Optimization of Medication Point-Of-Prescribing Alerts at a Multi-Site, Ambulatory Care Organization to Aid Clinical Care and Reduce HealthCare Cost.

BackgroundLiterature has shown the integration of electronic alerts into patient care has the potential to improve clinicians' workflow by saving time, increasing efficiency, and improving patient safety. However, despite these possible benefits of alerts, studies have shown that alerts are often overridden by clinicians. Objective: The purpose of this study was to optimize the acceptance rates of medication point-of-prescribing alerts within the electronic medical record (EMR) of an ambulatory care organization. Methods: The study design evaluated the actions taken by clinicians when they were presented with medication point-of-prescribing alerts. These alerts were created by the clinical pharmacy informatics team to help promote cost-effective and safe prescribing. Alerts determined to be high value alerts were optimized to increase clinicians' likelihood of accepting each alert's recommended alternative. The primary objective was to increase acceptance rates of high value alerts. The exploratory objective was to identify the estimated annualized cost-savings when high value alerts were accepted, and a lower cost alternative prescription resulted. Results: The acceptance rate of the optimized point-of-prescribing alerts increased to 8.7%, compared to a 3.2% acceptance in the pre-modification period (P <.001). The lower cost alternative prescriptions that resulted from the accepted alerts translated into an estimated annualized cost-savings of over 2 million dollars. Conclusion: The use of point-of-prescribing alerts with optimized information and specific cost comparisons in an ambulatory setting led to an increase in the acceptance rates of the alerts and more cost-conscious prescribing.

Clinical Response and Cost-Savings Associated With Generic Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Multidose, Dry-Powder Inhaler in Asthma Patients Managed in an Ambulatory Care Practice Setting.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol multidose, dry powder inhaler (MDPI) was the first and only authorized generic inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) combination inhaler at the time of this study. This offers the potential for significant prescription cost-savings for both patients and accountable care organizations. The objective of the study was to demonstrate patients' clinical response to generic fluticasone propionate/salmeterol MDPI when switched from one of its brand name competitors. METHODS: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at MCPHS University. This was a prospective chart review of a large, multi-center ambulatory care organization in the Greater Boston area. Patients 12 years of age or older who were switched from a brand-name ICS/LABA inhaler to the generic fluticasone/salmeterol MDPI were included in the study. The primary endpoint was worsened asthma control requiring a change in therapy, oral corticosteroid therapy, or hospitalization at or before 12 weeks after the inhaler was switched. RESULTS: In total, 203 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those 203 patients, 35 had a change in therapy due to worsened asthma control (17.2% of patients, 95% CI 12.0% to 22.4%) within 12 weeks. Total projected yearly prescription cost-savings for patients who were switched and remained on the generic inhaler was $581,628. CONCLUSION: Eighty-three percent of patients maintained appropriate asthma control after switching from a brand ICS/LABA inhaler to the generic fluticasone/salmeterol MDPI for 12 weeks. Switching to the generic inhaler resulted in significant prescription cost-savings for the accountable care organization.

Real-World Drug Costs of Treating Hepatitis C Genotypes 1-4 with Direct-Acting Antivirals: Initiating Treatment at Fibrosis 0-2 and 3-4.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAA) for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) have drastically improved outcomes but are also very costly. For this reason, priority for treatment is often given to patients with a higher fibrosis score at baseline by payers and providers rather than treating all eligible patients. Simulation studies have suggested that waiting to treat patients until fibrosis 3-4 may be more costly and result in worse outcomes; however, real-world implications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine drug costs and outcomes for treating hepatitis C in patients with fibrosis scores of 0-2 and 3-4 at baseline in a real-world ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A total of 322 patients at 36 clinical sites in Massachusetts with HCV genotype 1-4 and a prescription for at least 1 DAA medication between May 2011 and October 2015 were included. Retrospective and prospective chart reviews were completed by the primary investigator. Data were collected through April 2016. The primary outcome for the study was to determine the mean drug cost per sustained virologic response (SVR) achieved for patients with fibrosis scores of 0-2 and 3-4. Drug costs were calculated using average wholesale price and only included the cost of HCV medications, not for adjunctive medications, blood work, hospitalizations, anticipated complications, or any other projected medical costs. RESULTS: The mean ± SD (median) drug cost per patient was $130,391 ± 46,787 (113,400) and completed treatment duration was 15.0 ± 8.9 (12) weeks. The mean drug cost per SVR was $155,662 for all patients with a mean drug cost per SVR of $122,452 and $178,401 for patients with fibrosis scores of 0-2 and 3-4, respectively. SVR rates were 83.5% (269/322) for all patients and 92.2% (107/116) and 78.6% (162/206) for patients with fibrosis scores of 0-2 and 3-4, respectively. Ledipasvir/ sofosbuvir; sofosbuvir + ribavirin; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir + ribavirin; sofos-buvir + interferon + ribavirin; boceprevir + interferon + ribavirin; sofosbu-vir + simeprevir; and telaprevir + interferon + ribavirin had a mean drug cost per SVR of $123,559; $153,347; $157,969; $184,800; $248,640; $251,550; and $373,333; respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world knowledge about outcomes and drug costs may influence future decisions. Further studies are needed to evaluate emerging treatment options and to reflect changes in treatment guidelines. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Data in this study were presented as a poster at the ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting; New Orleans, Louisiana; December 9, 2015; at the Massachusetts Society of Health-System Pharmacists Annual Meeting; Newton, Massachusetts; April 12, 2016; and at Eastern States Conference for Pharmacy Residents and Preceptors; Hershey, Pennsylvania; May 2, 2016. Study concept and design was primarily contributed by Bach, along with Zaiken. Bach took the lead in data collection, data interpretation, and preparation of the manuscript, along with Zaiken.

