Search

Purpose The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) introduced new lipid guidelines in late 2013 that were a vast departure from older guidelines. Concerns were raised regarding the likely increase in the number of adults who would be eligible for lipid-lowering therapy, namely moderate to high intensity statins. We sought to determine whether, in the first year after the ACC/AHA guideline release, more patients were prescribed statins, prescribed moderate- to high-intensity statins, and eligible for statins compared with the previous year. Methods This study was a retrospective, cross-sectional, observational analysis of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the years 2013 and 2014. Survey participants who were younger than 40 years or older than 75 years, were pregnant, or had triglyceride levels ≥400 mg/dL were excluded. Descriptive analyses and χ 2 tests of homogeneity (and associated odds ratios [ORs] and CIs) were constructed and reported. Findings Compared with 2013, a higher percentage of patients in 2014 were prescribed a statin and were eligible to receive a statin. In fact, patients in 2014 were significantly more likely to be prescribed a statin (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.00–1.48) and to be eligible for a statin (OR = 9.26, 95% CI 7.54–11.37) compared with 2013. Although a higher percentage of patients in 2014 were prescribed a higher-intensity statin, the difference was not statistically significant (OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90–1.52). Implications In the first year after the ACC/AHA guideline introduction, more patients in the United States were prescribed a statin. However, it is unclear whether the new guidelines were strictly adhered to regarding intensity of statin therapy.

Background and purpose Cape Fear Valley Medical Center (CFVMC) implemented a Community Paramedic Program (CPP) to improve the transition of hospitalized patients to the home setting. In this program, paramedics conduct home visits for 30 days after qualifying patients are discharged. This article describes pharmacy services provided to CPP patients by fourth-year pharmacy students on Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences (APPE) that assisted with home visits. Educational activity and setting Students were oriented to the CPP and patient interview technique was assessed through a role-play scenario. A standardized form was created to record drug-related problems (DRP) identified and patient education provided to patients. The primary outcome describes types of DRP identified and education provided. Secondary outcomes compare the types and average number of DRP per patient identified by students as compared to the standard of care (pharmacist review of medications electronically) and trends in patients readmitted within 30 days following discharge. Findings Eleven students visited 124 patients and recorded 145 DRP. Extra/continuation of medications stopped at discharge and issues related to medication safety were the most common DRP. The most frequent type of education provided was medication use related. On average, students provided one counseling session per patient. Discussion and summary Student involvement is an added benefit to the CPP by providing face to face education and re-assessment of medications at follow-up visits. This article summarizes a unique teaching platform utilizing students to extend care. Real world experiences in programs like the CPP provide students the opportunity to sharpen critical thinking and problem-solving skills necessary for maturing professionally.

To the Editor: “Publish or perish.” It is the mantra for faculty members seeking promotion and/or tenure at colleges and schools of pharmacy. Scholarly publications are an important component of a faculty member’s dossier and one that we work hard to maintain throughout our careers. Faculty members suffer the hardship of manuscript rejection many times throughout our careers, especially early on when we are beginning to understand the process of clinical and academic research. It is especially difficult when a research manuscript has been rejected several times, and the author(s) is/are desperately searching for a journal that will accept it. To meet the need to publish, there has been an uprising of predatory “open-access” journals to which authors may submit manuscripts. Their presence is enticing to faculty authors seeking publication after their first, second, third, (and sometimes) fourth submissions have been rejected by reputable journals. In 2014, Bowman published a special article discussing predatory and questionable practices in publishing, drawing attention to this problem for the first time in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.1 Not all open-access journals are predatory; instead, the means by which the journal uses (or fails to use) the peer-review process makes it predatory. Many open-access journals, including this one, follow a rigorous peer-review process to ensure relevance and validity of author submissions. However, predatory journals are lesser known, can be part of a larger network of journals, or have a wide range of publication costs in order to “maintain open access for their content.” Poor predatory journals or organizations also may have incomplete websites, misspellings, or grammatical issues on their sites, obviously falsified authors, and/or reference editors and reviewers who do not exist or do not publicly state they are associated with the journal.2 The label “(predatory) open-access journal” is not a formal designation, and the legitimacy of such journals can be accepted or ignored based on individual opinions. Faculty members, residents, students, and tenure and promotion committees may pay as little or as much attention to these types of journals as they wish. The goal is to know they exist and be cognizant of their impact on academic careers and dissemination of research results. The risk of these predatory journals is not limited to new or junior faculty members, but also to authors unaware of a journal’s status or if it is classified as predatory. The risk is the same for promoted or senior faculty members. The authors of this letter are a faculty member of 10 years and a new residency graduate. Both have first-hand experience being misled, despite performing what seemed to be a reasonable background check on the integrity of the journal and publisher.3 In hindsight, we missed several clues and took them for granted prior to submission. From submission to acceptance, the journal required 20 days, with only 10 days required for the peer-review process. The acceptance letter recommended the manuscript be published as submitted. The submission was slated to be published less than one month from its acceptance, pending a $200 payment to a country not affiliated with any contact numbers or addresses on the journal or publisher’s site. To prevent others from making our mistake, we submit this letter. Authors have a higher likelihood of spotting a predatory open-access journal by referring to Jeffrey Beall’s lists of predatory open-access publishers and stand-alone journals.4 Beall maintains a regularly updated list of journals and publishers considered predatory. Although this is a comprehensive list, it is not necessarily complete. Authors always should be suspicious of journals not well-known within the profession. If authors have suspicion about a journal, and it is not included on Beall’s list, they may perform their own evaluation by using Beall’s criteria for determining predatory open access publishers.5