Program Profile

Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Driven Ambulatory Aspirin Deprescribing Protocol

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

After identifying eligible patients, a CPP or pharmacy intern contacted patients by telephone, following a script to guide conversation. All patients were screened for potential appropriate aspirin indications, particularly any history of MI, CAD, CVA, TIA, PAD, or other clinical ASCVD. The patient was asked about their rationale for taking aspirin and patient-specific ASCVD risk-enhancing factors and bleeding risk factors and educated them on lifestyle modalities to reduce ASCVD risk, using the script as a guide. ASCVD risk-enhancing factors included family history of premature MI, inability to achieve BP goal, DM with the inability to achieve blood glucose or hemoglobin A1c goal, tobacco use, or inadequate statin therapy. Bleeding risk factors included a history of gastrointestinal bleed or peptic ulcer disease, concurrent use of medications that increase bleeding risk, chronic kidney disease, or thrombocytopenia.

Through shared decision making with careful consideration of these factors, we reached a conclusion with each patient to either continue or to deprescribe aspirin. Each discussion was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) using a standard documentation template (eAppendix, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0320). The patient’s medication list also was updated to reflect changes in aspirin use. For patients who declined deprescribing, the CPP or pharmacy intern asked the patient for their primary reason for preferring to continue aspirin, which was subsequently categorized as one of the following: no prior concerns with bleeding, concerns about a future cardiovascular event, wishing to discuss further with their primary care practitioner (PCP), or identifying an appropriate use for aspirin not evident through record review. For the patients who wished to further discuss the issue with their PCP before deprescribing, the patient’s PCP was notified of this preference by a record alert to the note documenting the encounter, and the patient was also encouraged to follow up about this issue. A voicemail was left if the patient did not answer requesting a call back, and a second attempt was made within 2 weeks.

Data Collected

We collected data to assess the proportion of patients for whom aspirin for primary prevention was discontinued. For patients who declined deprescribing, we documented the rationale for continuing aspirin. Additionally, the feasibility of implementation was assessed, including pharmacist time spent on each record review and intervention. Descriptive statistics were generated to evaluate baseline characteristics and intervention outcomes. The time to completion of these tasks was summarized with descriptive statistics.

We reviewed 459 patient records, and 110 were determined eligible for risk/benefit discussions.

The mean (range) age of the patients contacted was 75 (70-93) years (Table). Telephone calls were attempted to these 110 patients, resulting in an 86% reach rate. Of the 94 patients reached, 45 (48%) agreed to aspirin deprescribing and 29 (31%) declined deprescribing. Seventeen (18%) patients had previously stopped taking aspirin, which required medication reconciliation to remove aspirin from the medication list. Three (3%) patients preferred to stay on aspirin and agreed to stay on aspirin on reduced dosage.

Patients had various reasons for declining deprescribing, including 8 (28%) who had no prior concerns with bleeding while on aspirin and 6 (21%) who were concerned about a future cardiovascular event. Of those who declined aspirin deprescribing, 6 (21%) wished to further discuss the issue with their PCP. In 9 (31%) patients an alternative appropriate indication for aspirin was identified through discussion. In these cases, the indication for aspirin was documented and updated in the EHR.

Most patients (87%) contacted reported taking low-dose aspirin 81 mg daily, while 10% reported taking higher doses (range, 162-325) and 3% on an as-needed basis. In all 3 patients who agreed to dose reduction, the initial dose of 325 mg daily was reduced to 81 mg daily.

Recommended Reading

Study sheds new light on RAS inhibitors’ role for advanced CKD
Federal Practitioner
New trial suggests CV benefit with EPA: RESPECT-EPA
Federal Practitioner
‘Lucid dying’: EEG backs near-death experience during CPR 
Federal Practitioner
EHR-based thromboembolism risk tool boosted prophylaxis
Federal Practitioner
Leukocytoclastic Vasculitis Masquerading as Chronic ITP
Federal Practitioner
First-line AFib ablation cuts risk of progression vs. drug therapy
Federal Practitioner
Statins boost glycemia slightly, but CVD benefits prevail
Federal Practitioner
Tirzepatide cuts BP during obesity treatment
Federal Practitioner
Outcomes After Prolonged ICU Stays in Postoperative Cardiac Surgery Patients
Federal Practitioner
Preoperative Insulin Intensification to Improve Day of Surgery Blood Glucose Control
Federal Practitioner