BACKGROUND:Public attention and recent US Congressional activity has intensified focus on escalating medication prices. However, the actual cost of medication use extends beyond the up-front cost of purchasing medicines. It also encompasses the additional medical costs of morbidity and mortality resulting from nonoptimized medication regimens, including medication nonadherence. OBJECTIVES:Applying the most current nationally representative data sources, our goal was to estimate the cost of prescription drug-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. METHODS:Total costs of nonoptimized prescription drug use and average pathway costs for a patient who experienced a treatment failure (TF), a new medical problem (NMP), or a TF and NMP were modeled in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) and TreeAge Pro Healthcare, v2014 (TreeAge Software, Inc, Williamstown, MA), respectively. RESULTS:The estimated annual cost of prescription drug-related morbidity and mortality resulting from nonoptimized medication therapy was $528.4 billion in 2016 US dollars, with a plausible range of $495.3 billion to $672.7 billion. The average cost of an individual experiencing TF, NMP, or TF and NMP after initial prescription use were $2481 (range: $2233, $2742), $2610 (range: $2374, $2848) and $2572 (range: $2408, $2751), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The estimated annual cost of drug-related morbidity and mortality resulting from nonoptimized medication therapy was $528.4 billion, equivalent to 16% of total US health care expenditures in 2016. We propose expansion of comprehensive medication management programs by clinical pharmacists in collaborative practices with physicians and other prescribers as an effective and scalable approach to mitigate these avoidable costs and improve patient outcomes.

Despite numerous challenges in relation to being a recently established school, the University of California, Irvine (UCI) School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (SPPS), similar to many schools of pharmacy in the United States, was highly committed to supporting the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. UCI SPPS and our affiliated UCI Medical Center (UCIMC) Pharmacy Department partnered to spearhead the pharmacy element of a large-scale COVID-19 vaccination clinic on campus for both employees and the community. Three key initiatives were established in order to overcome the obstacles we faced in the large-scale roll out of COVID-19 vaccines: (1) forging new collaborations within the pharmacy team, (2) leveraging interprofessional education and practice, and (3) raising awareness of the pharmacists' role. Our response to the COVID-19 vaccines at UCI was a tangible, visible model that demonstrated that, while we continue to embrace our role in team-based, patient-centered care, it is also important for us to step up and lead the profession. Additionally, this vaccine rollout experience is a teachable moment for our communities and our health professional partners as we continue to march forward as one voice to serve the American public.

In the United States, pharmacists' scope of practice continues to expand, with increasing opportunities for pharmacists in all practice settings to enhance health in society. In ambulatory care, pharmacists remain integral members on the healthcare team and have demonstrated positive impacts on patient care. Sharing similar characteristics as pharmacists in the community setting, a deeper look into common elements of a successful ambulatory care practice that can be applied in the community pharmacy setting is warranted. Key success factors identified from ambulatory care include (1) maximizing a pharmacist's unique knowledge base and skill set, (2) forming collaborations with physicians and other providers, (3) demonstrating outcomes and value, and (4) maintaining sustainability. Opportunities exist for pharmacists in the community setting to utilize these success factors when developing, implementing, and/or expanding direct patient care services that improve accessibility to quality care and population health.

Objective

Numerous barriers prevent patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from completing a diabetes self-management program. We investigated whether patients with T2D exhibited improved clinical outcomes after attending a relatively short, interactive diabetes self-management program conducted by pharmacist diabetes educators, compared to a physician's usual care.

Results

We retrospectively analyzed the data of adults with T2D who attended a diabetes self-management program (≥ 1 group meeting or individual appointment followed by a telephone interview from a pharmacist diabetes educator between May 2010 and Dec. 2012; n = 513) and compared their outcomes with those of T2D patients who received only their physician's usual care (n = 857). Each patient's A1C was assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months post-intervention. The mean [SD] reduction in A1C percentage points in the T2D patients was significantly greater in the diabetes self-management program group compared to the physician's usual care group at both 3 months (- 0.8% [1.5] vs. - 0.2% [0.9], p < 0.001) and 6 months post-intervention (- 0.6% [1.3] vs. - 0.2% [1.1], p < 0.001). T2D patients significantly improved their glycemic control within 3-6 months of attending the diabetes self-management program compared to patients who only received their physician's usual care.

