Search

The role of dedicated anticoagulation management services (AMS) for patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy is unclear. The objective of our study was to describe DOAC management in patients who were and were not managed by an AMS. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients with atrial fibrillation at the University of Utah Health (UUH) who received DOAC therapy between January 2013 and June 2016. Patients in the AMS group were managed by a pharmacist-led AMS whereas those in the non-AMS group were managed by other providers. The number and type of provider encounters and interventions related to DOAC therapy and a composite endpoint of thromboembolism, bleeding, and all-cause mortality were recorded. Overall, 90 and 370 patients were managed in the AMS and non-AMS groups, respectively. AMS group patients had greater chronic disease burden as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index. AMS group patients had more frequent DOAC-related encounters than non-AMS group patients but both groups had similar DOAC therapy intervention rates. Over half of patients in the AMS group received potentially duplicative interventions from their regular clinicians. The composite endpoint occurred in 18.9% and 13.5% of AMS and non-AMS group patients, respectively (p = 0.29). Patients managed by AMS providers were more complex and had more frequent encounters regarding their DOAC therapy than those managed by non-AMS providers. However, there was evidence of duplicative DOAC therapy management efforts. No difference between AMS and non-AMS groups in the composite clinical endpoint was detected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pharmacists‐led medication reviews (MRs) are claimed to be effective for the control of cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence in the literature is conflicting. The main objective of this meta‐analysis was to analyze the impact of pharmacist‐led MRs on cardiovascular disease risk factors overall and in different ambulatory settings while exploring the effects of different components of MRs. Methods and Results Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Randomized and cluster randomized controlled trials of pharmacist‐led MRs compared with usual care were included. Settings were community pharmacies and ambulatory clinics. The classification used for MRs was the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe as basic (type 1), intermediate (type 2), and advanced (type 3). Meta‐analyses in therapeutic goals used odds ratios to standardize the effect of each study, and for continuous data (eg, systolic blood pressure) raw differences were calculated using baseline and final values, with 95% CIs. Prediction intervals were calculated to account for heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. Meta‐analyses included 69 studies with a total of 11 644 patients. Sample demographic characteristics were similar between studies. MRs increased control of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% prediction interval, 1.05–7.08), type 2 diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% prediction interval, 1.17–5.88), and high cholesterol (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% prediction interval, 1.05–3.46). In ambulatory clinics, MRs produced significant effects in control of diabetes mellitus and cholesterol. For community pharmacies, systolic blood pressure and low‐density lipoprotein values decreased significantly. Advanced MRs had larger effects than intermediate MRs in diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia outcomes. Most intervention components had no significant effect on clinical outcomes and were often poorly described. CIs were significant in all analyses but prediction intervals were not in continuous clinical outcomes, with high heterogeneity present. Conclusions Intermediate and advanced MRs provided by pharmacists may improve control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, as statistically significant prediction intervals were found. However, most continuous clinical outcomes failed to achieve statistical significance, with high heterogeneity present, although positive trends and effect sizes were found. Studies should use a standardized method for MRs to diminish sources of these heterogeneities.

Thromboembolic events are associated with high mortality and morbidity indexes. In this context, warfarin is the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulant agent for preventing and treating these events. This medication has a narrow therapeutic range and, consequently, patients usually have difficulty in achieving and maintaining stable target therapeutics. Some studies on the literature about oral anticoagulant management showed that pharmacists could improve the efficiency of anticoagulant therapy. However, the majority of these studies included general patients retrospectively. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate a pharmacist’s warfarin management in patients with poor quality of anticoagulation therapy (Time in the Therapeutic Range- TTR < 50%). We included 268 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and without stable dose of warfarin (TTR < 50%, based on the last three values of International Normalized Ratio-INR). We followed them up for 12 weeks, INR values were evaluated and, when necessary, the dose adjustments were performed. During the first four visits, patient’s INR was measured every 7 days. Then, if INR was within the target therapeutic range (INR: 2–3), the patient was asked to return in 30 days. However, if INR was out the therapeutic target, the patient was asked to return in 7 days. Adherence evaluation was measured through questionnaires and by counting the pills taken. Comparison between basal TTR (which was calculated based on the three last INR values before prospective phase) and TTR of 4 weeks (calculated by considering the INR tests from visits 0 to 4, in the prospective phase of the study) and basal TTR and TTR of 12 weeks (calculated based on the INR tests from visits 0 to 12, in the prospective phase of the study) revealed significant statistical differences (0.144 ± 0.010 vs. 0.382 ± 0.016; and 0.144 ± 0.010 vs. 0.543 ± 0.014, p < 0.001, respectively). We also observed that the mean TTR of 1 year before (retrospective phase) was lower than TTR value after 12 weeks of pharmacist-driven treatment (prospective phase) (0.320 ± 0.015; 0.540 ± 0.015, p < 0.001). In conclusion, pharmaceutical care was able to improve TTR values in patients with AF and poor quality of anticoagulation with warfarin.

