMAP in each study ranged from warfarin and heparin to DTIs.
Table 1 Summary of included trials
Warfarin
Fourteen studies evaluated warfarin-based autonomous PMAPs. Overall, they suggest that pharmacists perform better than physicians in the management of patients receiving anticoagulants or that there was no difference.Citation6–Citation19 A number of efficacy outcomes, focusing on INR trends, and safety outcomes were evaluated. Efficacy outcomes included instances of supra-/subtherapeutic INR, time within therapeutic INR, average time to achieve therapeutic INR, and length of stay. Instances of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and drug–drug interactions were among the safety outcomes evaluated.
Efficacy
Several studies failed to show a difference between groupsCitation11,Citation14 or saw a significant reduction in supra-/subtherapeutic INRCitation6–Citation8 or a nonsignificant trend toward reduced supra-/ subtherapeutic INRCitation10,Citation13,Citation15 when PMAPs were compared to anticoagulation management by a physician. Dawson et alCitation6 conducted a prospective, nonrandomized trial with patients on cardiology, internal medicine, and family medicine inpatient services. Patients were assigned to receive warfarin management through a detailed dosing protocol administered by pharmacists (n=217) or through usual care by physicians (n=293). The authors report that the use of the protocol by pharmacists resulted in significantly fewer INR results >5, as compared to usual care by physicians (7.86% vs 1.85%; P=0.004).Citation6 Tschol et alCitation7 reported that, in patients undergoing valve replacement, pharmacist-managed patients had fewer days with INR >4 than a cohort of physician-managed patients (4% vs 10%; P<0.001). This finding is particularly noteworthy, as the cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons responsible for postoperative care had considerable experience with anticoagulation management.Citation5 A small study by BriceCitation8 compared pharmacist dosing of warfarin (n=44) to physician dosing (n=44) on a coronary care step-down unit, in a general medicine ward, and in a medical ward for the elderly. The pharmacist-dosed patients had a significantly reduced risk of a pseudoevent (defined as one or more INR results of ≤1.5 or ≥5) as compared to the physician group (relative risk [RR]: 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03–0.61).Citation8
Pharmacists were also able to achieve a greater proportion of INR results in therapeutic range, as demonstrated in a studyCitation9 that evaluated warfarin administration before and after the introduction of a warfarin-prescribing guideline. Prior to guideline introduction, warfarin dosing by physicians was investigated over 4 weeks in four acute medical wards (n=68). Prescribing guidelines were then circulated to the study physicians. Subsequently, in two of the wards, warfarin dosing was continued by physicians with the aid of the warfarin-prescribing guideline (n=64), while in the other two wards, warfarin dosing, as per the guidelines, from Day 4 of treatment onward was the responsibility of the hematology pharmacist. Pharmacist management achieved significantly better INR control (proportion of INRs within target range) compared to either of the physician groups (58% pharmacy vs 18% physicians with guidelines vs 15% physicians; P<0.001).Citation9
A number of studies compared the time spent within goal INR range for PMAPs versus physician management.Citation7–Citation12 Generally, the time spent in therapeutic range was higher in the pharmacy-managed groupsCitation7–Citation10,Citation12 or there was no difference between groups.Citation11 Chilipko and NorwoodCitation10 recently conducted a retrospective chart review of patients followed by an inpatient anticoagulation management service to compare pharmacist-managed patients (n=179) with those receiving standard of care through physician management (n=179). For the primary outcome of mean time spent within goal INR range, pharmacist-managed patients spent significantly greater time within goal range as compared to the physician-managed group (2.84 days vs 2.20 days; P=0.017).Citation10 Similarly, the study by Brice et alCitation8 described above found that the percentage of patients in his pharmacy-dosed group who were newly anticoagulated (100% vs 72%; P=0.025) and patients with a target INR of 2.5 (100% vs 66%; P=0.017) were maintained for a significantly longer period of time within 0.75 INR units of the target INR. However, differences were not significant when all study patients were included in the analysis.Citation8
A nonsignificant trend toward an improved time to therapeutic INR for PMAPs was also noted by a number of studies,Citation9,Citation12 while other studies noted no difference between groups.Citation7,Citation10,Citation13 In contrast to these findings, Airee et alCitation11 conducted a retrospective chart review, which suggested that the time to therapeutic INR was significantly lower (4.3 days vs 5.3 days; P=0.006) in patients managed through usual care by a physician (n=50) as compared to patients managed by a pharmacists’ anticoagulation management service protocol (n=50). The authors note that these findings may be explained by a tendency toward greater use of loading doses in the physician group.Citation11
Finally, a number of studiesCitation6,Citation7,Citation10–Citation12,Citation14,Citation15,Citation18 compared the average length of stay for patients under the care of PMAPs to those cared for by physicians. Again, the majority of studies suggest no difference between groupsCitation6,Citation7,Citation11,Citation12 or a nonsignificant trend toward decreased length of stay among patients managed by pharmacists.Citation15,Citation18 Two studiesCitation10,Citation14 suggested that physician-managed patients had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to pharmacist-managed patients.
