Background: Recent approval of the new oral anticoagulants dabigatran and rivaroxaban has led to rapid changes in anticoagulant prescribing practices. Postmarketing reports have highlighted safety concerns with these agents, and their use outside of evidence-based recommendations was noted at the authors’ centre.Objectives: To determine the incidence of and risk factors associated with inappropriate prescribing of dabigatran and rivaroxaban.Methods:This retrospective cohort study investigated randomly selected dabigatran or rivaroxaban prescriptions for patients admitted to a tertiary teaching hospital between January 2010 and December 2012. Appropriateness of prescribing was determined from the documented indication, drug dosage, patient’s renal function, and presence of drug interactions, if applicable.Results: Among a total of 321 medication orders reviewed, the incidence of inappropriate use was 31.2% (34/109) for dabigatran and 26.9% (57/212) for rivaroxaban. Of the 97 reasons for inappropriate use that were identified, the most common were prescribing for an unapproved indication (49/97 [50.5%]), concomitant prescribing of another anti -coagulant (22/97 [22.7%]), and high prescribed dose (9/97 [9.3%]). The prescribing service was found to be an independent risk factor for inappropriate prescribing (p = 0.041). Corrections were made to 23.1% (21/91) of the incorrect regimens before hospital discharge. In a sensitivity analysis using calculated ideal body weight to estimate renal function, the overall incidence of inappropriate prescribing increased to 31.5% (101/321).Conclusions: The proportion of patients with inappropriate prescribing of dabigatran or rivaroxaban in clinical practice was higher than expected. Educational interventions and pharmacy-led initiatives with a focus on appropriate indications, concomitant anticoagulant prescribing, and review of dosage regimens are recommended to improve patient safety.RÉSUMÉContexte : La récente approbation de deux nouveaux anticoagulants oraux, le dabigatran et le rivaroxaban, a mené à de rapides changements dans les habitudes de prescription pour l’anticoagulothérapie. Des rapports de pharmacovigilance ont relevé des risques pour la santé relativement à ces agents. De plus, on a noté au centre où travaillent les auteurs que ces médicaments n’étaient pas toujours utilisés selon les recommandations fondées sur des données probantes.Objectifs : Déterminer quelle est l’incidence des prescriptions inadéquates de dabigatran et de rivaroxaban et quels sont les facteurs de risque qui y sont associés.Méthodes : La présente étude de cohorte rétrospective a examiné des ordonnances choisies au hasard de dabigatran ou de rivaroxaban, lesquelles étaient destinées à des patients admis dans un hôpital universitaire de soins tertiaires entre janvier 2010 et décembre 2012. La pertinence des prescriptions était établie à l’aide des informations consignées sur l’indication, la posologie, la fonction rénale du patient et la presence d’interactions médicamenteuses, le cas échéant.Résultats : Parmi l’ensemble des 321 ordonnances analysées, l’incidence d’utilisation inadéquate était de 31,2 % (34/109) pour le dabigatran et de 26,9 % (57/212) pour le rivaroxaban. Des 97 raisons d’utilisation ina- déquate qui ont été recensées, les plus fréquentes étaient : la prescription pour une indication non approuvée (49/97 [50,5 %]), la prescription concomitante d’un autre anticoagulant (22/97 [22,7 %]) et la prescription d’une dose élevée (9/97 [9,3 %]). Le service auquel appartenait le prescripteur s’est révélé être un facteur de risque indépendant de prescription inadéquate (p = 0.041). Des corrections ont été apportées à 23,1 % (21/91) des schémas erronés avant que le congé ne soit donné. Dans une analyse de sensibilité qui s’appuyait sur le calcul du poids idéal pour estimer la fonction rénale, le taux global d’incidence de prescription inadéquate augmentait à 31,5 % (101/321).Conclusions : La proportion de patients pour qui la prescription de dabigatran ou de rivaroxaban était inadéquate dans la pratique Clinique était plus élevée que prévu. Afin d’améliorer la sécurité des patients, on recommande l’adoption d’interventions éducatives et d’initiatives dirigées par les services de pharmacie qui porteront sur les indications adéquates, la prescription concomitante d’anticoagulants et la révision des schémas posologiques.

