The impact of community pharmacy utilization of immunization information systems on vaccination rates: Results of a clustered randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adult immunization rates in the United States remain low. More convenient access to immunization information systems (IIS) may improve vaccination rates. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multilevel, clustered, randomized controlled study was to measure the impact of providing pharmacists with software and training to query IIS for patient vaccine history/recommendations on adult influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, and Td/Tdap vaccination rates. METHODS: California Rite Aid pharmacy districts were randomized into intervention/control groups using stratified randomization based on baseline influenza vaccination rates. Store demographic characteristics were collected at baseline (January 1-December 31, 2018). During follow-up (April 1, 2019-March 31, 2020), intervention group stores received access to ImmsLink, software that allows health care providers to review immunization records from IIS and identify a patient's recommended vaccinations. The difference-in-difference between intervention and control groups compared the changes in vaccination rates from baseline to follow-up by calculating adjusted ratios of risk ratios (RRRs). Analysis was performed at the store level. RESULTS: Thirty-six districts comprising 501 Rite Aid stores (intervention: n = 244 stores; control: n = 257) were included. We found no significant differences in vaccination rates between groups: influenza, 19-64 years (adjusted RRR 0.99 [95% CI 0.83-1.17]); influenza, ≥65 years (1.02 [0.86-1.22]); herpes zoster (1.07 [0.90-1.28]); pneumococcal (0.95, 0.80-1.14); and Td/Tdap (0.88, 0.73-1.05). Reasons that recommended vaccines were not given in the intervention group included patient being deferred to future visit, patient declining, patient having already received the vaccination, patient declining because of cost, or vaccine being unavailable. Overall, pharmacist engagement with ImmsLink was low. CONCLUSION: Providing pharmacists with software and training to query IIS did not improve vaccination rates compared with control pharmacies in this study. Factors such as an inconvenient interface or inadequate training or motivation may have caused low engagement with the software and should be considered in future interventions.

Marked Variation Exists Among Surgeons and Hospitals in the Use of Secondary Cleft Lip Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To identify child-, surgeon-, and hospital-specific factors at the time of primary cleft lip repair that are associated with the use of secondary cleft lip surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Forty-nine pediatric hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Children who underwent cleft lip repair between 1999 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time from primary cleft lip repair to secondary lip surgery. RESULTS: By 5 years after primary lip repair, 24.0% of children had undergone a secondary lip surgery. In multivariable analysis, primary lip repair before 3 months had a 1.22-fold increased hazard of secondary surgery (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.46) compared to repair at 7 to 12 months of age, and children with multiple congenital anomalies had a 0.77-fold decreased hazard of secondary surgery (95% CI: 0.68-0.87). After adjusting for cleft type, age at repair, presence of multiple congenital anomalies, and procedure volume, there remained substantial variation in secondary surgery use among surgeons and hospitals (P < .01). For children with unilateral cleft lip repaired at 3 to 6 months of age, the predicted proportion of children undergoing secondary surgery within 5 years of primary repair ranged from 4.9% to 21.8% across surgeons and from 4.5% to 24.7% across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial differences among surgeons and hospitals in the rates of secondary lip surgery. Further work is needed to identify causes for this variation among providers.

Assessment of community pharmacists' confidence, foundational knowledge, and coordination of care activities in patients with cancer as a chronic condition.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and deliver a series of structured educational programs to community pharmacists to build on current foundational knowledge of cancer and cancer therapy. The specific objectives were to: 1) develop and provide an educational program focused on oncology pharmacy practice in the community; and 2) measure the program impact on participants' confidence, foundational knowledge, and coordination of cancer care activities. PRACTICE INNOVATION: A structured, in-person, 6-hour educational program tailored for community pharmacists was developed and delivered along with two 20-minute online webinar sessions. The topics identified for the webinars were based on solicited feedback from participants attending the live educational program. EVALUATION: A pre- and post-survey was used to evaluate the participant's assessment of the live educational program, and a retrospective survey was used to evaluate the education sessions. RESULTS: Twenty-one pharmacists attended the in-person session. Participants indicated that they were more confident and able to coordinate care after the educational intervention. There was a nonsignificant improvement in foundational knowledge. CONCLUSION: The educational sessions provided current relevant information for community pharmacists to build on knowledge of oncology pharmacy practice and resources. This increased the pharmacists' confidence to address needs and facilitate coordination of care for individuals with cancer. Delivery of education tailored to community pharmacy is important as the advancing cancer care model continues to adapt with new medications and innovations.

