Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Current literature and practice have demonstrated that pharmacists have an integral role in deprescribing. However, research regarding their impact on patients with chronic diseases is limited. OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of a pharmacist-led intervention on deprescribing inappropriate medication for patients with chronic diseases within a four-month study period compared to patients receiving usual care. METHODS:This study was conducted at NYU Langone Health. Patients of the intervention group were referred by a provider and met the criteria of polypharmacy, required chronic disease states management, were nonadherent to medications, had poor health literacy, or required titration for heart failure (HF) guideline directed medical therapy. RESULTS:A total of 142 patients were reviewed over a two-year period. At the end of the study period, the median number of medications for the two respective groups was similar (11 [4 - 30] vs 11 [2 - 23]). The pharmacist-led intervention had on average one medication deprescribed (m = -1.00, sd = 2.57), whereas the control group had on average .44 additional medications (m = 0.44, sd = 3.32) prescribed. Furthermore, the intervention group presented statistically significant differences (P = 0.046) regarding their diastolic blood pressure after the pharmacists' intervention (m = 72.69, sd = 11.64). Most importantly, patients with HF presented statistically significant improvement in their ejection fractions after the intervention (m = 41.46%, sd = 19.28%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The pharmacist-led intervention resulted in significant discontinuation of medications for patients in the intervention group compared to those in the usual care group within four-months.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Medication reconciliation is the process of comparing a patient's hospital medication orders to all of the medications that the patient has been taking prior to admission. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in reducing ED visit rates. The secondary aim of this study was to evaluate if a clinical pharmacist reduces medication errors in an ED observation unit (OBS). METHODS:This was a retrospective, IRB approved, chart review conducted at New York University Langone Health-Tisch Hospital. The study defines the year before a clinical pharmacist was present on the unit (July 5, 2016 through July 4, 2017) as the control group and the first year a clinical pharmacist was present on the unit (July 5, 2017 through July 4, 2018) as the intervention group. The primary endpoint was 30-day ED re-visits. The secondary endpoints were 60-and 90-day ED re-visits, number, type and severity of medication history and reconciliation discrepancies. RESULTS:The primary endpoint of 30-day ED visits occurred in 153 patients in the no pharmacist group and 88 patients in the OBS clinical pharmacist group (19.1% vs 9.9%, P < .00001). The secondary endpoint of 60- day ED visits occurred in 53 patients in the no pharmacist group and 39 patients in the OBS clinical pharmacist group (8.2% vs 4.9%, P = .01). The secondary endpoint of 90- day ED visits occurred in 31 patients in the no pharmacist group and 26 patients in the OBS clinical pharmacist group (5.2% vs 3.4%, P = .01). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The benefits of having a clinical pharmacist perform medication reconciliation are highlighted by the reduction in ED visits, cost savings, and the prolific amount of errors corrected.

Purpose: In the U.S., heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing. We present our institutional experience of DCD transplantation by using a thoracoabdominal-normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) protocol and compare the results to a cohort concomitantly transplanted, from standard brain death (

Purpose: During the COVID 19- pandemic, there is no consensus on management strategies for treating infected heart transplant patients. The outcomes of these patients vary by institution. We report our center experience and management strategies to date.
Method(s): All patients who received heart transplantation, from January 4th 2018 to September 25th 2020 and were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 were included and full chart review was performed.
Result(s): There were 113 heart transplants at our institution by September 2020. A total of 13 (12%) patients were infected with SARS-CoV-2: 9 (69%) isolated heart, 3 heart -kidney (23%) and 1 heat- lung (8%). The median (IQR) time from transplant to diagnosis was 10 (5-16) months. The mean age was 57 years and 50% were male; 50% were of Hispanic ethnicity. The main presenting symptoms were fever (43%), cough (86%) and SOB (43%). Chest x-ray was abnormal in all patients. We evaluated all patients and 79% were hospitalized and 21% were closely monitored as outpatients. None of our patients were hospitalized at outside institutions. Two (14%) required intubation and none required V-V ECMO support. The immunotherapy was modified in all patients: MMF and prednisone were discontinued, tacrolimus dose was reduced. COVID19 treatment was: 71% received hydroxychloroquine, 50% azithromycin, 15% remdesevir, 7% convalescent plasma. All hospitalized patients received anticoagulation. One patient had 2R/3A rejection within 30 days prior to diagnosis. Graft function was maintained in all patients with median LVEF% 65 (59-65%) except one patient who had received thymoglobulin 2 weeks prior to COVID 19 infection (LVEF 30%). The patient had a prolonged intubation but ultimately recovered and was discharged from the hospital. The one death (7.1%) was a heart - kidney recipient who concomitantly presented with pseudomonas sepsis and severe neutropenia. The remaining patients have all been discharged home.
Conclusion(s): We present our single center experience in managing COVID 19 infected heart transplant patients. We implemented uniform management strategies by incorporating aggressive reduction of immunosuppression, frequent scheduled contacts with infected outpatients and making sure all infected patients requiring hospitalization were treated at a transplant center.
Copyright

BACKGROUND:Increased utilization of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive donors has increased transplantation rates. However, high levels of viremia have been documented in recipients of viremic donors. There is a knowledge gap in how transient viremia may impact acute cellular rejections (ACRs). METHODS:In this study, 50 subjects received hearts from either viremic or non-viremic donors. The recipients of viremic donors were classified as nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT)+ group, and the remaining were classified as NAT-. All patients were monitored for viremia levels. Endomyocardial biopsies were performed through 180 days, evaluating the incidence of ACRs. RESULTS:A total of 50 HCV-naive recipients received hearts between 2018 and 2019. A total of 22 patients (44%) who received transplants from viremic donors developed viremia at a mean period of 7.2 ± 0.2 days. At that time, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was initiated. In the viremia period (<56 days), 14 of 22 NAT+ recipients (64%) had ACR vs 5 of 28 NAT- group (18%) (p = 0.001). Through 180 days, 17 of 22 NAT+ recipients (77%) had a repeat rejection biopsy vs 12 of 28 NAT- recipients (43%) (p = 0.02). NAT+ biopsies demonstrated disparity of ACR distribution: negative, low-grade, and high-grade ACR in 84%, 12%, and 4%, respectively, vs 96%, 3%, and 1%, respectively, in the NAT- group (p = 0.03). The median time to first event was 26 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-45) in the NAT+ group vs 65 (IQR: 44-84) days in the NAT-. Time to first event risk model revealed that NAT+ recipients had a significantly higher rate of ACR occurrences, adjusting for demographics (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS:Transient levels of viremia contributed to higher rates and severity of ACRs. Further investigation into the mechanisms of early immune activation in NAT+ recipients is required.