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has been shown to reduce the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related complications in patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, clinical experience of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in the transplant recipient population is scattered due to the complex management of drug–drug interactions with calcineurin inhibitors. We describe the clinical experience with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir at The Ottawa Hospital kidney transplant program. Methods: Patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between April and June 2022 were included and followed up to 30 days after completion of treatment. Tacrolimus was withheld for 24 hours and resumed 72 hours after the last dose of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (on day 8) on the basis of the drug level the day before. The first 30 patients had their dose adjusted according to drug levels performed twice in the first week and as needed thereafter. Subsequently, a simplified algorithm with less frequent calcineurin inhibitor–level monitoring was implemented. Outcomes, including tacrolimus-level changes, serum creatinine and AKI (defined as serum creatinine increase by 30%), and clinical outcomes were described globally and compared between algorithms. Results: Fifty-one patients received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Tacrolimus levels drawn at the first time point, 7 days after withholding of calcineurin inhibitor, and 2 days after discontinuing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were within the therapeutic target in 17/44 (39%), subtherapeutic in 21/44 (48%), and supratherapeutic in 6/44 (14%). Two weeks after, 55% were within the therapeutic range, 23% were below, and 23% were above it. The standard and simplified algorithms provided similar tacrolimus level (median 5.2 [4.0–6.2] µg/L versus 4.8 [4.3–5.7] µg/L, P = 0.70). There were no acute rejections or other complications. Conclusions: Withholding tacrolimus starting the day before initiation of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with resumption 3 days after completion of therapy resulted in a low incidence of supratherapeutic levels but a short period of subtherapeutic levels for many patients. AKI was infrequent. The data are limited by the small sample size and short follow-up. Podcast: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_07_10_CJN0000000000000186.mp3

Background: As of May 2022, Ontario has seen more than 1.3 million cases of COVID-19. While the majority of individuals will recover from infection within 4 weeks, a significant subset experience persistent and often debilitating symptoms, known as “post-COVID syndrome” or “Long COVID.” Those with Long COVID experience a wide array of symptoms, with variable severity, including fatigue, cognitive impairment, and shortness of breath. Further, the prevalence and duration of Long COVID is not clear, nor is there evidence on the best course of rehabilitation for individuals to return to their desired level of function. Previous work with chronic conditions has suggested that the addition of electronic case management (ECM) may help to improve outcomes. These platforms provide enhanced connection with care providers, detailed symptom tracking and goal setting, and access to relevant resources. In this study, our primary aim is to determine if the addition of ECM with health coaching improves Long COVID outcomes at 3 months compared to health coaching alone. Methods: The trial is an open-label, single-site, randomized controlled trial of ECM with health coaching (ECM+) compared to health coaching alone (HC). Both groups will continue to receive usual care. Participants will be randomized equally to receive health coaching (± ECM) for a period of 8 weeks and a 12-week follow-up. Our primary outcome is the WHO Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS), 36-item self-report total score. Participants will also complete measures of cognition, fatigue, breathlessness, and mental health. Participants and care providers will be asked to complete a brief qualitative interview at the end of the study to evaluate acceptability and implementation of the intervention. Discussion: There is currently little evidence about the optimal treatment of Long COVID patients or the use of digital health platforms in this population. The results of this trial could result in rapid, scalable, and personalized care for people with Long COVID which will decrease morbidity after an acute infection. Results from this study will also inform decision making in Long COVID and treatment guidelines at provincial and national levels. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05019963. Registered on 25 August 2021.

Introduction: Interprofessional education (IPE) is essential for fostering collaboration among health care professionals, yet its implementation in academic settings faces significant challenges. To facilitate stakeholder engagement in adapting a competency framework at the institutional level, we used Barr's categorization model to prioritize key collaborative competencies. This study explored expert perspectives on competency selection to inform the development of an IPE curriculum tailored to institutional needs. Method: A modified Delphi method was employed to collect input from a diverse panel of 26 health care professionals with expertise in teaching, precepting, and curriculum development. Panel members prioritized 40 competencies from the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative framework, identifying those that should be emphasized as core collaborative competencies for guiding the development of local IPE curricula. The process unfolded over three rounds, allowing experts to refine their responses based on group feedback. Results: The study identified 26 core competencies for inclusion in the IPE curriculum. Despite a high consensus rate, comments and narrative feedback highlighted the importance of ensuring foundational knowledge is developed in uniprofessional programs before transitioning to interprofessional settings. Experts emphasized the need for holistic competency frameworks and noted challenges in sequencing, teachability, and assessment, particularly for competencies requiring experiential learning, such as conflict resolution and trust‐building. Conclusion: This paper outlines the development of a shared institutional competency framework, emphasizing instructors' priorities and concerns in creating an IPE curriculum across health‐related programs at a bilingual university. The findings suggest that Barr's competency categorization is most effective when applied holistically, as isolating core IPE competencies can lead to confusion and misalignment with uniprofessional curricula. Moving forward, institutional support and active engagement with workplace learning stakeholders will be essential for successful implementation and long‐term sustainability.