Community Pharmacists Identification of Gaps in Care - Statin Utilization for Primary Prevention.

Background: Statins are a highly effective lipid-lowering therapy associated with significant reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events and death. Despite these benefits, statins are underutilized. Pharmacist-led interventions to increase statin prescribing are effective. To our knowledge, no prior studies implemented a comprehensive cardiovascular risk assessment utilizing point-of-care (POC) testing in community pharmacies. Objectives: The primary objective was to determine if community pharmacists can be utilized to identify gaps in care regarding appropriate use of statin therapy for prevention of ASCVD events in HPSAs. Secondary objectives were to assess public interest in ASCVD risk assessment and statin prescribing by the pharmacist, and to identify factors associated with statin gaps in care. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at three independent community pharmacies. Participants were identified based on age and medication history and were scheduled at their pharmacy to receive a comprehensive ASCVD risk screening consisting of POC measurement of a complete lipid panel, blood glucose or A1C, and blood pressure. Participants were informed of their statin candidacy at the screening. Participants completed a survey regarding perceptions of the services provided and opinions of statin prescribing by pharmacists. Results: Of the 57 participants, 43 (75.4%) were possible statin candidates. Most indicated trusting their pharmacist to prescribe a cholesterol-lowering medication and felt insurance should pay for these screenings. Conclusion: ASCVD risk assessment conducted within the community pharmacy setting for can be utilized to identify treatment gaps in status use. Participants indicated trusting pharmacists to provide this service and found the service valuable.

Contraceptive use in patients with gender dysphoria who were assigned female at birth receiving care at a specialty gender-affirming clinic.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend that all patients, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, should be offered family planning and contraceptive options without assumptions of sexual behaviors and pregnancy risk. Current research on family planning services for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning patients is limited, but patients who are sexual or gender minorities are at increased risk for unintended pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe contraceptive use in patients assigned female at birth with gender dysphoria at a gender-affirming primary care clinic. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted. Patients were included if they were 18 to 44 years old, received care at University of New Mexico Truman Health Services in 2019, were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and were assigned female at birth. Patients were excluded if they had never developed female reproductive organs. Data were collected from the electronic medical records. Potential differences in contraceptive use based on demographic characteristics, having a family planning discussion, and having a contraceptive use discussion were analyzed using chi-square analyses. Potential predictors of contraceptive use were identified using exploratory forward conditional logistic regression and univariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were included; average age was 26.6 years; 71% identified as male, 5% identified as masculine, and 25% identified as nonbinary. Most patients (92%) were prescribed masculinizing therapy (testosterone). Forty-five (28%) patients had documented contraception use; the most common form was permanent contraception (76%). Most patients (68%) did not have any documented contraindications to contraception based on CDC US Medical Eligibility Criteria for contraceptive use. Of 113 patients with a documented sexual orientation, 45 patients (40%) reported having sex with persons who have a penis; only 13 (29%) of those patients had a documented form of contraception. Family planning discussions were documented for 82% of patients. Family planning discussions that specifically addressed contraception were documented in only 49% of patients. However, the odds of a patient having a documented use of contraception was 9.26 times higher when family planning discussions specifically addressed contraception. CONCLUSION: Documented contraception use was low in people assigned female at birth of childbearing age receiving care at a gender-affirming clinic. Due to increased risks of unintended pregnancy in this population and the teratogenic nature of testosterone, family planning discussion should also include discussions related to contraception, as this was associated with increased contraception use. Additional research is needed to address potential barriers to contraception use in this population.