Improving performance of an accountable care organization on a quality measure assessing ß-blocker use in systolic heart failure.

PURPOSE: The implementation and outcomes are described for a clinical pharmacist-generated initiative to improve the performance of a Medicare Pioneer accountable care organization (ACO) quality measure evaluating the percentage of patients at least 18 years of age with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% who are prescribed with an evidence-based ß-blocker (carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, or bisoprolol). SUMMARY: Atrius Health clinical pharmacists developed several educational documents to facilitate appropriate prescribing of evidence-based therapies in patients with heart failure. After educating clinicians, clinical pharmacists reviewed patient charts to determine eligibility for initiating or switching to evidence-based ß-blocker therapy. Medicare Pioneer ACO patients 18-85 years of age with heart failure and a current or prior LVEF of less than 40% were reviewed. Patients had a current prescription for metoprolol tartrate, atenolol, or no ß-blocker. Patients were considered ineligible if they had a documented contraindication or intolerance to ß-blocker therapy or were clinically unstable. Recommendations to initiate or switch to an appropriate ß-blocker were sent electronically by a clinical pharmacist to an eligible patient's treating physician before a scheduled office visit. In approximately three months, 48 patients underwent chart review by a clinical pharmacist. Performance improved by 8% after the implementation, with 82% of eligible patients achieving the quality measure in 2014-an increase from 74% in 2013. CONCLUSION: The performance on a Medicare Pioneer ACO quality measure evaluating ß-blocker use in systolic heart failure improved in a one-year period after a clinical pharmacist-generated initiative was implemented at Atrius Health practice sites.

Impact of live medication therapy management on cholesterol values in patients with cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of clinical pharmacist (CP) recommendations through a live, primary care-based, medication therapy management (MTM) protocol on low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients who have cardiovascular disease (CVD) with standard, chart-review MTM. METHODS: Patients with established CVD who were not at their LDL goal were identified and analyzed by either a chart-review MTM service or a live, one-on-one pharmacist-physician MTM service over a 6-month timeframe. For the chart-review MTM service, recommendations were communicated through an electronic medical record (EMR) that the physician and pharmacist had access to. RESULTS: Primary outcomes included mean LDL reduction from baseline, number of patients achieving their LDL goal, and percent of implemented CP recommendations. Mean LDL reduction from baseline in the chart-review MTM group and the live MTM group was 36 mg/dL ± 23.2 mg/dL (P = 0.001) and 62 mg/dL ± 28.3 mg/dL (P = 0.001), respectively. The difference between these two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.001). The chart-review MTM group had 30% of patients reach their LDL goal with 66.3% of CP recommendations implemented compared to 51.3% and 86.3% for the same parameters in the live MTM group (P = 0.006 and P = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although both MTM services provide a significant LDL reduction from baseline in patients with CVD, live MTM provides significantly greater LDL reductions, implemented CP recommendations, and goal attainment than chart-review MTM. Thus, live MTM services are more effective than chart-review MTM services, at least within the clinics that these protocols were assessed for the purposes of this study.