Purpose. A two-phase program to increase pharmacist involvement in management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) at a large community teaching hospital is described. Summary. Florida Orlando Hospital implemented a two-phase initiative to decrease intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), ventilator use, sedative use, and hospital expenditures while advancing pharmacists' scope of practice. Phase 1 of the initiative involved a pilot project to evaluate pharmacist management of sedative therapy for mechanically ventilated patients. Using a newly developed PAD order set, a pharmacist performed daily sedation management in a cohort of patients; relative to physician-managed standard care, pharmacist-directed sedation management resulted in fewer hours of patient exposure to continuous sedation, with an overall 46% reduction in continuous infusions of sedatives and reductions in both ICU and total hospital LOS, resulting in estimated savings of $1.2 million in direct hospital costs and $183,216 in drug costs. In phase 2 of the project, an expanded group of pharmacists collaborated with interprofessional teams to manage PAD using an integrated "ABCDE bundle" to promote early mobility and weaning from sedatives and analgesics. A retrospective comparison of data on a cohort of medical ICU patients managed using the ABCDE bundle approach (n = 436) and a standard-care cohort (n = 499) demonstrated improvements in several outcomes, including mean ventilator days per patient, ICU LOS, and mortality. Conclusion. The provision of proactive critical care pharmacist services directed at PAD management is an innovative approach to fostering interprofessional collaboration and optimizing clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective Physician-pharmacist collaborative models have been shown to improve the care of patients with numerous chronic medical conditions. Team-based health care using integrated clinical pharmacists provides one opportunity to improve quality in health care systems that use population-based financing. In November 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS) requested that the relative value of pharmacists' work in team-based care needs to be established. Thus the objective of this study was to describe the components of pharmacists' work in the management of hypertension with a physician-pharmacist collaborative model. Design Descriptive analysis of the components of pharmacists' work in the Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians to Improve Outcomes Now ( CAPTION) study, a prospective, cluster randomized trial. Measurements and Main Results This analysis was intended to provide policymakers with data and information, using the CAPTION study model, on the time and intensity of pharmacists' work to understand pharmacists' relative value contributions in the context of CMS financing and population management aims. The CAPTION trial was conducted in 32 community-based medical offices in 15 U.S. states and included 390 patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Blood pressure was measured by trained study coordinators in each office, and patients were included in the study if they had uncontrolled blood pressure. Included patients were randomized to a 9-month intervention, a 24-month intervention, or usual care. The goal of the pharmacist intervention was to improve blood pressure control and resolve drug therapy problems impeding progress toward blood pressure goals. This intervention included medical record review, a structured assessment with the patient, collaboration to achieve goals of therapy, and patient follow-up. The two intervention arms (9 and 24 mo) were identical the first 9 months, and that time frame is the focus of this workload evaluation. Pharmacists completed study encounter forms for every patient encounter and estimated time spent in pre-visit, face-to-face care, and post-visit activities. Among the 390 patients, there were 2811 encounters with pharmacists that involved 3.44 hours/patient for face-to-face care visits plus 1.55 hours/patient for pre-visit and post-visit work. Intensity of work was reflected in interventions to resolve drug therapy problems with patients (43% of encounters) and with physicians (1169 recommendations, of which physicians accepted 1153 [98.6%]), resulting in improvement of patients' blood pressure goals achieved (from 0% at baseline to 43% at 9 months based on the primary study end point). Conclusion Pharmacists provided extensive interventions to patients with hypertension. This analysis provides a framework for health systems, provider groups, and payers to measure pharmacists' work in value-based financing and population management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians To Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION) trial recently found that a pharmacist intervention for hypertension could be implemented in diverse medical offices. In this issue of Pharmacotherapy, the article by Brian Isetts and colleagues discusses the complexity of the patient population, the specific functions the pharmacists performed, and the time estimates from billing records used to quantify time spent during face-to-face patient encounters. This invited commentary will discuss findings from the CAPTION trial and provide recommendations for strategies to implement similar interventions for patients with other chronic medical conditions seen in primary care practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anticoagulation clinics were initially developed to provide safe