Journal of Pharmacy Technology

Background: Studies are needed to evaluate medication-related problems (MRPs) to assess the effect of a pharmacist on managing medications postdischarge. Objective: To assess the ability of pharmacist-led medication review and reconciliation to reduce the number of MRPs found in transitional care medicine (TCM) visits, leading to medication optimization. Methods: This study involved a retrospective chart review of standard TCM procedure at a family/internal medicine clinic and a prospective, team-based TCM visit in the same clinic. Inclusion criteria included patients discharged from any hospital within our institution and seen in the clinic. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of MRPs found between the prospective and retrospective groups. Secondary outcomes included the number and specific type of MRPs found, classified by the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe tool, and further subdivided by patient aware or unaware of MRP, only in the prospective group, as well as 30-day readmission rate. Results: Patients in the prospective group (n = 50) had an average age of 67.9 years versus 65.5 years in the retrospective group (n = 50). Four times as many patients in the prospective group were found to have MRPs than the retrospective group. The most common MRP was due to a patient-related factor, meaning the cause is related to a patient’s behavior. Patients were unaware of the MRP in a majority of these cases. Thirty-day readmission rate did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Team-based TCM visits that included a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation uncovered more MRPs than patients who did not have a pharmacist perform a medication reconciliation.

Background: Contraindications and precautions to metformin have limited inpatient use, and limited evidence exists evaluating metformin in hospitalized patients. Objective: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of inpatient metformin use. Methods: This study was an observational, retrospective, cohort study at an academic medical center between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018. Hospitalized adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving at least 1 metformin dose were included. The primary endpoint was to identify hospitalized patients using metformin with at least 1 contraindication or precautionary warning against use. Secondary endpoints included assessing metformin efficacy with glycemic control, characterizing adverse outcomes of inpatient metformin, and comparing the efficacy of metformin-containing regimens. Results: Two hundred patients were included. There were 126 incidences of potentially unsafe use identified in 111 patients (55.5%). The most common reasons were age ≥65 years (47%), heart failure diagnosis (7.5%), and metformin within 48 hours of contrast (6%). Metformin was contraindicated in 2 patients (1%) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m². The overall median daily blood glucose was 146 mg/dL (interquartile range [IQR] = 122-181). Patients were divided into 3 groups: metformin monotherapy, metformin plus oral antihyperglycemic therapy, and metformin plus insulin. The median daily blood glucoses were 129 mg/dL (IQR = 110-152), 154 mg/dL (IQR = 133-178), and 174 mg/dL (IQR = 142-203; P < .001), respectively. Two patients (1%) developed acute kidney injury, and no patients developed lactic acidosis. Conclusions: Metformin was associated with goal glycemic levels in hospitalized patients with no adverse outcomes. These results suggest the potential for metformin use in hospitalized, non–critically ill patients.

Objective: To report the utilization of emicizumab in a patient with severe hemophilia A with inducible inhibitors and the reduction of drug costs related to decreased on-demand recombinant factor VIIa use. Case Summary: A 65-year-old African American man with established hemophilia A with an inducible factor VIII inhibitor presented with a bleeding hematoma from the right posterior thigh. The patient was historically managed on frequent administration of recombinant factor VIIa to achieve hemostasis and was started on every 2-hour dosing during this admission. Emicizumab, a new therapy for hemophilia A, became available during this admission, and the patient discontinued recombinant factor VIIa and transitioned to weekly emicizumab injections. The patient did not require any recombinant factor VIIa during the following 12 months resulting in substantial drug cost savings. Discussion: After initiation of emicizumab therapy, the patient no longer required on-demand treatment with recombinant factor VIIa for bleeds. Through this reduction in recombinant factor VIIa, there was a large decrease in inpatient drug costs and inpatient admissions for bleeding events. Conclusion: The potential reduction in drug costs and inpatient admissions should be considered when determining if emicizumab therapy is appropriate for hemophilia A patients with inhibitors. Further research is needed to confirm that continued long-term use of emicizumab remains associated with a reduction in on-demand treatment.