Compared with routine care, pharmacist-managed outpatient-based anticoagulation services attained better quality of anticoagulation control, lower bleeding and thromboembolic events, and resulted in lower health care utilization.

Implementation of a DOAC screening service identified and resolved dosing errors, improved medication access, provided patient education, and improved follow-up.

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with thrombotic complications such as stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and VTE prophylaxis for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is recommended. However, extended postdischarge VTE prophylaxis and VTE prophylaxis for nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 are not routinely recommended due to uncertain benefit in these populations. Summary Here we report development of a pulmonary embolism (PE) in a young patient without other VTE risk factors who was treated for COVID-19 in an emergency department (ED) and discharged home without VTE prophylaxis, which was consistent with current recommendations. The patient presented to the ED 12 days later with complaints of chest pain for 1 day and was found to have a PE within the segmental and subsegmental branches of the left lower lobe. Conclusion This case suggests that nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 may be at higher risk for VTE than patients with other medical illnesses and warrants further research into the risk of VTE in outpatients with COVID-19.

Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not recommended for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment in patients with cancer because their safety and efficacy have not been compared to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in large trials. Routine anti-Xa monitoring in cancer patients on LMWH is also not recommended due to limited data correlating anti-Xa levels and outcomes. Objective Compare the safety and efficacy of DOACs to LMWH and warfarin and assess the relationship of anti-Xa monitoring and outcomes in patients with cancer taking LMWH in an urban university setting. Methods This retrospective, cohort study analyzed the recurrence of VTE and number of bleeding events in patients with cancer. Results There were 131 patients included in the analysis. There was no difference seen in the rate of recurrent VTEs between the LMWH, warfarin and DOAC groups (9.3%, 5.9%, 9.1%, p = 0.89). There was also no difference in the rate of bleeding between groups (10.5%, 14.7%, 9.1%, p = 0.576). There was an increased rate of mortality seen in the LMWH group (26.7% vs. 2.9% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.006). There was no difference seen in recurrent VTE (10.3% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.53) or bleeding (10.3% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.661) between the monitored and unmonitored LMWH patients. Conclusion Results of this analysis suggest DOACs may be as safe and effective as LMWH and warfarin for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and there may be no clinical benefit to routine anti-Xa monitoring in patients on LMWH treatment. However, larger studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Introduction: There is limited efficacy and safety data for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with obesity, and it has been suggested to avoid DOACs in this patient population. Objective: Describe the prescribing pattern of oral anticoagulants in obese patients in an urban university setting and assess efficacy, safety, and adherence. Methods: Retrospective, cohort study in patients ≥18 years with a history of VTE and/or atrial fibrillation. Patients with a BMI >40 kg/m2 and/or weight >120 kilograms and a prescription for warfarin or a DOAC from August 25, 2014 until August 25, 2017 are included. The primary outcome is the number of warfarin or DOAC prescriptions. Secondary outcomes include thromboembolism and bleeding events. Patient adherence was evaluated using time in therapeutic range (TTR), adherence rate to clinic appointments, and medication possession ratio (MPR). Results: Of the 276 patients who met eligibility criteria, 158 (57.2%) were prescribed warfarin and 118 (42.8%) were prescribed a DOAC. There was no difference in the rate of stroke or recurrent VTE between groups (3.2% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.944). There was also no difference in the rate of bleeding between groups (16.1% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.707). The TTR for the warfarin group was 44.8 ± 23%, and appointment adherence was 78.6 ± 20%. The MPR for the DOAC group was 0.93 ± 0.24. Conclusions: Despite limited data in obese patients, DOACs are prescribed in this population. Results suggest no difference in safety and efficacy compared to warfarin, but barriers to quality anticoagulation may exist in this population.