Search

The need for increased testing is pivotal in the response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Recently, through the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, pharmacists were given the ability to order and administer COVID-19 tests, giving them a better opportunity to engage in the pandemic response across the nation as well as in Idaho. This survey sought to determine Idaho pharmacists' willingness to provide different COVID-19 related services, assess needed resources to provide such services, and identify and prioritize other unmet community needs. We conducted a nine-question, cross-sectional survey distributed to pharmacists with addresses located in Idaho. All questions in the survey were optional and focused on pharmacist's willingness to provide services, what resources and additional training they would need, difficulty with 90-day prescriptions, and solicited additional feedback using an open-ended question. A total of 229 responses were received, representing all areas of pharmacy practice, with approximately half from community settings. The majority of respondents (70%) were willing to provide COVID-19 testing. Adequate staffing, changes to workflow, and the need for billing and clear reimbursement mechanisms were most frequently cited as barriers to contributing to the COVID-19 response. In summary, we found that pharmacists are very willing to help during this crisis, but their involvement may be better facilitated with the removal of barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess migraine prophylactic drug utilization in the Idaho Medicaid population and to evaluate responsiveness of practitioners to an educational intervention from the Idaho Medicaid Drug Utilization Review (DUR) Program., Background: While established guidelines recommend migraine prophylactic therapies for defined patient populations and several drugs have demonstrated efficacy, their actual utilization is reportedly low., Methods: Profiles for Idaho Medicaid patients were reviewed retrospectively to identify candidates for migraine prophylactic therapy based on excessive triptan utilization. Use of a prophylactic agent was then characterized for these patients, and an educational mailing was sent to practitioners directly involved in the care of patients who did not appear to be using prophylaxis. Patient profiles were again assessed 6 months following the mailing to determine if a trial of a prophylactic drug had been attempted., Results: A total of 1909 patients were identified as having at least one claim for a triptan drug in the year studied. Of these patients, 360 appeared to be candidates for prophylaxis, but 154 had no record of prophylactic drug use. In the 6 months following the intervention mailing, 27 of the 91 non-prophylaxis patients (30%) who were still active clients of Idaho Medicaid and who had seen their physician during that time, appeared to have been given a trial of a migraine prophylactic drug., Conclusions: Following an educational intervention for Idaho Medicaid patients identified through retrospective DUR, a trial of a migraine prophylactic drug was initiated for approximately one-third of potential candidates.

Background: Carisoprodol is a muscle relaxant indicated as adjunctive therapy in acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. Case reports of drug-seeking behavior and utilization of carisoprodol in combination with opioids have suggested abuse potential., Objectives: We undertook a retrospective review of claims data to identify and characterize potential indicators of abuse in long-term users of carisoprodol and to determine any continued use of the drug by former long-term users following prior authorization implementation., Methods: The Idaho Medicaid pharmacy and medical claims database was queried from January 1 to December 31, 2005, to identify long-term users of muscle relaxants. Use of concomitant opioids and coded diagnoses relating to past drug abuse were analyzed and compared between patients who used carisoprodol and patients who used other muscle relaxants. Data from 11 of 30 surveys mailed to pharmacies filling prescriptions for long-term users of carisoprodol were also collected to determine the frequency of self-pay-continued use after Medicaid coverage of the drug was discontinued., Results: Long-term users of carisoprodol (n = 340) and other skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) (n = 453) were identified from among 130,000 individuals in the Idaho Medicaid pharmacy and medical claims database in calendar year 2005. Patients in both groups were similar in terms of mean age (~47 years) and sex (71.5% female). Patients using carisoprodol used concomitant opioids more frequently (81.5% vs 59.8%; P < 0.01), more commonly had past diagnoses indicating other drug abuse (34.1% vs 21.4%; P < 0.01), and in 80% of reported cases, continued to pay out of pocket for carisoprodol when third-party coverage was discontinued. Taken together, these findings are consistent with published case reports suggesting the abuse potential of carisoprodol., Conclusions: The results from this review suggest that, compared with long-term users of other SMRs, carisoprodol patients utilized concomitant opioids more frequently and concomitant NSAIDs less frequently, more commonly had past diagnoses indicating other drug dependence or abuse, and continued to pay out of pocket for carisoprodol when third-party coverage was discontinued. While none of these issues alone may be direct indicators of abuse, collectively they suggest that patients who used carisoprodol long term displayed abuse potential characteristics more frequently than long-term users of other agents.

Background: Evidence-based guidelines recommend against discontinuation of oral anticoagulation therapy during most dental procedures because severe bleeding complications are rare and there is an increased risk for thromboembolic events in patients for whom warfarin therapy is interrupted. Although interruption of oral anticoagulation and bridge therapy with low-molecular- weight heparin (LMWH) may be indicated for high-risk individuals undergoing certain procedures, the use of LMWH in tooth extractions is expensive and often unnecessary., Objective: The purpose of this review was to identify and characterize procedural use of LMWH for dental extractions with respect to current consensus recommendations., Methods: The Idaho Medicaid pharmacy and medical claims database was queried to identify patients with a tooth extraction procedure between February 1, 1998, and January 31, 2005. Patients on warfarin therapy for 2 months before tooth extraction were identified as were claims for LMWH within 30 days before the procedure or 5 days after. Patient profiles were reviewed to determine number of extractions, rate of LMWH use, indication for anticoagulation, and associated drug costs., Results: Of 55,260 Medicaid patients who had a tooth extraction, 518 (0.9%) had received warfarin for at least 2 consecutive months before the tooth extraction procedure. Of these, 31 patients (6%) received LMWH therapy at the time of extraction for a total of 35 procedures. All procedures selected for review carried a low bleeding risk, with an average of 1.3 teeth extracted per procedure. The indications for anticoagulation included 16 procedures (45.7%) involving patients with a history of a thromboembolic event more than 90 days before the procedure, 10 procedures (28.5%) involving patients with a prosthetic valve, 4 procedures (11.4%) involving anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation, and 5 procedures (14.2%) involving patients with a history of thromboembolism fewer than 3 months before the procedure. LMWH costs for these 35 extractions totaled $22,294, or an average of $637 per procedure or $474 per extracted tooth. Enoxaparin was used in all but 1 of the procedures, with an average 5-day supply (average 8 enoxaparin units) dispensed per procedure. The costs associated with the required additional drug monitoring, e.g., INR monitoring, were not included in this analysis., Conclusion: Although the overall number of dental procedures in anticoagulated patients using LMWH was small in our review, this inappropriate use resulted in avoidable costs to this Medicaid program.