The largest studyCitation19 by far to compare PMAPs with usual care analyzed data, obtained via a mailed questionnaire, from the 1995 National Clinical Pharmacy Services and Medicare database for hospitals, which included analysis of 717,396 Medicare patients treated in 955 hospitals for conditions requiring anticoagulant therapy. Hospitals with pharmacist-managed warfarin therapy had lower mortality (6.7% vs 7.1%) and reduced hospital length of stay (8.0 days vs 8.5 days) compared to hospitals without pharmacist-managed care (all comparisons P<0.0001).Citation19 Although the benefits reported by this retrospective analysis are significant, there are a number of limitations to consider. The study shows associations between major health outcomes (death rate and length of stay) and PMAPs, but as with most of the other articles included in this review, the study design does not allow us to determine direct relationships or causality. The majority of hospitals eligible for inclusion did not respond to the survey (30% response rate) and the PMAPs comprised only 10% of the patients and hospitals analyzed.Citation19 Furthermore, hospitals were not categorized (eg, large vs small, academic vs nonacademic), and other potential confounding factors (eg, patient demographics, availability of specialist physicians) were not discussed.Citation5
Safety
While the predominant goal of the identified studies was to evaluate the efficacy of inpatient PMAPs, a number of studies also evaluated the impact of such programs on safety outcomes.Citation7,Citation10–Citation14,Citation16–Citation18 Safety outcomes such as rates of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and warfarin–drug interactions were evaluated. Most studies reported a nonsignificant trend toward fewer bleeding episodesCitation11,Citation13,Citation17 or no differences between groups.Citation7,Citation10,Citation12,Citation14,Citation16,Citation17 No study noted differences for thromboembolic events. Unfortunately, the majority of studies were small and not designed to detect differences between groups for a bleeding or thromboembolic event. The definitions of bleeding and thromboembolic events varied from study to study, ranging from no specific definition to clearly defined. Bond and RaehlCitation19 noted in their large retrospective review that hospitals with PMAPs had significantly fewer bleeding complications versus hospitals without PMAPs (8.4% vs 9.2%, P<0.0001).
Heparin
Five studiesCitation18–Citation21 that evaluated outcomes in patients receiving intravenous (IV) heparin therapy were included in our review. Different study designs were used in each, and outcomes assessed were variable. Each study demonstrated some benefit for pharmacist-led heparin therapy. Of note, threeCitation17–Citation19 of the studies also evaluated the use of warfarin. Outcomes pertaining to the use of heparin are discussed here.
