Effectiveness of an Aerosol Inhalation Monitor in an Ambulatory Primary Care Pharmacy Clinic.

Background: Poor inhaler technique can worsen respiratory disease. An Aerosol Inhalation Monitor (AIM) may provide insight into a patient's capability of utilizing inhaled medications. Objective: The purpose of this quality assessment was to determine if the addition of the Vitalograph AIM device by ambulatory care pharmacists within an outpatient primary care clinic improves patient's disease control through changes in pharmacotherapy. Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, quality assessment review. Pharmacists met with patients for initial and follow-up appointments. A chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT) or Asthma Control Test (ACT) and AIM assessment were performed and pharmacotherapy was subsequently adjusted. The primary endpoint was the change in initial to last recorded ACT and CAT score and was analyzed by Wilcoxon sign-rank test. Results: Twenty asthma and 17 COPD patients were included; 13 asthma and 13 COPD patients were included in the primary and secondary endpoint analysis. Initial median (interquartile range [IQR]) ACT score was 17 (14-23), first follow-up was 20 (18-24), and last recorded score was 22 (18-23). Initial median (IQR) CAT score was 17 (12-22), first follow-up score was 14 (6-20), and last recorded score was 11 (6-19). There was no statistical difference between initial CAT or ACT to first follow-up or last recorded CAT or ACT. Most patients continued their current inhaler regimen. Conclusions: This review demonstrates the positive effect pharmacists can have on respiratory disease management. The improvement in ACT and CAT scores suggests a positive, clinically significant outcome. Future research should evaluate pharmacist's effect on asthma and COPD readmission rates.

Pharmacist Hypertension Management Quality Review at an Ambulatory Care Clinic.

Background: A reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly decreases the risk of major cardiovascular disease events. Pharmacists' management of blood pressure may assist with this reduction. Objective: Assess the impact of pharmacist management of hypertension via a collaborative practice agreement with physicians in an ambulatory care clinic. Methods: The first phase of this study was a retrospective chart review of physician/nurse hypertension visits from October 2019 to August 2020. The second prospective phase consisted of pharmacist managed hypertension visits from December 2020 to January 2021. The primary outcome was the change in SBP from the beginning to the end of the study period in the prospective group. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving their blood pressure goal and the proportion of patients adherent to all antihypertensive medications at their follow-up visits in both groups. This study was institutional review board approved. Results: Forty-seven patients were included and analyzed (24 in the retrospective group and 23 in the prospective group). Patients in the prospective group had an average SBP lowering of 10.83 mm Hg (P = .0035). Thirteen patients (56.5%) met their blood pressure goal of <130/80 mm Hg in the prospective group, compared to 5 patients (20.8%) in the retrospective group (P = .012). One adverse event occurred during this study. Limitations included small sample size and short duration of study. Conclusion: Patients had an average SBP lowering of >10 mm Hg. More patients reached a goal blood pressure of <130/80 mm Hg when managed by pharmacists.

The Impact of Face-to-Face Pharmacist Transitional Care Management Visits on Medication-Related Problems.

Background: Studies are needed to evaluate medication-related problems (MRPs) to assess the effect of a pharmacist on managing medications postdischarge. Objective: To assess the ability of pharmacist-led medication review and reconciliation to reduce the number of MRPs found in transitional care medicine (TCM) visits, leading to medication optimization. Methods: This study involved a retrospective chart review of standard TCM procedure at a family/internal medicine clinic and a prospective, team-based TCM visit in the same clinic. Inclusion criteria included patients discharged from any hospital within our institution and seen in the clinic. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of MRPs found between the prospective and retrospective groups. Secondary outcomes included the number and specific type of MRPs found, classified by the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe tool, and further subdivided by patient aware or unaware of MRP, only in the prospective group, as well as 30-day readmission rate. Results: Patients in the prospective group (n = 50) had an average age of 67.9 years versus 65.5 years in the retrospective group (n = 50). Four times as many patients in the prospective group were found to have MRPs than the retrospective group. The most common MRP was due to a patient-related factor, meaning the cause is related to a patient's behavior. Patients were unaware of the MRP in a majority of these cases. Thirty-day readmission rate did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Team-based TCM visits that included a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation uncovered more MRPs than patients who did not have a pharmacist perform a medication reconciliation.