Abstract Background In recent years waterpipe smoking has become a popular practice amongst young adults in eastern Mediterranean countries, including Iran. The aim of this study was to assess waterpipe smoking perceptions and practices among first-year health sciences university students in Iran and to identify factors associated with the initiation and maintenance of waterpipe use in this population. Results Out of 371 first-year health sciences students surveyed, 358 eight students completed a self-administered questionnaire in the classrooms describing their use and perceptions towards waterpipe smoking. Two hundred and ninety six responders met study inclusion criteria. Waterpipe smoking was common among first-year health sciences university students, with 51% of students indicating they were current waterpipe smokers. Women were smoking waterpipes almost as frequently as men (48% versus 52%, respectively). The majority of waterpipe smokers (75.5%) indicated that the fun and social aspect of waterpipe use was the main motivating factor for them to continue smoking. Of waterpipe smokers, 55.3% were occasional smokers, using waterpipes once a month or less, while 44.7% were frequent smokers, using waterpipes more than once a month. A large number of frequent waterpipe smokers perceived that waterpipe smoking was a healthier way to use tobacco (40.6%) while only 20.6% thought it was addictive. Compared to occasional smokers, significantly more frequent smokers reported waterpipe smoking was relaxing (62.5% vs. 26.2%, p = 0.002), energizing (48.5% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.001), a part of their culture (58.8% vs. 34.1%, p = 0.04), and the healthiest way to use tobacco (40.6% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.005). Conclusions Social and recreational use of waterpipes is widespread among first-year health sciences university students in Iran. Women and men were almost equally likely to be current waterpipe users. Public health initiatives to combat the increasing use of waterpipes among university students in Iran must consider the equal gender distribution and its perception by many waterpipe smokers as being a healthier and non-addictive way to use tobacco.

Diabetes complications remain a leading cause of death, which may be due to poor glycemic control resulting from medication nonadherence. The relationship between adherence status and HbA1c (glycemic control) has not been well-studied for clinical pharmacist interventions. This study evaluated medication adherence, patient satisfaction, and HbA1c, in a collaborative pharmacist-endocrinologist diabetes clinic over 6 months. Of 127 referred, 83 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean medication adherence scores, considered "good" at baseline, 1.4 ± 1.2, improved by 0.05 points (p = 0.018), and there was a 26% increase in patients with good adherence. A significant improvement of 0.40 percentage points (95% CI: -0.47, -0.34) was observed in mean HbA1c across the three time points (p < 0.001). Mean total satisfaction scores were high and increased, with mean 91.3 ± 12.2 at baseline, 94.7 ± 9.6 at 3 months, and 95.7 ± 10.8 at 6 months (p = 0.009). A multimodal personalized treatment approach from a pharmacist provider significantly and positively impacted glycemic control regardless of self-reported medication adherence, and patient satisfaction remained high despite changing to a clinical pharmacist provider and increased care intensity.

Purpose

A collaborative pharmacist-primary care provider (PharmD-PCP) team approach to medication-therapy management (MTM), with pharmacists initiating and changing medications at separate office visits, holds promise for the cost-effective management of hypertension, but has not been evaluated in many systematic trials. The primary objective of this study was to examine blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients managed by a newly formed PharmD-PCP MTM team versus usual care in a university-based primary care clinic.

Methods

This randomized, pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in hypertensive patients randomly selected for PharmD-PCP MTM or usual care. In the PharmD-PCP MTM group, pharmacists managed drug-therapy initiation and monitoring, medication adjustments, biometric assessments, laboratory tests, and patient education. In the usual-care group, patients continued to see their PCPs. Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, were diagnosed with hypertension, had a most recent BP measurement of ≥ 140/≥ 90 mm Hg (≥ 130/≥ 80 mm Hg if codiagnosed with diabetes mellitus), were on at least 1 antihypertensive medication, and were English speaking. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean change from baseline in systolic BP at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the percentage achieving therapeutic BP goal and the mean changes from baseline in diastolic BP and low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Findings

A total of 166 patients were enrolled (69 men; mean age, 67.7 years; PharmD-PCP MTM group, n = 75; usual-care group, n = 91). Mean reduction in SBP was significantly greater in the PharmD-PCP MTM group at 6 months (-7.1 [19.4] vs +1.6 [21.0] mm Hg; P = 0.008), but the difference was no longer statistically significant at 9 months (-5.2 [16.9] vs -1.7 [17.7] mm Hg; P = 0.22), based on an intent-to-treat analysis. In the intervention group, greater percentages of patients who continued to see the MTM pharmacist versus those who returned to their PCP were at goal at 6 months (81% vs 44%) and at 9 months (70% vs 52%). No significant between-group differences in changes in cholesterol were detected at 6 and 9 months; however, the mean baseline values were near recommended levels. The PharmD-PCP MTM group had significantly fewer PCP visits compared with the usual-care group (1.8 [1.5] vs 4.2 [1.0]; P < 0.001).