Impact of clinical pharmacists' recommendations on a proton pump inhibitor taper protocol in an ambulatory care practice.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated an association between chronic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) utilization and adverse events such as fractures, infections, hypomagnesemia, and vitamin B12 deficiency. Because patients taking PPIs for an extended period of time are more susceptible to these adverse events, an approach to tapering patients off PPIs is clinically warranted. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacists' recommendations to clinicians to decrease PPI use in patients when chronic therapy is not indicated. METHODS: Clinical pharmacists electronically sent PPI taper recommendations for qualifying patients to primary care providers the day before each patient's appointment. Using insurance claims data, an average pills per month (PPM) count was calculated for the 5-month period prior to initiating the PPI taper as well as for the 5-month period after the date of taper initiation. The PPM count was calculated by dividing the total number of pills a patient received by the total number of days in that period, multiplied by 30. The primary outcome for the study was the change in average PPM count from baseline (pretaper period) to follow-up (posttaper period) and was assessed using a paired t-test. Secondary outcomes included change in total annualized PPI costs to the organization, proportion of patients who began the taper protocol after primary care provider recommendation, and whether baseline characteristics were predictors of successful response. Change in annualized PPI costs to the organization was calculated by multiplying the average unit cost per pill (determined using a weighted average of the average wholesale price of the individual drugs) by the PPM change seen with the primary outcome and by the number of patients included in the study and expressed over the period of a full year. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine whether baseline variables including alcohol and tobacco use, diagnosis related to PPI use, PPI dose, dosing frequency, gender, and length of prior PPI use significantly impacted successful tapering. RESULTS: Average PPM count decreased by 8.7 pills (95% CI: 6.4, 11.1), from 25.6 at baseline (95% CI: 23.1, 28.1) to 16.9 at follow-up (95% CI: 14.3, 19.5; P less than 0.001). For the 117 evaluable patients in the study, there was an annualized PPI cost reduction of $18,151. 37.6% (44/117) of pharmacist-recommended tapers were enacted upon by primary care providers at the patient visit. Baseline patient characteristics were not found to be predictors of a successful taper response. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacist intervention may decrease overutilization of PPIs and associated costs in the primary care setting. While a decrease in PPI use was observed in this study, these findings do not imply improvement in clinically meaningful patient outcomes.

Azilsartan medoxomil: a new Angiotensin receptor blocker.

BACKGROUND: Azilsartan medoxomil is an angiotensin receptor blocker, approved on February 25, 2011 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for hypertension management. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety profile, and role of azilsartan for hypertension management. METHODS: Peer-reviewed clinical trials, review articles, and relevant treatment guidelines were identified from MEDLINE and Current Contents (both 1966 to August 31, 2011) using the search terms azilsartan, TAK-491, TAK-536, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, pharmacoeconomics, and cost-effectiveness. The FDA Web site and manufacturer prescribing information were also reviewed to identify other relevant information. RESULTS: Compared with olmesartan 40 mg daily, azilsartan 80 mg reduced mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) by an additional 2.1 mm Hg (P = 0.038), whereas azilsartan 40 mg was noninferior to olmesartan 40 mg. Azilsartan 40 mg or 80 mg added to chlorthalidone 25 mg daily significantly reduced SBP to a greater extent than did chlorthalidone alone (P < 0.05), but there was no difference between azilsartan 40 mg and 80 mg (40 mg: -31.72 mm Hg; 80 mg: -31.3 mm Hg [P > 0.05]). When coadministered with amlodipine 5 mg daily, both azilsartan 40 mg and 80 mg + amlodipine decreased SBP significantly more than amlodipine alone (amlodipine: -13.6 mm Hg; with azilsartan 40 mg: -24.79 mm Hg; with azilsartan 80 mg: -24.51 mm Hg [P < 0.05]). Compared with ramipril 10 mg daily, both azilsartan 40 mg and 80 mg resulted in significantly (P < 0.001) greater reductions in mean SBP (-20.63 and -21.24 mm Hg, respectively; ramipril: -12.22 mm Hg). The most common adverse events reported were dizziness (4%), dyslipidemia (3.3%), and diarrhea (2%). CONCLUSIONS: At the recommended dose of 80 mg once daily, azilsartan is reported to be an efficacious BP-lowering agent. With once-daily dosing and a favorable side-effect profile, azilsartan is an attractive option for the treatment of hypertension. There is a lack of data supporting the use of azilsartan for improvement in cardiovascular outcomes; therefore, azilsartan is not approved for indications other than the treatment of hypertension.

An update on the pharmacological treatment of obesity.

OBJECTIVE: To review the commonly utilized pharmacological options for the treatment of overweight and obese patients in the United States. METHODS: A MEDLINE and EMBASE search, in English, between January 1995 and November 2005 was conducted using the terms, "anti-obesity agents", "orlistat", "sibutramine", and "phentermine". References cited in relevant studies and reviews were also examined for additional clinical trials to be included in the review. RESULTS: There are several pharmacological options currently available for the treatment of overweight and obese individuals in the United States, including phentermine, sibutramine, and orlistat, with only sibutramine and orlistat being indicated for use in the long term (> 6 months). However, none of these medications have proven to be more effective than another for the indication of weight loss, each with a very similar maximum weight loss potential. Therefore choosing a weight loss medication should be patient specific and based on its pharmacological profile, including mechanism of action and potential adverse effects. Most importantly, it is imperative to realize that these agents are only indicated for use when combined with lifestyle modifications. Most studies have indicated that maximum benefits from any of these medications are only shown when taken in addition to a hypocaloric diet. CONCLUSION: It has been shown that the combination of lifestyle changes and pharmacological treatment leads to a greater decrease in total body weight loss. Treatment with anti-obesity agents is associated with side effects and an increased cost in health care. These factors must be weighed prior to initiating anti-obesity treatment.