Efficacy
The ability of pharmacists to successfully dose heparin (and warfarin) according to protocol was demonstrated by Chenella et alCitation17 >3 decades ago. Eighty-one patients referred to the anticoagulant service were randomized to the pharmacist–prescriber (n=42) or physician–prescriber (n=39) groups. All prescribers were blinded to patient randomization and independently performed daily dose adjustments and monitoring for both patient groups. However, the prescriber had to be informed of the anticoagulant dose received on the previous day when making dosage recommendations and, as such, true prescriber blinding was not possible. The authors reported no significant difference between groups in any outcome assessed, including the overall mean dose of heparin prescribed or the mean values for heparin dose and prothrombin time in the first 24 hours.Citation17
The majority of studies included here compared the time to therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) for PMAPs versus usual care or physician management ().Citation18,Citation20,Citation21 Results are mixed, with one studyCitation18 reporting no difference between groups, anotherCitation21 reporting results that showed a favorable trend for pharmacist-directed dosing, and the thirdCitation20 noted a statistically significant difference between groups. It is important to highlight that pharmacist-led dosing of heparin achieved therapeutic aPTT within 24 hours in all three studies, a critical end point for the prevention of recurrent thrombosis.Citation22,Citation23
Table 2 Intravenous heparin therapy: time (hours) to achieve therapeutic aPTT
In addition to finding no difference in the time to therapeutic aPTT, Mamdani et alCitation18 report no significant difference between the pharmacist-managed and usual care groups for their primary end point: the percentage of patients who surpassed a therapeutic aPTT of 48 seconds after the first dose of heparin (84% vs 78%; P=0.44). However, the authors did find a significantly greater percentage of therapeutic aPTT values (47.75% vs 41.5%; P=0.05) and significantly less subtherapeutic aPTT values in the pharmacist-managed group (15.8% vs 21.3%; P=0.03), with no difference reported in terms of supratherapeutic aPTT values.Citation18 Two important variables that may have weakened the difference between groups include poor pharmacist adherence to the heparin protocol and improved physician prescribing as a result of increased protocol awareness and use.Citation18
Similar to the findings discussed in the previous section on “Warfarin” regarding pharmacist-managed warfarin therapy, Bond and RaehlCitation19 report that hospitals with pharmacist-managed heparin therapy had a lower rate of mortality compared to hospitals without such services (6.37% vs 7.19%; P<0.0001).Citation19 In addition, two studiesCitation18,Citation19 found that heparin management by PMAPs reduced mean length of stay by 1–2 days.
Although each study discussed here demonstrated some benefit of pharmacist-managed heparin therapy, the inconsistent use of heparin-dosing protocols among comparison groups make the results difficult to compare across trials. Three studiesCitation18,Citation20,Citation21 evaluated pharmacist-managed heparin therapy using a weight-based dosing protocol compared to physician-managed therapy using empiric dosing or a standard care nomogram (also referred to as traditional dosing). It is difficult to interpret whether these results were due directly to pharmacist involvement or to the use of a more effective protocol, as one randomized controlled trial demonstrated the apparent superiority of weight-based dosing compared to a standard care nomogram.Citation24 Chenella et alCitation17 compared groups who used the same established protocol (protocol type not specified) and found no significant difference in the mean dose of heparin prescribed or the mean values for PTT.
Safety
Bond and RaehlCitation19 also reported improved safety in hospitals with pharmacist-managed heparin therapy. Hospitals with pharmacist-managed heparin therapy had a lower rate of bleeding complications (8.84% vs 9.12%; P=0.0009) compared to hospitals without pharmacist management.Citation19 However, it is important to consider the limitations of the study design, as discussed previously, when assessing direct relationships and improvements in safety.
Two additional studiesCitation17,Citation18 reported instances of bleeding. In one study,Citation17 four patients in the pharmacist-managed group experienced minor bleeding, while no patients experienced bleeding in the physician-managed group; no statistical analysis was performed for this outcome. No statically significant difference was noted between groups in terms of minor bleeding in the second study.Citation18 Four percent of patients receiving usual care experienced major bleeding compared to none in the pharmacist-managed group; the authors report that one patient in the pharmacist-managed group died as a result of a pulmonary embolism.Citation18
Direct thrombin inhibitors
We identified three studiesCitation25–Citation27 that evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) treated with DTIs. Each study compared outcomes before and after the implementation of a pharmacist-led anticoagulation service. A similar service design was described by the authors of each study; much like the heparin studies, an institution approved protocol was used by the pharmacists who provided dosing and monitoring of DTIs in all three studies.