and effective care for warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and mechanical valve replacement. Traditionally, these patients required ongoing laboratory monitoring and warfarin dose adjustment by expert providers. With the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), many have questioned the need for anticoagulation clinic. However, we think that the growing number of oral anticoagulant choices creates an urgent need for expanding the traditional role of the anticoagulation clinic. We outline 3 key purposes that a reimagined anticoagulation clinic would serve: (1) to assist patients and clinicians with selecting the most appropriate drug and dose from a growing list of anticoagulant options (including warfarin), (2) to help patients minimize the risk of serious bleeding complications with careful long-term monitoring and peri-procedural management, and (3) to encourage ongoing adherence to these life-saving medications. We also describe how repurposing anticoagulation clinics as broader medication safety clinics would promote safe and effective care across a range of cardiovascular conditions for high-risk medications (eg, spironolactone, amiodarone). Finally, we highlight a few existing health systems that are overcoming key challenges to implementing a reimagined anticoagulation or medication safety clinic structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Many large health systems now employ clinical pharmacists in team-based care to assist patients and physicians with management of cardiovascular (CV) diseases. However, small private offices often lack the resources to hire a clinical pharmacist for their office. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a centralized, web-based CV risk service (CVRS) managed by clinical pharmacists will improve guideline adherence in primary care medical offices in rural and small communities. Methods This study is a cluster randomized prospective trial in 12 primary care offices. Medical offices were randomized to either the CVRS intervention or usual care. The intervention will last for 12 months and all subjects will have research visits at baseline and 12 months. Primary outcomes will include adherence to treatment guidelines and control of key CV risk factors. Data will also be abstracted from the medical record at 30 months to determine if the intervention effect is sustained after it is discontinued. Conclusions This study will enroll subjects through 2015 and results will be available in 2018. This study will provide information on whether a distant, centralized CV risk service can improve guideline adherence in medical offices that lack the resources to employ clinical pharmacists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Numerous studies have demonstrated the value of including pharmacists in team-based care to improve adherence to cardiovascular ( CV) guidelines, medication adherence, and risk factor control. However, there is limited information on whether these models can be successfully implemented more widely in diverse settings and populations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a centralized, web-based cardiovascular risk service ( CVRS) managed by clinical pharmacists will improve guideline adherence in multiple primary care medical offices with diverse geographic and patient characteristics. Methods This study is a prospective trial in 20 primary care offices stratified by the percent of under-represented minorities and then randomized to either the CVRS intervention or usual care. The intervention will last for 12 months and all subjects will have research visits at baseline and 12 months. The primary outcome is the difference in guideline adherence between groups. Data will also be abstracted from the medical record at 24 months to determine if the intervention effect is sustained after it is discontinued. Conclusions Patient enrollment will continue through 2016, with results expected in 2019. This study will provide information on whether a distant, centralized CVRS can be implemented in large numbers of medical offices, if it is effective in diverse populations, and if there is a long-term sustained effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The purpose of this study was to determine if institutions with inpatient cardiovascular credentialed pharmacists exhibit improved quality measures for acute myocardial infarction ( AMI) and heart failure ( HF) care compared with institutions without inpatient cardiovascular credentialed pharmacists. Methods We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional, matched case-control study. Hospitals with at least one Added Qualification in Cardiology ( AQCV) inpatient pharmacist were included in the case group. Each case group hospital was matched to hospitals without an AQCV pharmacist by region, number of cardiovascular discharges, and teaching hospital designation in a 1:3 ratio (case:control). The 34 AQCV hospitals were matched to 102 non- AQCV hospitals. The proportions of discharges meeting HF and AMI process of care measures and 30-day outcomes (readmission and mortality) for each hospital were determined from public data and compared between the case and control groups. Results Hospitals with AQCV pharmacists performed better on process of care measures than hospitals without AQCV pharmacists ( odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.58, p<0.0001, p<0.001 for heterogeneity), which was mainly driven by the aspirin on discharge for AMI and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker on discharge for HF measures. No differences were observed between the groups for either readmission or mortality at 30 days. Conclusions Hospitals that used inpatient AQCV pharmacists performed better on process of care measures than hospitals that do not use inpatient AQCV pharmacists. However, improvements in process of care performance measures observed in AQCV hospitals did not translate into improved 30-day clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse event associated with cancer treatments. There are clinical practice guidelines that assist practitioners in managing CINV. Many cancer centers develop protocols for physicians and pharmacists to guide prophylaxis and breakthrough treatments of CINV based on published guidelines. