Smoking Termination Opportunity for inPatients (STOP): superiority of a course of varenicline tartrate plus counselling over counselling alone for smoking cessation: a 12-month randomised controlled trial for inpatients.

RATIONALE: Smoking cessation interventions in outpatient settings have been demonstrated to be cost effective. Given this evidence, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling compared with Quitline-counselling alone when initiated in the inpatient setting. METHODS: Adult patients (18-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illness to three hospitals, were randomised to receive either 12-weeks of varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling, (n=196) or Quitline-counselling alone, (n=196), with 12-months follow-up. RESULTS: For the primary analysis population (intention-to-treat), the proportion of subjects who remained continuously abstinent were significantly greater in the varenicline plus counselling arm (31.1%, n=61) compared with counselling alone (21.4%, n=42; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.03, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of varenicline plus counselling when initiated in the inpatient setting has produced a sustained smoking cessation benefit at 12-months follow-up, indicating a successful opportunistic treatment for smokers admitted with smoking related illnesses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT01141855.

The effect on medication errors of pharmacists charting medication in an emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and clinical significance of medication errors when (a) pharmacists elicit medication histories in the Emergency Department after medications have been prescribed by doctors and (b) pharmacists obtain and chart medication histories prior to doctors' approval. SETTING: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, a 350 bed South Australian teaching hospital, serving the local adult community. METHOD: Emergency Department patients at risk of medication misadventure were recruited in two phases with a 'usual practice' arm (6 weeks) and a 'pharmacist medication charting' arm (5 weeks) reflecting an alternative intervention. In the 'usual care' arm, medication histories were compiled by a pharmacy researcher after a doctor had completed the medication chart. The researcher-elicited medication histories were compared with the doctors' medication charts and unintentional discrepancies were recorded. In the 'pharmacist medication charting' arm, the same process was followed except the researcher compiled the patients' medication histories at triage, prior to patients seeing a doctor. The medication history was then transcribed onto a medication chart for authorisation by a doctor. In addition, whether resolution of unintentional discrepancies for patients in the 'usual care' arm had occurred by discharge was determined by examining patients' medical records. Main outcome measure Frequency of unintentional discrepancies and medication errors. RESULTS: The study included 45 and 29 patients in the 'usual care' and intervention arms, respectively. In the 'usual care' arm, 75.6% of patients had one or more unintentional discrepancies compared with 3.3% in the 'pharmacist medication charting' arm. This resulted in an average of 2.35 missed doses per patient in the 'usual care' arm and 0.24 in the intervention arm. In addition, an average of 1.04 incorrect doses per patient were administered in the 'usual care' arm and none in the 'pharmacist medication charting' arm. The differences observed between the arms were statistically significant (P < 0.05) and deemed clinically significant by a multidisciplinary panel. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for pharmacists eliciting medication histories to prepare medication charts at the earliest possible opportunity following a patient's presentation to the Emergency Department.

Suspected DLIS interference in the dimension DGNA digoxin assay method and the clinical application of the revised digoxin target range.

The authors present a case of an elderly female patient with heart failure and renal dysfunction treated with digoxin, where 2 commercial immunoassay methods (DRI, Microgenics, and DGNA, Dade Behring) showed a clinically very significant discrepancy on the same plasma sample, viz. 0.5 and 2.3 nmol/L, respectively. The sample was also referred to a third external laboratory that returned a result of 0.9 nmol/L using mFPIA (AxSYM, Abbott). Subsequent ultrafiltration (30,000 Dalton) on the sample essentially eliminated the difference, suggesting an interference from a large molecular weight compound(s), potentially the well-described digoxin-like immunoreactive substance(s) (DLIS). Although further study is required to verify that the DLIS implicated was indeed the interfering species, it does again highlight the importance of careful method selection in the clinical therapeutic drug monitoring laboratory to ensure that such well-established potential problems do not result in inappropriate dosage reduction with consequent lack of adequate drug exposure and serious clinical sequelae.