Efficacy
Two studiesCitation25,Citation26 reported a statistically significant reduction in time to therapeutic aPTT and increase in percentage of time in therapeutic aPTT range between patients receiving pharmacist care and those who received usual care. Both studies reported a reduction in time to aPPT by >50% () and an absolute increase in the percentage of time in the therapeutic aPTT range of 10%–20% (). One studyCitation25 evaluated the use of argatroban and bivalirudin, whereas the otherCitation26 evaluated the use of argatroban and lepirudin. Despite these benefits, Cooper et alCitation25 reported no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of length of hospital stay.
Table 3 DTI therapy: time (hours) to therapeutic aPTT
Table 4 DTItherapy: percentage of time in therapeutic aPTT
Lobo et alCitation27 were the first to publish a pre-/postintervention study evaluating pharmacist-led management of HIT using DTIs. However, study design and outcomes measured were different from the two studies discussed earlier. The authors first conducted a baseline study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of their newly developed DTI protocol. The intervention group consisted of physicians who were encouraged to use the protocol but not mandated to do so, while the comparison group consisted of physicians who did not use the protocol. Results from the baseline study showed no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE), amputation, or death. These findings prompted the institution to revise the DTI protocol; modifications were made to the dosing algorithms for both argatroban and lepirudin. Thereafter, the pharmacist managed all patients with HIT using the revised DTI protocol. A follow-up study was conducted, which compared patient outcomes between the pharmacist-managed group using the revised DTI protocol and the physician group who used the original DTI protocol in the baseline study. This design is a major limitation of the study, as the groups compared were using different DTI dosing algorithms, making it difficult to determine if the benefit seen was related to the new protocol or the pharmacist involvement. The authors did report a statistically significant decrease in the frequency of incorrect initial and bolus dosing of the DTIs (baseline group =38%; pharmacist-managed group =9%; P<0.05).Citation27
Safety
Cooper et alCitation25 reported no difference between the pre- and postimplementation groups in terms of frequency of major and minor bleeding, new thrombosis, or mortality. However, this study was small (n=50) and not powered to assess safety outcomes. The authors did note a significant decline in the frequency of medication errors postimplementation of their pharmacist-led, collaborative drug therapy management program (preimplementation cohort =10%; postimplementation cohort =3%; P=0.05).Citation25
To and JackeviciusCitation26 evaluated bleeding using the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) criteria. A greater number of patients experienced a TIMI major in the control group (ie, preimplementation of the pharmacist-managed anticoagulation service) compared to the pharmacist-managed group (eight patients vs three patients; P=0.006). However, no difference was reported in terms of TIMI minor or GUSTO major or minor bleeding.Citation26
In the follow-up study performed by Lobo et al,Citation27 the authors report no significant difference in the rates of major or minor bleeding. However, dosing errors (9% vs 38%) and heparin reexposure (6% vs 39%) were significantly less frequent in the pharmacist-managed revised protocol group compared to the physician-managed baseline protocol group.Citation27
Pharmacist recommendation
The majority of literature currently available for inpatient, pharmacist-led anticoagulation services involves pharmacists with the authority to manage anticoagulation, adjust doses, and order laboratory tests. There is a smaller body of evidence representing consultant services, with pharmacists making dosing recommendations to primary health care providers who can then either accept or reject those recommendations (). This type of service may be more accessible to those who work in areas where pharmacist prescribing is not yet accepted practice.
Warfarin
Five studiesCitation28–Citation32 that specifically measured the impact of a pharmacist recommendation service for warfarin were found. All five studies, published over a 20-year period, demonstrate some benefit for pharmacist-led warfarin interventions, although they vary in size, design, and the clinical outcomes measured.