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome differences between pharmacist and physician -driven management of CINV in adult hospitalized cancer patients in a large academic medical center. This is a single center retrospective chart review study. The primary outcome of the study was the number of breakthrough antiemetic doses needed throughout the hospitalization. A total of 106 adult patients receiving inpatient chemotherapy were reviewed for CINV management. Fifty-five patients (52%) were managed according to the pharmacist-driven protocol, and fifty-one patients (48%) were managed by the physician. There was no difference between the two groups in the primary outcome. Patients in the pharmacist-managed group needed 6.4 breakthrough antiemetic doses; whereas, patients in the physician managed group needed 5.9 doses throughout the hospital stay (P-value = 0.7). No difference was seen when results were adjusted for length of hospitalization. There was a difference in adherence to the institution CINV guidelines favoring the pharmacist-driven approach (85% versus 33%, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, pharmacist-run protocol for CINV management was as effective as the standard of care. Protocols that are based on practice guidelines may offer the advantage of care standardization and potential cost savings. Type: Student Project

Study Objective To evaluate the effect of pharmacist care on patients with dyslipidemia. Design Systematic review of 21 randomized controlled trials. Patients A total of 5416 patients who received enhanced pharmacist care or standard care as part of a research study. Measurements and Main Results Nineteen databases and four trial registries were systematically searched from inception through February 21, 2010, with an update in September 2011. In addition, Web sites of relevant professional associations, scientific meetings, and research groups were reviewed, and manual searches of select journals were performed. A total of 8771 articles were identified, and 21 studies included. Data from the studies were analyzed using a random-effects model. The primary outcome measure assessed was the difference between the groups (pharmacist intervention vs standard care) in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL) level at the end of follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included the difference between the groups at the end of follow-up in total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels; and the proportion of patients who achieved target lipid parameters, underwent lipid panel measurements, adhered to therapy, and/or were instructed to change their lipid-lowering therapy. At the end of follow-up, the mean LDL level was 10.7 mg/dl lower in the enhanced pharmacy care groups compared with the standard care groups (95% confidence interval [ CI] -16.9 to -4.6 mg/dl), with moderate heterogeneity. The mean total cholesterol level was significantly lower in the enhanced pharmacy care groups compared with the standard care groups; however, these results were highly heterogeneous. Patients who received enhanced pharmacist care were also more likely than those receiving standard care to achieve target lipid parameters (odds ratio [ OR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.43-4.25) and to have a lipid panel ordered or recommended by a pharmacist during the study ( OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.30-3.24). Patients in the pharmacist intervention groups were almost twice as likely as patients in the standard care groups to have a change in lipid-lowering therapy ( OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.09-3.06). Adherence data could not be analyzed. Conclusion This systematic review showed that enhanced pharmacist care improves lipid parameters, notably LDL levels, in patients with dyslipidemia. These results point to the benefit that pharmacist care can provide across the spectrum of dyslipidemia management, from screening patients to treating them to assisting them in the attainment of clinical targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objectives To determine whether the impact of anticoagulant control achieved in an Anticoagulation Management Service (AMS) is sustained after transfer of anticoagulation management to the primary care physician (PCP), and to assess patient satisfaction with their anticoagulation management by both the AMS and PCP. Design Prospective, randomized trial. Setting Pharmacist-directed ambulatory AMS located in a tertiary medical care facility and PCP practices in Canada. Patients Sixty-two adults who had received at least 6 months of warfarin therapy managed by the AMS. