The Difference in Pharmacists’ Interventions across the Diverse Settings in a Children’s Hospital

Aims: This study aimed to document and compare the nature of clinical pharmacists’ interventions made in different practice settings within a children’s hospital. Methods: The primary investigator observed and documented all clinical interventions performed by clinical pharmacists for between 35–37 days on each of the five study wards from the three practice settings, namely general medical, general surgical and hematology-oncology. The rates, types and significance of the pharmacists’ interventions in the different settings were compared.Results: A total of 982 interventions were documented, related to the 16,700 medication orders reviewed on the five wards in the three practice settings over the duration of the study. Taking medication histories and/or patient counselling were the most common pharmacists’ interventions in the general settings; constituting more than half of all interventions. On the Hematology-Oncology Ward the pattern was different with drug therapy changes being the most common interventions (n = 73/195, 37.4% of all interventions). Active interventions (pharmacists’ activities leading to a change in drug therapy) constituted less than a quarter of all interventions on the general medical and surgical wards compared to nearly half on thespecialty Hematology-Oncology Ward. The majority (n = 37/42, 88.1%) of a random sample of the active interventions reviewed were rated as clinically significant. Dose adjustment was the most frequent active interventions in the general settings, whilst drug addition constituted the most common active interventions on the Hematology-Oncology Ward. The degree of acceptance of pharmacists’ active interventions by prescribers was high (n = 223/244, 91.4%).Conclusions: The rate of pharmacists’ active interventions differed across different practice settings, being most frequent in the specialty hematology-oncology setting. The nature and type of the interventions documented in the hematologyoncology were also different compared to those in the general medical and surgical settings

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Pediatric drug-related problems: a multicenter study in four French-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric intensive care patients represent a population at high risk for drug-related problems. There are few studies that compare the activity of clinical pharmacists between countries. OBJECTIVE: To describe the drug-related problems identified and interventions by four pharmacists in a pediatric cardiac and intensive care unit. SETTING: Four pediatric centers in France, Quebec, Switzerland and Belgium. METHOD: This was a six-month multicenter, descriptive and prospective study conducted from August 1, 2009 to January 31, 2010. Drug-related problems and clinical interventions were compiled from four pediatric centers in France, Quebec, Switzerland and Belgium. Data on patients, drugs, intervention, documentation, approval and estimated impact were compiled. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Number and type of drug-related problems encountered in a large pediatric inpatient population. RESULTS: A total of 996 interventions were recorded: 238 (24 %) in France, 278 (28 %) in Quebec, 351 (35 %) in Switzerland and 129 (13 %) in Belgium. These interventions targeted 270 patients (median 21 months old, 53 % male): 88 (33 %) in France, 56 (21 %) in Quebec, 57 (21 %) in Switzerland and 69 (26 %) in Belgium. The main drug-related problems were inappropriate administration technique (29 %), untreated indication (25 %) and supra-therapeutic dose (11 %). The pharmacists' interventions were mostly optimizing the mode of administration (22 %), dose adjustment (20 %) and therapeutic monitoring (16 %). The two major drug classes that led to interventions were anti-infectives for systemic use (23 %) and digestive system and metabolism drugs (22 %). Interventions mainly involved residents and all clinical staff (21 %). Among the 878 (88 %) proposed interventions requiring physician approval, 860 (98 %) were accepted. CONCLUSION: This descriptive study illustrates drug-related problems and the ability of clinical pharmacists to identify and resolve them in pediatric intensive care units in four French-speaking countries

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)