Efficacy
Ellis et alCitation28 published the first study on the subject in 1992, discussing their unsolicited consultation to all inpatients receiving warfarin (n=56) in comparison to usual physician care in a historical cohort (n=101). In comparison to physician-managed care, the pharmacist consultation service resulted in a small decrease in the frequency of monitoring of prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, but it showed a large but imprecise impact on referrals to the outpatient clinic (odds ratio: 12.2; 95% CI: 2.35–63.81).Citation28 Since the publication of this study, there have been significant changes in monitoring of warfarin with the introduction of the INR, and several additional medications are now available for anticoagulation.
Among the more recent studies, the results are mixed. Thompson et alCitation29 studied the impact of pharmacists and pharmacy students providing warfarin-dosing recommendations and patient education in an inpatient setting and found that, compared to usual care by physicians (n=100), pharmacy involvement (n=100) resulted in the INR being in the goal range for an increased time period (50% vs 29%; P=0.0001) and decrease in the time to therapeutic INR (4.1 days vs 5.2 days for new users and 2.5 days vs 4.3 days for current users). Wong et alCitation30 observed similar results when they studied pharmacists providing dosing recommendations and monitoring, after the initial warfarin dose was chosen by the physician. They saw a greater proportion of INRs in the therapeutic range within the first 5 days (88% vs 38%; P<0.001) and a shorter time to therapeutic INR (3.9 days vs 6.5 days; P<0.001).Citation30 In contrast, a study by Dager and GulsethCitation31 showed no difference in time to therapeutic INR between physician-directed dosing (n=60) and a pharmacist-surveillance dosing program (n=60).
Two studiesCitation30,Citation32 assessed length of stay, and both found that a pharmacist recommendation service reduced mean length of stay by 2–3 days. In their 2010 study, Wong et alCitation30 noted that the pharmacist-managed cohort of patients (n=144) had a mean time to discharge of 7.7 days compared to 11 days in the baseline cohort of patients (n=26) receiving usual care. A 2.3-day reduction in length of stay (13.9 days vs 11.6 days) was seen between the pre-anticoagulation monitoring service (AMS) (n=674) and post-AMS (n=152) groups in cardiac patients in a retrospective study.Citation32 The AMS consisted of a physician and a pharmacist using a standardized protocol providing daily consultation on dose selection and monitoring.Citation32
Three studiesCitation30–Citation32 demonstrated that pharmacists were able to significantly improve the stability of inpatient INRs. The incidence of INRs >5 decreased from 13.4% to 7.2% (P=0.036) with the implementation of a multidisciplinary AMS in one study.Citation31 Wong et alCitation30 showed a drop from 27% to 2% (P<0.001) for INRs >4 during warfarin titration and decreased subtherapeutic INRs on discharge. Finally, Dager and GulsethCitation31 saw a decrease in patients with INR >3.5 (62% to 27%; P<0.002) and in patients with INR >6 (33% to 3%; P<0.001).
The pharmacist intervention by Dager and GulsethCitation31 also resulted in a significant decrease in patients receiving drugs with major interactions with warfarin (six vs 13; P=0.02), while Thompson et alCitation29 did not show a statistically significant reduction in drug interactions with the introduction of pharmacist monitoring (68/100 patients) compared with traditional monitoring (57/100 patients).
A significant missing element in almost all of these studies is the compliance of physicians with pharmacist recommendations. Without the rate of acceptance of pharmacist recommendations, it is difficult to judge the impact of the pharmacist involvement on the results seen in these trials.
Safety
No difference was seen in bleeding, or thrombosis rates, between patients receiving pharmacist-recommended doses and those receiving traditional care, although sample sizes of the studies were small and none of the studies were powered to detect differences in the rates of adverse effects ( and ).Citation28,Citation31,Citation32 Biscup-Horn et alCitation32 noted that there was no difference in the proportion of patients receiving vitamin K in the pre- and postimplementation groups (10.1% vs 10.5%; P=0.87).