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to remain with AMS care (32 patients) or to transfer their anticoagulation management care to their PCP (30 patients). After 4.5 months of care, patients in both groups completed a validated survey instrument assessing their satisfaction with the management of their warfarin therapy. Measurements and Main Results Of 295 patients screened, most were excluded from the study for denying consent or for having previous bleeding or clotting complications while taking warfarin. Patients in the AMS and PCP groups who completed the study were similar in age (median 70 and 76 yrs, respectively), and most had atrial fibrillation as an indication for warfarin (75% and 83%, respectively). The primary outcome measure-mean percentage of time within the desired international normalized ratio (INR) range after 6 months-was compared between the two groups, using both the actual range (INR 2.5 ± 0.5) and an expanded range (INR 2.5 ± 0.7). No significant difference was noted in this outcome between the groups (73.5 ± 19.1% vs 76.9 ± 24.5% for the AMS vs PCP groups, p=0.54). Other outcome measures were rates of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events resulting in emergency department visits or hospitalizations, patients' overall satisfaction with warfarin therapy, and patients' preferred anticoagulation management strategy. Two hemorrhagic events and one thrombotic event occurred in each group. Patients were more satisfied with their anticoagulant management by the AMS relative to PCP care (p=0.01), and given the choice, patients preferred AMS care (p=0.001). Conclusion During this 6-month trial, anticoagulation control did not significantly differ between patients who continued to receive anticoagulation management by the AMS and those who transferred to their PCP for anticoagulation management, indicating that the effects of AMS care were sustained. Although patients were more satisfied and preferred to stay with AMS care, this study shows that select patients could have their anticoagulation care transferred to their PCP without compromising anticoagulation control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective. To determine the relationship between poor adherence and self-efficacy or social support after a pharmacist intervention. Design. Post-hoc analysis of data from two randomized controlled trials of physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions (6 and 9 too, respectively) to improve blood pressure control. Setting. Eleven university-affiliated primary care clinics. Patients. Five hundred eighty-four patients (aged 21-85 yrs) with uncontrolled primary hypertension; 296 were in the intervention group and 288 were in the control group. Intervention. Pharmacists provided intensified hypertension management and drug adherence counseling to patients in the intervention group. Measurements and Main Results. Social support and self-efficacy questionnaires were administered at baseline and end-of-study visits. Patient adherence was monitored by using the Morisky self-reported adherence questionnaire. Self-reported adherence scores improved significantly in the control group (p=0.0053) but not in the intervention group; however, adherence at baseline in both groups was high. There were small, but significant, improvements in self-efficacy (p<0.04) and social support (p<0.05) scores in the intervention group but not the control group at the end of the study. Social support and, to a lesser extent, self-efficacy improved as a function of duration of study participation (9-mo vs 6-mo intervention), regardless of whether the patient received the intervention. Blood pressure control in both groups improved significantly at the end of the study; however, mean blood pressure was significantly lower in the intervention group (129.7/76.6 mm Hg) compared with the control group (140.8/78.9 mm Hg; p<0.0001 for systolic, p=0.032 for diastolic). Conclusion. Social support and self-efficacy improved significantly in the intervention group at the end of the pharmacist intervention. Drug adherence was correlated with self-efficacy even though drug adherence did not improve significantly in the intervention group. The fact that social support and self efficacy improved as a function of duration of study participation suggests that participation in a research study may have had a positive influence on these measures. Even though the changes in social support, self-efficacy, and drug adherence were modest, there was significantly better blood pressure control in the intervention group compared with the control group. These findings indicate that changes in drug adherence, self-efficacy, or social support probably played a minor role in the blood pressure outcomes in these studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective. To assess blood pressure control after discontinuation of a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention. Design. Comparative analysis of data of the patients who received the intervention versus a control group from a prospective, cluster-randomized, 9-month efficacy trial and the same patients' data 18 and 27 months after completion of the trial, abstracted from their medical records. Setting. Five primary care medical offices operated by a university health system. Patients. One hundred four patients with hypertension; 65 were in the intervention group, and 39 were in the control group. Measurements and Main Results. In the prospective study, patients were randomized to receive a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention to improve blood pressure control or to the control group. