Effect of pravastatin-to-simvastatin conversion on low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol.

The effects of a pravastatin-to-simvastatin conversion program on low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels were studied. Patients receiving pravastatin at a Veterans Affairs medical center were switched to simvastatin beginning in 1997. The dosage of simvastatin was based on the additional percent reduction in LDL cholesterol needed to achieve the goal specified by the National Cholesterol Education Program. The primary endpoint was the change in the percentage of patients meeting their LDL cholesterol goal at baseline and follow-up. Changes in lipid indices, the relative risk (RR) of coronary heart disease (CHD), and program costs were also evaluated. A total of 1032 patients completed the program. The mean +/- S.D. daily doses of pravastatin and simvastatin were 25.2 +/- 11.3 and 22.7 +/- 13.3 mg, respectively. Median baseline and follow-up LDL cholesterol concentrations were 116 and 99 mg/dL, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, 44% of the patients met their LDL cholesterol goal while taking pravastatin, compared with 69% after conversion to simvastatin (p < 0.001). The predicted mean RR of a future CHD event (based on changes in serum lipids) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) four years after conversion. The total cost of the program was $40,644 in the first year, and there was a net saving thereafter. Therapeutic interchange between pravastatin and simvastatin increased the number of patients meeting their LDL cholesterol goal.

Assessment of patient satisfaction with a formulary switch from omeprazole to lansoprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease maintenance therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients perceived a difference in the efficacy, side effects, and value of omeprazole versus lansoprazole for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) maintenance therapy after a formulary conversion, and to evaluate the costs of the conversion. STUDY DESIGN: An unblinded questionnaire was mailed to patients who were currently receiving GERD maintenance therapy with lansoprazole from the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred patients who had been on omeprazole for a minimum of 2 months prior to the formulary conversion and on lansoprazole for a minimum of 2 months after the formulary conversion were surveyed. Patients were asked to rate the severity and frequency of their symptoms (pain, heartburn, and regurgitation) on a scale from 0 to 9 for each medication. Questions regarding side effects, medication preference, and satisfaction with the formulary conversion process were also addressed. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of the surveys were returned. There was no statistically significant difference between median total symptom scores for omeprazole and lansoprazole (1.33 vs. 1.34, respectively). More patients reported side effects to lansoprazole (P < 0.001) than to omeprazole. Sixty-four percent of patients preferred omeprazole (P < 0.005). The formulary conversion was estimated to save $29,000 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole was the medication preferred by patients for GERD maintenance therapy. Patients were willing to pay an additional fee for their preferred agent. Fewer adverse events were reported with omeprazole. The potential cost savings of the formulary conversion may have been at the expense of patient satisfaction.

Rationale, design, and baseline results of the Pravastatin-to-Simvastatin Conversion Lipid Optimization Program (PSCOP).

A program designed to increase the percentage of patients at a Department of Veterans Affairs health system who meet their cholesterol goals as recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) is described, and baseline results are reported. Patients with an active prescription for pravastatin between February 4 and June 4, 1997, were identified for conversion to simvastatin by means of the Pravastatin-to-Simvastatin Conversion Lipid-Optimization Program; 1361 patients were eligible for conversion. Each patient was mailed a survey for determining risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD) and NCEP-recommended low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal and was asked to provide a fasting blood sample for determination of lipid profile, liver function, and serum creatine phosphokinase concentration. The patients were asked to make a follow-up laboratory visit six to seven weeks after they had started taking simvastatin. The percentage change from baseline and the percentage of patients who meet their LDL cholesterol goal before and after the conversion will be determined. A total of 1115 patients were converted to simvastatin. Only 35.4% of patients taking pravastatin to prevent a second CHD-related event met or exceeded their LDL cholesterol goal. Only 36.2% of patients with two or more CHD risk factors who were taking pravastatin for primary prevention met or exceeded their LDL cholesterol goal. In a veterans population, less than half of patients receiving a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor had LDL cholesterol concentrations that met goals recommended by the NCEP.

The effect of converting from pravastatin to simvastatin on the pharmacodynamics of warfarin.

Forty-six adult patients maintained on warfarin therapy were converted from pravastatin to simvastatin. Mean international normalized ratio (INR) significantly increased from 2.42 to 2.74, p = 0.002. Although warfarin doses were reduced in 7 patients and increased in 4 patients following the post-conversion INR measurements, the pre- and postconversion median weekly warfarin dose of all 46 patients did not differ significantly. The number of patients with an INR > 3.0 increased significantly from 6 to 16 following the conversion. There was no report of unusual episodes of bleeding. The results indicate that antihyperlipidemic therapy can be changed safely from pravastatin to simvastatin in patients who are taking warfarin concomitantly. Additional anticoagulation monitoring is not necessary in institutions where patients are followed in formal anticoagulation clinics.

Retrospective and prospective analyses of the treatment of overanticoagulated patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare withholding warfarin therapy with low-dose (2.5 mg) oral vitamin K therapy in excessively anticoagulated patients without bleeding complications. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective studies. SETTING: Anticoagulation clinic at a Veterans Affairs institution. PATIENTS: Twenty-eight men were matched according to initial international normalized ratio (INR) and INR goal ranges. INTERVENTIONS: The retrospective arm of the study consisted of chart reviews of overanticoagulated patients whose warfarin doses were held until therapeutic INR values were reached. The prospective arm included overanticoagulated patients who were administered a single 2.5-mg dose of oral vitamin K. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean days to therapeutic INR values were 2.3+/-0.6 and 1.4+/-0.6 (p=0.001), and mean reduction in INR 1 day after treatment intervention was 1.32+/-0.79 and 3.46+/-1.31 (p<001) U for the withholding and vitamin K groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with withholding the warfarin dose, administration of 2.5 mg of oral vitamin K to excessively anticoagulated patients receiving warfarin significantly reduced the time required to reach a therapeutic INR as well as final INR.

Pharmacist-managed Helicobacter pylori clinic.

A pharmacist-managed Helicobacter pylori assessment clinic for ambulatory patients is described. The pharmacy service at a 400-bed Veterans Affairs Medical Center established a pharmacist-managed clinic to assess patients who were receiving long-term acid-suppressive medications (histamine H2-receptor antagonists, sucralfate, or omeprazole). Patients with active ulcer disease and those receiving ulcer prophylaxis are screened for the presence of H. pylori. Those who test positive are treated with combinations of the following agents: omeprazole, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, tetracycline, and metronidazole. The pharmacist also may adjust or discontinue acid-suppressive drug regimens. The pharmacist is responsible for ordering all appropriate laboratory tests, monitoring patients for adverse effects, collecting data on patient outcomes, and providing patient education. The clinic provides opportunities for pharmacists to study the clinical effectiveness and pharmacoeconomics of various regimens for treating H. pylori-associated disease and for pharmacy students and residents to interact with patients. As of fall 1994, 20 patients had been evaluated at the clinic: 12 tested positive for H. pylori and were treated with antimicrobials and all were pain-free without medication at the end of treatment. An H. pylori assessment clinic enabled pharmacists to assume a primary care role, document improvement in patient outcomes, and study the effectiveness of various antimicrobial regimens.