Table 5 Warfarin therapy: documented or major bleeding
Table 6 Warfarin therapy: recurrence of thrombosis
VTE risk assessment services
Efficacy
Bauer et alCitation33 reported the success of a pharmacist-led program designed to assess VTE risk and to recommend prophylaxis for inpatients. The clinical pharmacists assessed all new admissions (except maternity, nursery, pediatrics, and psychiatry) and completed a VTE risk assessment using a standardized tracking sheet. A 3″×5″ sticker was placed in the “progress notes” section of the patient’s medical record, which alerted physicians to known risk factors and VTE risk level. For patients with the highest risk (>20% estimated VTE risk), the pharmacists also provided recommendations for VTE prophylaxis, which the primary care provider was able to accept or reject. Despite a low (31%) acceptance rate for recommendations, the pharmacy-led intervention demonstrated statistically and clinically significant benefits compared to a retrospective cohort from the period before program implementation. VTE prophylaxis rates increased from 19.5% to 60.2%, while VTE rates decreased from 1.1% of discharged patients to 0.1%. Barriers encountered during the implementation of this program included inconsistency among pharmacists in interpreting and identifying VTE risk factors, as well as physician concern regarding increased liability.Citation33 A limitation of this study is the baseline reference sample, from 16 months prior to the implementation of this program. A standardized VTE prophylaxis order form was created and implemented between the baseline and pharmacy program samples introducing a confounding intervention, and some of the improvement noted in this study was probably due to the implementation of the order form.Citation33 While the estimation of the efficacy of the pharmacy-led intervention may be imprecise, it does represent a clinically meaningful improvement in important patient outcomes.
Similarly, Cronin et alCitation34 noted a reduction in overall VTE and pulmonary embolism (PE) rates with the implementation of a multidisciplinary, pharmacy-led, thromboprophylaxis program in orthopedic surgery patients. The intervention consisted of a thromboprophylaxis risk factor assessment-and-prescriber order sheet, as well as education regarding protocol changes to discourage the use of warfarin monotherapy as this had been specifically noted to result in higher VTE rates at this institution. The clinical pharmacist was responsible for providing education about published guidelines, the risk factor assessment-and-prescriber order sheet, and protocol changes for prophylaxis. Daily chart reviews and twice-weekly patient care rounds with the orthopedic team ensured implementation of the risk assessment-and-order form. The pharmacist also managed the timing of low-molecular-weight heparin initiation after the removal of epidural catheters in cooperation with orthopedic physician assistants, surgical nurses, and anesthesiologists. Compared with rates in 953 patients before implementation of the initiative, any VTE was reduced by 48% and PE was reduced by 57% in 1,003 patients undergoing total joint replacement procedures.Citation34 A significant limitation in this study is the lack of statistical comparison between the before- and after-implementation event rates. The number of VTE and PE were small (44 VTE before implementation vs 24 VTE after, and nine PE before vs four after).Citation34 In addition, the role of the pharmacist in the management of anticoagulation, the choice of agent, dosing, and monitoring is not clearly described. Whether the apparently beneficial result of this intervention is due to the blanket recommendation to reduce the use of warfarin for monotherapy or due to some intervention on the part of the pharmacist remains unclear. The compliance rate of physicians with pharmacist recommendations was not reported.
Safety
Bauer et alCitation33 saw no cases of bleeding or HIT in their 1-month safety review of their pharmacist-led VTE risk assessment program, while Cronin et alCitation34 do not comment on safety.
Conclusion
Thromboprophylaxis is often underused and inappropriately prescribed, despite the existence of evidenced-based guidelines.Citation1 Preventable thromboembolic events represent an unnecessary clinical and economic burden, and there is increasing recognition of the need to optimize current care.Citation1 Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to improve patient safety and play an important role in the dosing, monitoring, and education of anticoagulation therapy. An increasing number of hospitals have begun to implement PMAPs in an effort to improve efficacy and safety, and the body of literature supporting inpatient PMAPs continues to grow.