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were measured by a research nurse at baseline and at the end of the study (9 mo later). In the current study, data were abstracted for blood pressure and blood pressure control at 18 and 27 months (9 and 18 mo, respectively, after discontinuation of the study). At baseline, mean ± SD systolic blood pressure was 152.5 ± 9.5 and 150.1 ± 9.6 mm Hg in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p=0.22). At 9 months, systolic blood pressure decreased to 124.5 ± 10.7 and 132.0 ± 15.1 mm Hg (p=0.0038 between groups), and blood pressure was controlled in 78.5% and 48.7% (p=0.0017) of patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively By 18 months, systolic blood pressure had deteriorated to 131.0 ± 12.2 and 143.3 ± 17.5 mm Hg (p<0.001), and blood pressure control rates decreased to 53.9% and 30.8% (p=0.02). By 27 months, systolic blood pressure was 131.3 ± 13.0 and 141.2 ± 15.8 mm Hg (p=0.0008), and blood pressure control was 55.4% and 35.9% (p=0.05). Conclusion. A sustained positive effect on blood pressure control was noted up to 18 months after discontinuation of a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention, when compared with a control group. Blood pressure control did deteriorate at a similar rate in both the intervention and control groups, but the percentage of patients with controlled blood pressure remained significantly higher in the intervention group. These results suggest that continued interventions by pharmacists may be necessary to maintain high rates of blood pressure control, especially in those patients whose blood pressure begins to increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New approaches are needed to better monitor blood pressure (BP) between physician visits, especially for patients in rural areas or for those who lack transportation. We have developed a custom-built bi-directional texting platform for home BP measurements that can then be managed by clinical pharmacists located remotely. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the BP texting approach combined with a pharmacist-based intervention improves BP management and to determine if the approach is cost effective. This study is a randomized, prospective trial in four primary care offices that serve patients in rural areas. Subjects will receive standardized research BP measurements at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome will be differences between the intervention and control group in mean systolic BP at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include systolic BP at 6 months; diastolic BP at 6 and 12 months, number of medication changes and costs. This study plans to enroll subjects through 2022, follow-up will be completed in 2023 and results will be available in 2024. This study will provide information on whether a combined approach using texting of home BP values and a pharmacist-based telehealth services can improve BP control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pharmacists-led medication reviews (MRs) are claimed to be effective for the control of cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence in the literature is conflicting. The main objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the impact of pharmacist-led MRs on cardiovascular disease risk factors overall and in different ambulatory settings while exploring the effects of different components of MRs. Methods and Results Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Randomized and cluster randomized controlled trials of pharmacist-led MRs compared with usual care were included. Settings were community pharmacies and ambulatory clinics. The classification used for MRs was the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe as basic (type 1), intermediate (type 2), and advanced (type 3). Meta-analyses in therapeutic goals used odds ratios to standardize the effect of each study, and for continuous data (eg, systolic blood pressure) raw differences were calculated using baseline and final values, with 95% CIs. Prediction intervals were calculated to account for heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. Meta-analyses included 69 studies with a total of 11 644 patients. Sample demographic characteristics were similar between studies. MRs increased control of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% prediction interval, 1.05-7.08), type 2 diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% prediction interval, 1.17-5.88), and high cholesterol (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% prediction interval, 1.05-3.46). In ambulatory clinics, MRs produced significant effects in control of diabetes mellitus and cholesterol. For community pharmacies, systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein values decreased significantly. Advanced MRs had larger effects than intermediate MRs in diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia outcomes. Most intervention components had no significant effect on clinical outcomes and were often poorly described. CIs were significant in all analyses but prediction intervals were not in continuous clinical outcomes, with high heterogeneity present. Conclusions Intermediate and advanced MRs provided by pharmacists may improve control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, as statistically significant prediction intervals were found. However, most continuous clinical outcomes failed to achieve statistical significance, with high heterogeneity present, although positive trends and effect sizes were found. Studies should use a standardized method for MRs to diminish sources of these heterogeneities.