Implications

A PharmD-PCP collaborative MTM service was more effective in lowering BP than was usual care at 6 months in all patients and at 9 months in patients who continued to see the pharmacist. Incorporating pharmacists into the primary care team may be a successful strategy for managing medication therapy, improving patient outcomes and possibly extending the capacity of primary care. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01973556.

Introduction

Our objective was to evaluate physicians' perspectives on the clinical utility of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation (KLHL-Tx).

Methods

A 36-question web-based survey was developed and administered to medical and surgical directors of US KLHL-Tx centers.

Results

There were 82 respondents (10% response rate). The majority were men (78%), non-Hispanic whites (70%), medical directors (72%), and kidney transplant physicians (35%). Although 78% of respondents reported having some PGx education, most reported lack of confidence in their PGx knowledge and ability to apply a PGx test. Participants reported mixed views about the clinical utility of PGx testing-most agreed with the efficacy of PGx testing, but not the benefits relative to the risks or standard of care. While 55% reported that testing was available at their institution, only 38% ordered a PGx test in the past year, most commonly thiopurine-S-methyltransferase. Physician-reported barriers to PGx implementation included uncertainty about the clinical value of PGx testing and patient financial burden.

Conclusion

Together, our findings suggest prospective PGx research and pilot implementation programs are needed to elucidate the clinical utility and value of PGx in KLHL-Tx. These initiatives should include educational efforts to inform the use of PGx testing.

Objective

Investigate the impact of increased access to new and refilled prescriptions by means of an automated pickup kiosk (Asteres ScriptCenter) on prescription abandonment rates, patient experience, and pharmacist consultations.

Design

Nonrandomized, observational study using retrospective, deidentified data from the filling pharmacy, the kiosk, and a pharmacist-completed counseling documentation log over a 35-month study period.

Setting and participants

Hospital employees opting to use a kiosk located in the lobby with 24 hours a day, 7 days a week access for pickups and a telephone pharmacist consultation service compared with employees using the regular counter at the filling pharmacy.

Outcome measures

Return to stock (RTS) rate to assess prescription abandonment, time to prescription pickup, consultation duration, kiosk user assessment, and pharmacist assessment of counseling ability.

Results

Approximately 9% of employees (440) enrolled to use the kiosk, with 5062 kiosk pickups recorded for new prescriptions (29%), refill prescriptions (33%), and over-the-counters (38%). The mean kiosk RTS (4.3% ± 3.2) was lower than that at the regular counter (5.6% ± 0.8), P = 0.04, whereas the mean time to pickup was approximately 1 day greater at the kiosk than the regular counter (2.8 ± 0.4 vs. 1.8 ± 0.2, P < 0.001). The average kiosk consultation was approximately 1 minute shorter (2.0 ± 1.4) than that of the regular counter (3.4 ± 1.9, P < 0.001), and fewer patients using the kiosk (15.7%) had additional questions at the end of a consultation session than patients at the regular counter (38.8%, P < 0.001). Most of the kiosk users agreed that their prescription questions were answered and that kiosk convenience was an important reason for using the filling pharmacy. Almost all (>90%) pharmacists indicated that they were able to effectively counsel patients at the kiosk and the regular counter.

Conclusion

The kiosk, used by self-selected health care workers located in a hospital workplace setting with 24 hours a day, 7 days a week access, was a convenient, contactless pickup extension of the filling pharmacy with a lower prescription abandonment rate and similar pickup and consultation characteristics as at the regular pharmacy counter.

The scope of pharmacy practice has evolved over the last few decades to focus on the optimization of medication therapy. Despite this positive impact, the lack of reimbursement remains a significant barrier to the implementation of innovative pharmacist practice models. We describe the successful development, implementation and outcomes of three types of pharmacist collaborative care models: (1) a pharmacist with physician oversight, (2) pharmacist-interprofessional teams and (3) physician-pharmacist teams. The outcome measurement of these pharmacist care models varied from the design phase to patient volume measurement and to comprehensive quality dashboards. All of these practice models have been successfully funded by affiliated health systems or grants. The expansion of pharmacist services delivered by clinical faculty has several benefits to affiliated health systems: (1) significant improvements in patient care quality, (2) access to experts in specialty areas, and (3) the dissemination of outcomes with national and international recognition, increasing the visibility of the health system.