The literature reviewed indicates apparent benefits of inpatient PMAPs, with studies generally suggesting either superior outcomes when compared to usual or physician-managed care or no differences between groups. However, it is important to note that this study is limited by design as a narrative review, and although we had a rigorous search strategy, there may be relevant papers that were not identified or included. In addition, there are a number of limitations to the available evidence. First, a majority of the studies were of poor quality and not designed to determine direct relationships or causality. Most of the studies are retrospective in nature, typically in the form of a historical cohort. Some of the reference/ control groups for these studies are from as much as 3 years before the intervention groups. The potential exists for other changes to have influenced the benefit seen over this time period, such as institutional education programs, addition of new drugs to the market, new iterations of guidelines, and so on. Some studies lacked appropriate statistical analysis, while a number of studies had small sample sizes, making it difficult to show statistically significant differences between groups for rare outcomes such as bleeding and recurrence of thrombosis. The patient populations varied among studies (eg, elderly patients, postvalve replacement surgery patients, and orthopedic surgery patients), making comparison of results for interpretation difficult. Some studies had uneven group numbers, with many more patients in one arm of the study compared to the other, potentially allowing for less-common outcomes to be missed in the smaller group. Furthermore, the studies often focused on different end points given the nature of the service (ie, postoperative studies evaluated bleeding vs studies that focused on transition of care metrics). The larger comparative studies also possessed a number of the same flaws. Second, the benefit seen with pharmacist-managed care may be a result of guideline and protocol adherence. The majority of studies did not control for dosing by physicians, so it is difficult to interpret whether the results were due directly to the pharmacist involvement or to the pharmacists’ use of protocols. These findings are consistent with those of Donovan et alCitation5 in their 2008 review.
Pharmacist-led inpatient anticoagulation appears to enhance the quality of patient care, despite the limitations of the current literature. Larger, randomized prospective studies are needed to allow for more definitive conclusions.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr Stephanie Young, Associate Professor, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University and Alison Farrell, Public Service Librarian, Health Sciences Library, Memorial University, for their assistance with the literature search for this review paper.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
- DobeshPPTrujilloTCFinksSWRole of the pharmacist in achieving performance measures to improve the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolismPharmacotherapy201333665066423553464
- The Institute for Safe Medication Practices [webpage on the Internet]List of High Alert Medications in Acute Care Settings Available from: https://www.ismp.org/tools/highalertmedications.pdfAccessed July 27, 2015
- The Joint Commission [webpage on the Internet]Hospital Accreditation Program: National Patient Safety Goals, Effective January 1, 2015 Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/2015_NPSG_HAP.pdfAccessed July 27, 2015
- Accreditation CanadaMedication Management Standards: For Surveys Starting after January 01, 2014Ottawa, ONAccreditation Canada2014
- DonovanJLDrakeJAWhittakerPTranMTPharmacy-managed anticoagulation: assessment of in-hospital efficacy and evaluation of financial impact and community acceptanceJ Thromb Thrombolysis2006221233016786229
- DawsonNLPorterIE2ndKlipaDInpatient warfarin management: pharmacist management using a detailed dosing protocolJ Thromb Thrombolysis201233217818422081292
- TscholNLaiDKTilleyJAWongHBrownGRComparison of physician- and pharmacist-managed warfarin sodium treatment in open heart surgery patientsCan J Cardiol200319121413141714631476
- BriceSDA comparative evaluation of doctor and pharmacist managed inpatient anticoagulationPharm Pract2001114134137
