Application of an allele-specific PCR to clinical HIV genotyping samples detects additional K103N mutations in both therapy naïve and experienced patients.

Low-level drug resistance is not detected by routine consensus sequence genotype analysis (CSA) but low levels of specific mutations, such as the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-resistant mutation K103N, can be quantitated by allele-specific PCR (ASP). This study has applied an ASP to quantitate low-level K103N in patients presenting for clinical HIV genotyping and assess the correlation with antiretroviral treatment history and outcomes. HIV RNA was extracted from patient plasma and subjected to PCR amplification of the reverse transcriptase (RT) region followed by genotyping by CSA and real-time ASP for K103N. When applied to samples from patients presenting for genotyping, the ASP detects K103N, not K103 nor K103R, but cross-reacts with K103S. ASP identified all samples that were K103N by CSA (10.5%) and an additional 14% by ASP only, representing patients who were therapy naïve and with NNRTI treatment history. ASP detected therapy-acquired K103N at low levels up to 6 years after cessation of NNRTI therapy. In three patients with new HIV diagnosis and K103N detected by ASP only, K103N virus declined rapidly from the circulation but persisted in PBMC DNA at >12 months post-diagnosis. Efavirenz (EFV) combination therapy in three patients with low-level K103N suppressed successfully viral load, although one patient developed failure and CSA-detectable K103N after 15 months of therapy. Thus, analysis of K103N by ASP in conjunction with CSA genotyping provides additional information that reflects K103N transmission and persistence but detection of low-level K103N does not preclude successful EFV-containing combination therapy.

Assessing Ohio grocery store patrons' perceptions of a comprehensive medication review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess grocery store patrons' perceptions of a comprehensive medication review (CMR) compared with traditional prescription medication counseling. DESIGN: Self-administered survey. SETTING: Eight central Ohio grocery stores during January through April 2007. PARTICIPANTS: Grocery store patrons. INTERVENTION: Survey events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to survey items about CMRs and prescription medication counseling indicated (1) who study participants would expect to deliver each program, (2) where they would expect services to be offered, and (3) what they would expect to be included or discussed. RESULTS: Predefined response options were provided for each question. The majority of the 214 study participants associated physicians or pharmacists with a CMR. CMRs were thought to be provided in medical offices or pharmacies. Only 3 of 24 qualifiers were statistically significantly different when comparing CMRs and prescription medication counseling (inclusion of health and wellness screenings [55% vs. 43%, P = 0.015], discussion about any of the patients' medications being the same [45% vs. 56%, P = 0.026] and "other" [6% vs. 12%, P = 0.021]). CONCLUSION: Patients may not recognize pharmacists as primary providers of CMRs and may not see a clear distinction between a CMR and prescription medication counseling. More research is needed in this area to further solidify the results. Pharmacists need to market themselves as willing and capable individuals of providing CMRs. Additionally, pharmacists should highlight key differences between a CMR and prescription medication counseling so that patients understand the value of a CMR.

Designing pharmacy services based on grocery store patron preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences of grocery store patrons concerning pharmacy services and identify study participant characteristics that may predict the success of pharmacy services in the community setting. DESIGN: Self-administered survey. SETTING: Central Ohio from December 16, 2005, to January 12, 2006. PARTICIPANTS: 163 grocery store patrons. INTERVENTIONS: Eight grocery store survey events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to survey items about (1) perceived importance of 28 pharmacy services, (2) identification of the 3 most important services, (3) frequency of grocery store and pharmacy use, (4) preferred methods of advertising pharmacy services, and (5) socioeconomic demographics. Preferred services delineated by various demographics also were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 163 surveys were returned from study participants. Nine services appeared in both the top 12 overall preferred services and the 12 highest-ranked services. Statistically significant differences were observed among services ranked as important or very important by age, race, employment, income, caregiver status, and prescription drug coverage status. The three advertising tools selected most frequently included: weekly grocery store ads (68.6%), in-store signs (51.0%), and flyers attached to prescription bags (36.0%). CONCLUSION: Grocery store patrons would like a wide range of nontraditional pharmacy services that could be implemented into community pharmacies. Pharmacies in grocery stores need to provide both traditional and expanded pharmacy services to meet the desires and expectations of current and potential patients, and expanded marketing methods should be considered.

Documentation of patient care services in a community pharmacy setting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the types of patient care documentation systems currently being used by community pharmacists and determine the preferred characteristics of an ideal patient care documentation system. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: One pharmacist from each of 125 targeted community pharmacies. INTERVENTION: Survey mailed in February 2003, followed by a second mailing to nonrespondents in March 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to survey items about (1) patient care services provided at the pharmacy, (2) characteristics of the current documentation system, and (3) characteristics of an ideal documentation system. RESULTS: A total of 48 usable responses were received from 106 pharmacies to which surveys were delivered (45.3%). Independent pharmacies accounted for 50% of survey respondents. More than 80% of respondents were providing patient screening or management services associated with a chronic disease such as diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Approximately 54% of the pharmacists were using a paper documentation system. However, challenges identified with a paper system included documentation time, retrieval of patient data, tracking patient outcomes, and storage. Respondents indicated that an ideal documentation system would be comprehensive, easy and efficient to use, and affordable. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists recognize the importance of documenting patient care services. While the majority of respondents are using paper charts to document patient care services, computerized systems appear to offer advantages over paper charts. This information offers community pharmacists a summary of previous experiences and a starting point when trying to identify or modify a documentation system that would better meet the pharmacies' needs.