Search

Introduction: Pharmacist prescribing of contraception is becoming increasingly available in selected states. The objective of this study was to assess US community pharmacists' perspectives on expanding access, barriers, and facilitators since states have begun pharmacist scope of practice expansions for prescribing contraception. Methods: A survey study of US community pharmacists' support for expanded access models, pharmacist prescribing practices and interest, and importance of safety, cost, and professional practice issues for prescribing was conducted. Results: Pharmacists are generally supportive of pharmacist prescribing and behind-the-counter models for hormonal contraception and generally opposed to over-the-counter access. A majority (65%) are interested in prescribing hormonal contraception. The top motivation for prescribing contraception is enjoying individual patient contact (94%). Safety concerns (eg, patients not obtaining health screenings) remained most important for pharmacist implementation, followed by cost (eg, lack of payment or reimbursement for pharmacists' services), and professional practice (eg, pharmacist time constraints and liability) issues. Conclusion: This study provides an updated understanding of attitudes toward models of expanded access to hormonal contraception, interest in prescribing, and barriers and facilitators to this service among community pharmacists. Many barriers such as time and reimbursement remain unchanged. This information can inform policy and implementation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate whether patients seen at the Women's and Infants Substance Help Center (WISH) are in compliance with the 2016 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for influenza, tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis (Tdap), pneumococcal‐23, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. Methods: In a retrospective cross‐section chart review, all patients with at least two WISH visits from September 1, 2014 to January 22, 2017 were included in the analysis. The primary objective evaluated compliance with ACIP recommendations. Data extraction included baseline demographics, patient‐specific vaccine indications, and vaccine history. Results: Ninety‐nine patients receiving buprenorphine (n = 80), methadone (n = 14), or no therapy (n = 5) from September 1, 2014 to January 22, 2017 were included. On average, patients were 28 years old and had the first visit at 19 gestational weeks (range 6‐35). Overall, WISH vaccination compliance was high for influenza (66%) and Tdap (86%) as well as the initial doses of hepatitis A (80%), hepatitis B (77%), and HPV (46%) vaccines. No difference was found between patients receiving buprenorphine and methadone. Patients who had at least 1 pharmacist consultation (n = 90) had significantly higher compliance with the initial doses of hepatitis A (92.1% vs 22.2%, P <.0001) and hepatitis B (86.4% vs 11.1%, P <.0001), and influenza vaccines (71.6% vs 33.3%, P <.0001) compared to those who did not (n = 9). Common reasons for vaccine non‐compliance were patient refusal, did not return to the clinic, or missed opportunity by the non‐pharmacist healthcare professional. Conclusions: Overall clinic vaccination rates were high and implies that pharmacy intervention significantly increased administration rates for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and influenza vaccines. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT 03039725. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Objectives Methods Results Conclusions Untreated bipolar disorder in pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Despite advances in clinical management, there is concern among obstetric providers and patients about the safety of pharmacological agents for the treatment of bipolar disorder in pregnancy. Recent studies have shown atypical antipsychotics and lamotrigine to have a favorable safety profile; however, little information is published on lurasidone.The objective of this retrospective chart review was to evaluate pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in obstetric patients with bipolar disorder who are untreated, compared to those treated with lurasidone, other atypical antipsychotics, and lamotrigine at a tertiary teaching institution.This retrospective cohort study included neonates whose mothers had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and were referred to the Maternal & Fetal Care Clinic with two documented visits after January 1, 2014, with delivery by October 31, 2017, within an SSM health‐system hospital.In this study, women with untreated bipolar disorder (not on any mood stabilizer) in pregnancy had significantly higher rates of premature delivery and low birth weight compared to women on mood stabilizers of lamotrigine, lurasidone, and other atypical antipsychotics. No difference was observed for pregnancy or neonatal outcomes between patients taking any of the mood stabilizers.This study suggests that the use of lurasidone, other atypical antipsychotics, and lamotrigine have better neonatal outcomes than untreated bipolar disorder in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]