Primary Care and Infectious Disease Provider Adherence to HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Prescribing and Monitoring Recommendations.

This study aimed to compare primary care (PC) and infectious diseases (ID) provider adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescribing and monitoring parameters outlined in Centers for Disease Control/Department of Health and Human Services (CDC/DHHS) guidelines. This retrospective cohort analysis from 2017 to 2022 used prescription and laboratory order data to identify patients prescribed PrEP by PC or ID providers. Primary endpoints assessed were adherence to baseline and follow-up HIV monitoring recommendations in the 12 months following the initial PrEP prescription. Secondary endpoints included appropriate PrEP prescription order quantities (≤ 90-day supply), appropriate renal function monitoring, and identification of factors independently associated with follow-up HIV monitoring adherence. Of the 324 eligible patients identified, 112 received PrEP from an ID specialist and 212 from a PC provider. Patients prescribed PrEP from an ID specialist were more likely to have appropriately completed baseline HIV monitoring (OR = 2.56, 95% CI 1.20, 5.47), follow-up HIV monitoring (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.08, 3.05), and renal function monitoring (OR = 2.81, 95% CI 1.69, 4.68); The ID group was also more likely to have PrEP prescriptions appropriately authorized for a days' supply of ≤ 90 days (OR = 4.41, 95% CI 2.60, 7.48). Patients receiving PrEP care from ID specialists had better adherence to all assessed PrEP prescribing and monitoring recommendations compared to those receiving care from PC providers.

Comprehensive evaluation of microneedle-based intradermal adalimumab delivery vs. subcutaneous administration: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate feasibility of intradermal (i.d.) adalimumab administration using hollow microneedles, and to compare a single i.d. dose of adalimumab using a hollow microneedle with a single subcutaneous (s.c.) dose using a conventional needle. METHODS: In this single-centre double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy clinical trial in 24 healthy adults we compared 40 mg adalimumab (0.4 mL) administered i.d. using a hollow microneedle with a s.c. dose using a conventional needle. Primary parameters were pain, acceptability and local tolerability; secondary parameters safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. We explored usability of optical coherence tomography, clinical photography, thermal imaging, and laser speckle contrast imaging to evaluate skin reaction after i.d. injections. In vitro protein analysis was performed to assess compatibility of adalimumab with the hollow microneedle device. RESULTS: While feasible and safe, injection pain of i.d. adalimumab was higher compared to s.c. adalimumab (35.4 vs. 7.9 on a 100-point visual analogue scale). Initial absorption rate and relative bioavailability were higher after i.d. adalimumab (time to maximum plasma concentration = 95 h [47-120]; Frel = 129% [6.46%]) compared to s.c. adalimumab (time to maximum plasma concentration = 120 h [96-221]). Anti-adalimumab antibodies were detected in 50% and 83% of the subjects after i.d. and s.c. adalimumab, respectively. We observed statistically significantly more erythema and skin perfusion after i.d. adalimumab, compared to s.c. adalimumab and placebo injections (P < .0001). Cytokine secretion after whole blood lipopolysaccharide challenge was comparable between administration routes. CONCLUSIONS: Intradermal injection of adalimumab using hollowing microneedles was perceived as more painful and less accepted than s.c. administration, but yields a higher relative bioavailability with similar safety and pharmacodynamic effects.

Pharmacist-Led Transition of Care Pilot Targeting Older People After Emergency Department Discharge.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led transitional care intervention targeting high-risk older people after an emergency department (ED) visit.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of older people with ED visits prior to and during a pharmacist-led intervention.
SETTING: Patients receiving primary care from the University of Colorado Health Seniors Clinic.
PARTICIPANTS: The intervention cohort comprised 170 patients with an ED visit between August 18, 2018, and February 19, 2019, and the historical cohort included 166 patients with an ED visit between August 18, 2017, and February 19, 2018. All included patients either had a historical diagnosis of heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or they had an additional ED visit in the previous six months.
INTERVENTIONS: The pilot intervention involved postED discharge telephonic outreach and assessment by a clinical pharmacist, with triaging to other staff if necessary.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least one repeat ED visit, hospitalization, or death within 30 days of ED discharge. Outcome rates were also assessed at 90 days postdischarge.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 21% of the historical cohort and 25% of the intervention cohort (adjusted P-value = 0.48). The incidence of the composite outcome within 90 days of ED discharge was 43% in the historical group compared with 38% in the intervention group (adjusted P-value = 0.29).
CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led telephonic intervention pilot targeting older people did not appear to have a significant effect on the composite of repeat ED visit, hospitalization, or death within 30 or 90 days of ED discharge. A limited sample size may hinder the ability to make definitive conclusions based on these findings.

Identifying Cognitive Impairment in an Older Adult Using Two Different Screening Tools.

A 78-year-old Hispanic woman presented to an ambulatory care clinic for older adults describing memory impairment and requesting an assessment of her cognitive status. A Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was performed and found to be 29/30 (normal). One year later, the same situation occurred and her MMSE was again found to be 29/30 (normal). However, a Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination administered that same day demonstrated a different result: a score of 19/30 (dementia). Fourteen months later, the patient returned again and scored 26/30 (normal) on the MMSE and 22/30 (mild neurocognitive disorder) on the SLUMS. Our patient case illustrates inherent differences between the MMSE and SLUMS in the ability to detect mild cognitive impairment and dementia, along with the variability that may occur with testing.