Improving care transitions through medication therapy management: A community partnership to reduce readmissions in multiple health-systems.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to measure the impact of a pharmacist-provided medication therapy management program on 30-day postdischarge readmission rates. The secondary study objectives were to characterize the number and types of pharmacist interventions, to determine the impact of the intervention on primary and secondary medication nonadherence, and to measure patient satisfaction with the intervention. DESIGN: Randomized, clinical trial. SETTING: Six hospitals and a supermarket pharmacy chain with 60 pharmacies. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred patients discharged from a participating hospital with acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was 30-day readmission rate. Secondary outcomes were pharmacist interventions, primary and secondary medication nonadherence, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Four hundred patients were enrolled. There was not a significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between intervention and control groups (11.3% vs. 10.7%; P = 0.49). A large portion of patients randomized to the intervention did not attend their appointment. In a per protocol (PP) analysis, which included the 62 intervention patients who attended their appointment and the 187 patients in the control group, there was a significant difference in 30-day readmission rates (1.6% vs. 10.7%; P = 0.02). In the PP analysis, controlling for baseline differences, patients in the intervention group were significantly less likely to experience a readmission (odds ratio, 0.126; 95% confidence interval, 0.016-0.968; P = 0.046). In the PP analysis, the percentage of prescriptions not picked up in the intervention group compared with the control group was reduced by 2.5%, (6.4% vs. 8.9%; P = 0.59). Pharmacists identified many interventions, averaging 6 per patient. CONCLUSION: This study successfully implemented a large-scale transition of care program between multiple health systems and community pharmacies that reduced hospital readmissions. Pharmacists identified many interventions for patients. The transmission of patient information from the inpatient setting to the community pharmacy is key to transitioning patients successfully.

Five-Fold Variation Among Surgeons and Hospitals in the Use of Secondary Palate Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To identify child-, surgeon- and hospital-specific factors at the time of primary cleft palate repair that are associated with the use of secondary palate surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Forty-nine pediatric hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Children who underwent cleft palate repair between 1998 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time from primary cleft palate repair to secondary palate surgery. RESULTS: By 5 years after the primary palate repair, 27.5% of children had undergone secondary palate surgery. In multivariable analysis, cleft type and age at primary palate repair were both associated with secondary surgery ( P < .01). Children with unilateral cleft lip and palate had a 1.69-fold increased hazard of secondary surgery (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.54-1.85) compared to children with cleft palate alone. Primary palate repair before 9 months had a 3.99-fold increased hazard of secondary surgery (95% CI: 3.39-4.07) compared to repair at 16 to 24 months of age. After adjusting for cleft type, age at repair, and procedure volume, there remained substantial variation in secondary surgery use among surgeons and hospitals ( P < .01). For children with isolated cleft palate, the predicted proportion of children undergoing secondary surgery within 5 years of primary repair ranged from 8.5% to 46.0% across surgeons and 9.1% to 49.4% across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial differences among surgeons and hospitals in the rates of secondary palate surgery. Further work is needed to identify causes for this variation among providers and develop interventions to reduce the need for secondary surgery.

An appointment-based model to systematically assess and administer vaccinations.

OBJECTIVES: To incorporate the assessment of vaccination status and administration of vaccines in an appointment-based model (ABM) and measure the impact on vaccinations administered and patient and pharmacist satisfaction with the appointment-based model. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: An ABM was implemented to systematically assess vaccination status and administer vaccines. Patients made an appointment to pick up synchronized prescriptions, and pharmacists assessed vaccination histories and administered vaccinations during the appointment. In addition, pharmacists could access the statewide immunization information system to objectively determine vaccination histories and document administered vaccines. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: This project was conducted at 24 Kroger Pharmacies in the Cincinnati-Dayton Area. Any patient filling more than 1 maintenance medication was eligible for the ABM program. Pharmacists were encouraged to target patients at high risk for medication problems and vaccine-preventable diseases, including patients 60 years of age or older with more than 5 medications and high-risk disease states such as diabetes, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. EVALUATION: Pharmacies were randomized, and an a priori analysis was conducted to ensure that the 24 intervention and 78 control stores were similar at baseline. Postimplementation data on the mean number of vaccines per store were compared between the intervention stores and the control stores from September 2014 through December 2015. Patient and pharmacist satisfaction with the ABM was assessed via surveys. RESULTS: The pharmacist vaccine assessment as part of the ABM program showed higher overall mean vaccinations per store compared with the control group during the project period (1810.71 ± 500.88 vs. 1455.09 ± 754.43; P = 0.01). Patients and pharmacists felt that the ABM program facilitated vaccine discussions. CONCLUSION: The ABM program with a focus on vaccinations allowed pharmacists to systematically assess patient vaccination histories and administer vaccines in the pharmacy. Patients and pharmacists appreciated the dedicated time to discuss vaccinations.

