Randomized Trial of a Vascular Care Team vs Education for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Underutilization of therapies to reduce ischemic risk in peripheral artery disease (PAD) persists. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to conduct an implementation trial of lipid management in vascular disease. METHODS: The OPTIMIZE PAD-1 (Implementation of Vascular Care Team to Improve Medical Management of PAD Patients) trial randomized patients with peripheral artery disease with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 mg/dL to management via a vascular care team including a clinical pharmacist and an algorithm of intensive lipid management to achieve goal LDL-C in 1 step vs usual care plus provider education. Medications were obtained using commercial insurance. The primary endpoint was percent change in LDL-C at 12 months. RESULTS: Of 166 enrolled patients, 74.2% did not have an LDL-C level at goal. Among 114 randomized patients (mean age 66 years, 36.0% women, and 15.8% Black), 50.9% received high-intensity statin, and 7.9% received ezetimibe at baseline. The mean 12-month LDL-C change was -49.1% (95% CI: -58.7% to -39.5%) with vascular care team management and -5.4% (95% CI: -15.3% to 4.6%) with usual care; the between-group least-squares mean difference was -43.7% (95% CI: -57.6% to -29.9%; P < 0.0001). Mean LDL-C was reduced in vascular care team patients from 100.6 mg/dL at baseline to 54.8 and 50.1 mg/dL by week 4 and month 12, respectively. At 12 months, vascular care team patients were >3 times as likely to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL and 8 times as likely to achieve LDL-C <55 mg/dL (P < 0.0001) than usual care. CONCLUSIONS: OPTIMIZE PAD-1 showed that an interprofessional, algorithm-based program can achieve rapid LDL-C lowering in vascular patients using available insurance and therapies, and LDL-C targets can be met in most patients if enabled by optimized systems of care.

Evaluation of Aspirin Prescribing and Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Adults 60 Years of Age and Older in a Large, Academic Health System.

Background National guidelines no longer recommend adults 60 years of age and older to begin treatment with low-dose daily aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to a lack of proven net benefit and a higher risk of bleeding. Objective The objective of this cross-sectional retrospective analysis was to evaluate the appropriateness of low-dose aspirin prescribing and subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding in older persons receiving primary care in a large academic health system. Setting Large, academic health system within Colorado. Patients Patients with an active order for daily low-dose aspirin as of July 1, 2021, were assessed for appropriateness based on indication (primary vs secondary prevention) and use of a concomitant proton-pump inhibitor (PPI). Incident gastrointestinal bleeds (GIBs) in the subsequent 12 months and GIB risk factors were also evaluated. Results A total of 19,525 patients were included in the analysis. Eighty-nine percent of patients identified as White and 54% identified as male. Of the total cohort, 44% had CVD and 19% were co-prescribed a PPI. GIB occurred in 247 patients (1.27%) within the subsequent year. Risk factors significantly associated with a GIB within 1 year included: history of GIB, history of peptic ulcer disease, other esophageal issue (esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, Mallory Weiss tears, etc.), 75 years of age or older, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Conclusion This evaluation found that many older persons at this institution may be inappropriately prescribed aspirin, providing opportunities for pharmacists to improve medication safety by deprescribing aspirin among primary prevention patients or potentially co-prescribing a PPI in secondary prevention patients.

Bridging health disparities: a national survey of ambulatory care pharmacists in underserved areas

Background: There is a shortage of primary care medical providers, particularly in rural communities and communities of racial and ethnic minority groups. Clinical pharmacists can help fill gaps in care among these vulnerable populations. Objective: To identify characteristics of ambulatory care pharmacists that pursue and maintain employment within underserved areas. Methods: An original survey was distributed nationwide to ambulatory care clinical pharmacists in underserved settings. Respondent characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 111 completed surveys, a majority of respondents were White, non-Hispanic, female, with English as their only spoken language. A majority of pharmacists completed a clinical experience or specialized training focused on underserved care prior to their position. The top three motivators for pharmacists accepting their clinical position as well as staying at their job were passion for caring for underserved populations, the presence of a faculty appointment, or the freedom and flexibility of advanced clinical roles. Conclusions: With a large majority of our respondents identifying as White and unilingual, there remains a large opportunity to increase diversity in the clinical pharmacy ambulatory care workforce caring for underserved populations. There is an observed correlation between early experiential or specialized training in underserved care and pharmacists pursuing employment in these areas. Thus, one potential long-term strategy to diversify and grow the ambulatory care clinical pharmacist workforce in underserved settings is for clinical practice sites to partner with colleges of pharmacy to recruit and maintain quality individuals who can meet the needs of diverse patient populations as well as expand student and resident training opportunities in underserved settings (AU)

A comparison of clinical pharmacist management of type 2 diabetes versus usual care in a federally qualified health center

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacists have demonstrated their ability to improve patient outcomes over usual care for patients with type 2 diabetes and glycemic levels above goal, though reasons for this are not well defined. Numerous medications exist for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and different patterns of medication use by clinical pharmacists may explain these benefits. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare pharmacotherapy approaches to managing patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin by a clinical pharmacist versus usual care by a physician or advanced practice provider in a federally qualified health center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients 18 to 85 years old with type 2 diabetes, A1C ≥9%, receiving basal insulin was conducted. Patients were grouped into two cohorts: (1) those who received clinical pharmacist care and (2) those who received usual care from a physician or advanced practice provider. The primary outcome evaluated the proportion of patients treated with the addition of a non-basal insulin medication. Type of medication changes or additions as well as change in A1C and change in weight were also analyzed. Outcomes were evaluated at six months post-index A1C. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were identified (n=129 in the usual care group and n=73 in the clinical pharmacist group). A non-basal insulin medication was added in 29% of patients receiving usual care versus 41% of patients receiving clinical pharmacist care (adjusted p = 0.040). Usual care providers more frequently added metformin, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, while clinical pharmacists more frequently added prandial insulin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors. A1C decreased 1.6% in the clinical pharmacist group versus 0.9% in the usual care group (adjusted p = 0.055). No significant change in weight was observed between the clinical pharmacist and usual care group (0.2 kg versus -1.0 kg, respectively; adjusted p = 0.175). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacotherapy approaches to managing patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes varied between clinical pharmacists and other clinician providers. For patients already on basal insulin, clinical pharmacists were more likely to intensify therapy with the addition of non-basal insulin, including more frequent initiation of prandial insulin and by adding newer antihyperglycemic agents

No disponible