A Pilot Study Comparing Hospital Readmission Rates In Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Enoxaparin After Orthopedic Surgery.

PURPOSE: A pilot study was conducted to determine whether rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a lower 30-day all-cause readmission rate compared with enoxaparin (Lovenox, Sanofi-Aventis) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a community hospital. METHODS: The study was a single-center, retrospective, chart-review investigation involving patients who underwent THA or TKA between May 2013 and May 2014. The study's primary endpoint was the 30-day all-cause readmission rate. The 30-day readmission rate due to venous thromboembolism (VTE) or any bleeding event was a secondary endpoint. Patients who received oral rivaroxaban (10 mg once daily) or subcutaneous enoxaparin (30 mg twice daily or 40 mg once daily) were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; a history of allergy associated with heparin or rivaroxaban; a hypercoagulation disorder; or creatinine clearance of less than 30 mL/min. Patients were also excluded if they had received an anticoagulant before admission, were discharged more than 30 days after admission, or died before discharge. RESULTS: A total of 543 patients underwent THA or TKA between May 2013 and May 2014. We reviewed 405 patient charts, and 240 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most of the excluded patients had received only aspirin for VTE prophylaxis. The primary outcome was reached in eight of 213 patients in the rivaroxaban group (3.76%) and in one of 27 patients in the enoxaparin group (3.70%) (P = 1). The secondary outcome was reached in two patients (0.9%) in the rivaroxaban group. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban did not significantly reduce the 30-day all-cause readmission rate compared with enoxaparin in patients who had undergone THA or TKA. Further research in a larger, multicenter study is needed to confirm these results.

Implementing Transitions of Care Services in a Primary Care Clinic: Role of the Pharmacist.

IntroductionPharmacists in primary care clinics improve medication adherence and reduce medication errors but these require further investigation to determine its potential impact on health care readmission rates. Methods: This review assessed the addition of a clinical pharmacist to the primary care provider's transitions of care appointment. The primary outcome of this review was the change in acute health care encounters (hospital readmissions and/or Emergency Department visits) in the 6-month period before to the 6 months following initial clinical pharmacist intervention. Each patient served as their own control. Secondary outcomes included the number and types of pharmacist interventions, percentage of pharmacist recommendations accepted, number and categories of drug-related problems (DRPs), nonadherence reasons, 30-day hospital readmission rate, 30-day Emergency Department (ED) rate, time to first hospital readmission, time to first ED readmission, and preventable readmission rate. Results: The total number of combined acute health care encounters in 6 months decreased by 15% from 280 at baseline to 238 after pharmacist intervention (P = .087) for the 206 patients included in the final analysis. The 30-day hospital readmission rate was 9.7% and the median time between first hospital readmission was 54.5 days (IQR 63.5). We identified a total number of 310 DRPs with a mean of 1.5 DRPs (SD 1.3) identified per patient. The providers accepted 88% of the pharmacists' recommendations. Conclusions: Clinical pharmacists embedded in a primary care setting demonstrated improved patient care during transitions of care by identifying and resolving drug-related problems, with a trend in decreasing acute health care utilization.

Is it safe to use carbapenems in patients with a history of allergy to penicillin?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study was to ascertain the clinical safety of administering carbapenems, namely imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem, in patients with a history of penicillin allergy compared with administering carbapenems in patients with no reported penicillin allergy. Carbapenems are similar in chemical structure to the penicillins and therefore are associated with a risk for allergic cross-hypersensitivity. Carbapenems are commonly avoided in patients with a reported penicillin allergy on the basis of a potential cross-hypersensitivity with penicillin, however, very few studies have been conducted describing the incidence of cross-hypersensitivity between penicillin and carbapenems. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted in a total of 266 patients who were administered either imipenem/cilastatin or meropenem. The patients were admitted to the Cleveland Clinic Health System--Eastern Region Hospitals during the years 2001 and 2002. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 163 patients (9.2%) with reported penicillin allergy developed a hypersensitivity reaction to meropenem or imipenem/cilastatin whereas 3.9% of the 103 patients without penicillin allergy developed a hypersensitivity reaction to meropenem or imipenem/cilastatin. These results are not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study and other similar studies, the true incidence of cross-hypersensitivity reactions between penicillin and carbapenems may be lower than previously reported. Carbapenem use may be reasonable for penicillin allergic patients if caution is exercised.