Appointment-based models: A comparison of three model designs in a large chain community pharmacy setting.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of 3 different appointment-based model (ABM) designs on medication adherence and medication use outcomes controlling for patient and pharmacy characteristics. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis in a large grocery store chain from January 1, 2012, to October 31, 2015. A total of 500 comparison and 613 intervention patients in 3 different model designs were analyzed. The outcome measures were proportion of days covered for selected medication classes, number of fills, administered vaccinations, number of trips, statin use in persons with diabetes, use of high-risk medications in older adults, and medication therapy for persons with asthma. RESULTS: After adjusting for relevant covariates, the authors found that all of the ABM designs significantly increased the number of fills after enrollment. Model designs 1 and 3 also significantly reduced the number of trips after enrollment: 4.5 fewer trips (95% CI -5.3 to -3.8; P < 0.05) for model 1 and 1.9 fewer trips (95% CI -3 to -0.9; P < 0.05) for model 3. Models 1 and 3 increased the percentage of patients considered to be adherent for diabetes medications and increased the number of vaccinations patients received. Models 1 and 2 significantly increased the percentage of patients considered to be adherent for statins. No model design was significantly associated with statin use in diabetes, high-risk medication use in older adults, nor percentage of patients considered to be adherent for the hypertension measure. CONCLUSION: All of the ABM designs were effective at increasing the number of fills after enrollment. This paralleled an increase in percentage of patients considered to be adherent to diabetes and statin therapies after enrollment. Models that included face-to-face delivery of the appointment and telephonic synchronization, or face-to-face delivery for all components, increased the number of vaccinations that patients received after enrollment and significantly reduced the number of trips a patient made to the pharmacy.

Addressing primary nonadherence: A collaboration between a community pharmacy and a large pediatric clinic.

OBJECTIVES: To decrease nonadherence rates through the design and implementation of a collaborative prescription management program involving a community pharmacy and a large pediatric primary care center. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Kroger and Cincinnati Children's Pediatric Primary Care Center collaborated to identify and address patients' barriers to filling new prescriptions. After filling new medications for clinic patients, pharmacists telephoned patients to inform them that their prescription was ready and to reinforce the importance of initiating the therapy. Pharmacists followed up with families to address barriers when prescriptions remained at the pharmacy after 48 hours. Pharmacists communicated with prescribers if prescriptions were not filled, allowing the clinic staff to follow up. EVALUATION: The primary outcome of this prospective pilot study with a comparison group was primary nonadherence (PNA), defined as the proportion of patients who did not pick up prescriptions or a reasonable alternative within 30 days after the pharmacy received the prescription. Secondary outcomes were the impact on secondary nonadherence and identification of adherence barriers. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled from November 2016 to April 2017. Characteristics between the intervention group and a standard-care group were similar. The majority of prescribed medications were for acute conditions, the average patient age was 4.9 years, and 86% of patients were covered by Medicaid. Intervention patients had significantly less PNA compared with the standard-care group (14.0% vs. 53.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). Intervention patients had significantly greater secondary adherence rates compared with standard-care patients (38.8% vs. 7%; P < 0.001). Common barriers likely resulting in PNA included lack of time, lack of urgency, transportation challenges, and cost. CONCLUSION: Increased communication between the primary care provider and the community pharmacy, coupled with targeted patient-specific interventions before the initial fill of medications, resulted in significant reductions in PNA.

Clinical outcomes of switching from insulin glargine to NPH insulin in indigent patients at a charitable pharmacy: The Charitable Insulin NPH: Care for the Indigent study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical outcomes of indigent patients with type 2 diabetes served by a charitable pharmacy after therapy change from insulin glargine to NPH insulin. DESIGN: This was a 24-week prospective pilot study. SETTING: Community charitable pharmacy. PARTICIPANTS: Underserved, financially disadvantaged adults with type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTION: Conversion from insulin glargine to NPH insulin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HbA1c, 30-day average blood glucose, number of suspected and confirmed hypoglycemic episodes, total insulin dose, and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) scores. RESULTS: Patients in both control and intervention groups improved in disease-state clinical markers, safety profile, and total insulin dose. MMAS scores were unchanged. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in glycemic control or hypoglycemic episodes between the control (NPH insulin) or intervention group (insulin glargine to NPH insulin).

National Estimates of and Risk Factors for Inpatient Revision Surgeries for Orofacial Clefts.