- BoddyCPharmacist involvement with warfarin dosing for inpatientsPharm World Sci2001231313511344589
- ChilipkoAANorwoodDKEvaluating warfarin management by pharmacists in a community teaching hospitalConsult Pharm20142929510324513419
- AireeAGuirguisABMohammadRAClinical outcomes and pharmacists’ acceptance of a community hospital’s anticoagulation management service utilizing decentralized clinical staff pharmacistsAnn Pharmacother200943462162819318602
- BurnsNEvaluation of warfarin dosing by pharmacists for elderly medical in-patientsPharm World Sci200426423223715446781
- DamaskeDLBairdRWDevelopment and implementation of a pharmacist-managed inpatient warfarin protocolProc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)200518439740016252031
- SchilligJKaatzSHudsonMKrolGDSzandzikEGKalusJSClinical and safety impact of an inpatient pharmacist-directed anticoagulation serviceJ Hosp Med20116632232821834113
- HosmaneSRTuckerJOsmanDWilliamsSWaterworthPInpatient oral anticoagulation management by clinical pharmacists: safety and cost effectivenessJ Clin Med Res201022909221811526
- RiveyMPWoodRDAllingtonDRStrattonTPEricksonCCStensonTAPharmacy-managed protocol for warfarin use in orthopedic surgery patientsAm J Health Syst Pharm19955212131013167656118
- ChenellaFCKlotzTAGillMAComparison of physician and pharmacist management of anticoagulant therapy of inpatientsAm J Hosp Pharm19834010164216456638026
- MamdaniMMRacineEMcCreadieSClinical and economic effectiveness of an inpatient anticoagulation servicePharmacotherapy19991991064107410610013
- BondCARaehlCLPharmacist-provided anticoagulation management in United States hospitals: Death rates, length of stay, medicare charges, bleeding complications, and transfusionsPharmacotherapy200424895396315338843
- PawloskiSJKershPLTherapeutic heparin monitoring service in a small community hospitalHosp Pharm199227870372310119735
- SayaFGColemanLTMartinoffJTPharmacist-directed heparin therapy using a standard dosing and monitoring protocolAm J Hosp Pharm1985429196519694050813
- HullRDRaskobGEBrantRFPineoGFValentineKARelation between the time to achieve the lower limit of the APTT therapeutic range and recurrent venous thromboembolism during heparin treatment for deep vein thrombosisArch Intern Med199715722256225689531224
- SmithSBGeskeJBMaguireJMZaneNACarterREMorgenthalerTIEarly anticoagulation is associated with reduced mortality for acute pulmonary embolismChest201013761382139020081101
- RaschkeRAReillyBMGuidryJRFontanaJRSrinivasSThe weight-based heparin dosing nomogram compared to a “Standard Care” Nomogram: a randomized controlled trialAnn Intern Med199311998748818214998
- CooperTWhiteCLTaberDUberWEKokkoHMazurJSafety and effectiveness outcomes of an inpatient collaborative drug therapy management service for direct thrombin inhibitorsAm J Health Syst Pharm201269221993199823135566
- ToEJackeviciusCQuality improvement initiative for pharmacist-assisted warfarin dosing: implementation and evaluation of a new protocolCan J Hosp Pharm2002552105113
- LoboBFinchCHoward-ThompsonAGillionAPharmacist-managed direct thrombin inhibitor protocol improves care of patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopeniaHosp Pharm2010459705
- EllisRFStephensMASharpGBEvaluation of a pharmacy-managed warfarin-monitoring service to coordinate inpatient and outpatient therapyAm J Hosp Pharm19924923873941554003
- ThompsonSSHannanCHoldenLFlickingerDImpact of an inpatient anticoagulation monitoring programUS Pharm2012372HS16HS22
- WongYMQuekYNTayJCChadachanVLeeHKEfficacy and safety of a pharmacist-managed inpatient anticoagulation service for warfarin initiation and titrationJ Clin Pharm Ther201136558559121070296
- DagerWEGulsethMPImplementing anticoagulation management by pharmacists in the inpatient settingAm J Health Syst Pharm200764101071107917494907
- Biscup-HornPJStreiffMBUlbrichTRNesbitTWShermockKMImpact of an inpatient anticoagulation management service on clinical outcomesAnn Pharmacother200842677778218460587
- BauerJBChunDSKarpinskiTAPharmacist-led program to improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in a community hospitalAm J Health Syst Pharm200865171643164718714111
- CroninMHillTReichDPinardBKraussESImplementation of a multidisciplinary, pharmacy-led, thromboprophylaxis program in total-joint arthroplasty patientsAm J Health Syst Pharm200966217117519139483