Utilization rates and predictors of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor use in patients with heart failure with or without type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular deaths and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with HF. Despite this, utilization remains low. The purpose of this study was to characterize SGLT2 inhibitor utilization rates and predictors of use in a population of patients with or without type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, descriptive chart review study. Individuals 18 years of age or older with HF were eligible for inclusion. Charts were reviewed between August 2021 and February 2022. The primary objective was to identify rates of SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing for patients with HF within a large academic medical center. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify potential SGLT2 inhibitor utilization predictors (demographic characteristics, medical history, laboratory results, specialty provider visits, medication use, and medication coverage). RESULTS: A total of 800 patients with HF were included: 377 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 88 with mildly reduced EF, and 335 with preserved EF. Key baseline characteristics were as follows: 43% female; 47% Hispanic; 42% with T2D; 49% with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; and mean age, 65 years. SGLT2 inhibitor utilization was 6.5% overall. Key predictors of utilization were as follows: T2D (odds ratio [OR], 33.4; 95% CI, 8.01-139.55), HFrEF (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.45-5.51), HF clinic visit (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.40-4.60), visit with pharmacist with prescriptive authority (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 3.14-10.88), and enrollment in the hospital patient assistance program (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.08-4.97). CONCLUSION: Despite guideline recommendations, SGLT2 inhibitors are underutilized in patients with HF with or without T2D.

Association Between Accreditation Era, North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination Testing Changes, and First-Time Pass Rates.

Objective. To estimate whether first-time pass rates on the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) have been influenced by the number of pharmacy programs founded since 2000, the programs' accreditation era, and the changes to the blueprint as well as changes to the testing conditions and passing standards implemented by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) beginning in 2015.Methods. This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using publicly published data. The number of programs and pass rates were collected from 2008 to 2020. Programs reporting pass rates from 2016 to 2020 were eligible. Accreditation era was defined as programs accredited before or after 2000. Pass rates were categorized into NAPLEX tests administered before or after 2015. Statistical analyses were conducted for comparisons.Results. Pass rates were initially found to decline as the number of programs rose. First-time pass rates of programs accredited before 2000 were higher than pass rates of programs accredited after 2000 every year after 2011. Only 40% of the programs accredited after 2000 exceeded the national average between 2016-2020. Blueprint changes implemented in 2015 and the changes to testing conditions plus passing standards implemented in 2016 had a greater effect on pass rates than the number of programs or applicants.Conclusion. Programs accredited after 2000 generally had lower first-time NAPLEX pass rates. Even so, blueprint changes and changes to the testing conditions plus passing standards instituted by the NABP were more important predictors of the decline of first-time NAPLEX pass rates. Stakeholders should collaborate and embrace best practices for assessing practice-ready competency for licensure.

An observational study of adverse drug reactions to COVID-19 vaccines reported to the New Mexico poison center hotline.

INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing data on coronavirus vaccines are limited. This study evaluated adverse reactions reported to a statewide hotline after the administration of a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. METHODS: We collected reports between 1 December 2020 through 30 August 2021 of any individual 12 years of age and older who received an FDA EUA-approved vaccine and experienced an adverse reaction. For each case, we collected vaccine brand, demographics, adverse reaction type, severity, onset of reaction, duration, and outcome. Relative risk analyses were conducted to investigate factors associated with vaccine adverse reactions. RESULTS: 638 adverse drug reaction cases were recorded. The majority identified as female (70.8%) and the median age was 56. Implicated brands were Pfizer BNT162b2 (46.6%), Moderna mRNA-1273 (43.41%), and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S (8.78%). Although the lowest number of cases was with Janssen, this vaccine had the highest incident rate based on reactions per 100,000 doses. Adverse reactions with the highest incidence were systemic reactions (92.7%), injection-site reactions (8.5%), and local non-injection-site reactions (10.4%), with most judged as minor severity. Relative risk was higher for Moderna compared to Pfizer for injection-site non-severe (RR 2.01) and injection-site severe (RR 1.94) reactions. Janssen had a higher risk of headache, dyspnea, and vision changes compared to Pfizer, and a higher risk of headache compared to Moderna. The relative risk for fever, chills, and lymphadenopathy was higher for the second dose than the first dose for all patients. CONCLUSION: This observational study analyzing adverse drug reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine found that most complaints concerned systemic reactions. We found reaction differences among vaccine brands, between first and second doses for some effects, and selected recurrent events. Poison control centers are uniquely positioned to conduct post-marketing surveillance for the new vaccines as they are available 24/7 to the public and are healthcare providers. Further post-marketing studies are essential to provide a holistic safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.