OBJECTIVE: To provide national estimates of the number and cost of primary and revision cleft lip and palate surgeries in the U.S. and to determine patient and hospital characteristics associated with disproportionate use of revision surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study using data obtained from the 2003, 2006, and 2009 Kids' Inpatient Database. SETTING: Inpatient. PATIENTS: Children with CL, CP, or CLP undergoing inpatient cleft lip and/or palate surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Inpatient cleft lip and/or palate surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Orofacial cleft surgery estimates, estimates of primary versus revision surgeries, and estimated inflation-adjusted hospitalization costs. RESULTS: In 2009, there were a total of 2824 and 5431 hospitalizations for cleft lip and palate surgeries, respectively. Revision surgery accounted for 24.2% of cleft lip surgeries and 36.8% of cleft palate surgeries. Children with CLP (OR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.48-2.38), a syndromic diagnosis (OR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.16-1.87), or private insurance (OR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.41-2.09) were more likely to undergo cleft lip revision surgery. Similar risk factors were found for children undergoing cleft palate revision. Mean cost per hospitalization ranged from $7564 to $8393 in 2009, depending on surgery type, and did not change significantly (in 2009 U.S. $) between 2003 and 2009. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce revision surgery by improving results of primary surgery should be targeted in the population of identified high-risk (e.g., syndromic) patients. In addition, the association of health insurance status with revision surgery highlights the need to understand and address the impact of economic disparities on cleft care delivery.

Twenty years of triptans in the United States Medicaid programs: Utilization and reimbursement trends from 1993 to 2013.

OBJECTIVE: After sumatriptan was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1992, triptans became first-line anti-migraine therapies. Rapidly rising triptan expenditures, however, led payers, including Medicaid, to implement cost-containment policies. We describe triptan utilization and reimbursement trends in Medicaid. METHODS: Using national summary files for outpatient drug utilization, utilization and expenditure data from 1993 to 2013 were extracted and summed for all triptan national drug codes reimbursed by Medicaid. Data were collected separately for tablets, injections and sprays. RESULTS: The number of triptan prescriptions increased from 87,348 in 1993 to 0.9 million in 2004; fell to 0.4 million in 2009; rose to 1 million in 2011; and rose 1.2 million in 2013. In 2013, Medicaid spent $96.8 million on triptans: 74.4%, 18.4% and 7.2% for tablets, injections and sprays, respectively. Average reimbursement per prescription was $54 for tablets, $351 for injections and $235 for sprays in 2013. From 1993 to 2013, sumatriptan was the most widely prescribed among the triptans. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial increase in triptan prescriptions from 2009 to 2011, without being convincingly explained by either rising migraine prevalence or rising Medicaid enrollment, is suggestive of reduced access to these medications prior to 2009. Cost-containment policies may have inadvertently prevented Medicaid migraineurs from obtaining appropriate pharmacotherapy. PRIOR PRESENTATIONS: An earlier version of this paper was presented as a poster at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Philadelphia, PA, May 2015, where it received a finalist award.

Sulfonylurea use and the risk of hospital readmission in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Hospital inpatient care for patients with diabetes was estimated to cost $76 billion in 2012. Substantial expense resulted from those patients having multiple hospitalizations. The objective was to compare the risk for diabetes-related hospital readmission in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sulfonylureas (SUs) compared to those treated with other oral antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using two-year panels, from 1999 to 2010, from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The study included patients with type 2 diabetes taking an oral AHA who experienced a diabetes-related hospitalization. A Cox proportional hazard regression predicting time to readmission was used to estimate and compare the risks of readmission for SU-monotherapy versus other-AHA-monotherapy patients. Covariates included age, gender, marital status, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and eye disease, along with a propensity score to control for selection bias. The lack of clinical data on disease severity and progression limited our ability to estimate causal relationships between drug use and risk of hospital readmission. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2010, an estimated 13.5 million patients experienced a diabetes-related hospital admission and subsequent AHA treatment. While 23.2 % (n = 746,579) of patients in the SU monotherapy cohort had a readmission, only 16.1 % (n = 881,984) in the other-AHA monotherapy group were readmitted. Average readmission expenditure for readmitted SU users (in 2010 dollars) was $11,148 (±$1,558) compared to $7,673 (±$763) for users of other oral AHAs. The estimated readmission hazard ratio was 1.29 (95 % CI: 1.01-1.65; p-value = 0.04) for SU monotherapy users. If a patient's first hospital admission was during the time period 2008-2010, a readmission was significantly less likely (HR 0.49, 95 % CI: 0.31-0.78; p = 0.003) relative to 2004-2007. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes, SU use was associated with an approximately 30 % increased risk for readmission compared to other-AHA use, while each readmission for an SU user cost on average 45 % more than one for an other-AHA patient. Because of the rapidly rising prevalence of diabetes in the U.S. and the large number of patients with prediabetes, preventing hospital readmissions will continue to be an important cost-saving strategy in the future.