Thromboembolic events are associated with high mortality and morbidity indexes. In this context, warfarin is the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulant agent for preventing and treating these events. This medication has a narrow therapeutic range and, consequently, patients usually have difficulty in achieving and maintaining stable target therapeutics. Some studies on the literature about oral anticoagulant management showed that pharmacists could improve the efficiency of anticoagulant therapy. However, the majority of these studies included general patients retrospectively. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate a pharmacist's warfarin management in patients with poor quality of anticoagulation therapy (Time in the Therapeutic Range- TTR < 50%). We included 268 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and without stable dose of warfarin (TTR < 50%, based on the last three values of International Normalized Ratio-INR). We followed them up for 12 weeks, INR values were evaluated and, when necessary, the dose adjustments were performed. During the first four visits, patient's INR was measured every 7 days. Then, if INR was within the target therapeutic range (INR: 2-3), the patient was asked to return in 30 days. However, if INR was out the therapeutic target, the patient was asked to return in 7 days. Adherence evaluation was measured through questionnaires and by counting the pills taken. Comparison between basal TTR (which was calculated based on the three last INR values before prospective phase) and TTR of 4 weeks (calculated by considering the INR tests from visits 0 to 4, in the prospective phase of the study) and basal TTR and TTR of 12 weeks (calculated based on the INR tests from visits 0 to 12, in the prospective phase of the study) revealed significant statistical differences (0.144 ± 0.010 vs. 0.382 ± 0.016; and 0.144 ± 0.010 vs. 0.543 ± 0.014, p < 0.001, respectively). We also observed that the mean TTR of 1 year before (retrospective phase) was lower than TTR value after 12 weeks of pharmacist-driven treatment (prospective phase) (0.320 ± 0.015; 0.540 ± 0.015, p < 0.001). In conclusion, pharmaceutical care was able to improve TTR values in patients with AF and poor quality of anticoagulation with warfarin.

Background: There is a paucity of data comparing practice patterns between board-certified specialists with added qualifications in cardiology (AQCV) and cardiovascular pharmacists without these credentials., Purpose: The purpose is to characterize differences in practice between inpatient pharmacists with and without AQCV., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional, case-controlled survey. An AQCV pharmacist list was extracted from the Board of Pharmacy Specialties Web site. Hospitals with AQCV pharmacists comprised the case group. Hospitals were excluded if the AQCV pharmacists did not provide direct patient care, practiced in the outpatient setting, or were in a Veterans Affairs hospital. Each case hospital was matched to hospitals without an AQCV pharmacist in a 1:3 ratio (case:control) by region, cardiovascular discharges, and teaching hospital status. Institutions completed a survey characterizing their pharmacy services., Results: Fifty-six hospitals completed the survey (21 AQCV, 35 non-AQCV). More AQCV pharmacists participated on rounds (100% vs 82.9%, P = .04) and devoted more time performing administrative tasks (20.5% ± 15.3% vs 11.1% ± 8.1%, P = .001) than non-AQCV pharmacists. Conversely, AQCV pharmacists spent less time providing clinical care (52.4% ± 14.5% vs 66.2% ± 19.8%, P = .007), were less involved with drug protocol management (71.4% vs 91.4%, P = .05), and performed less order verification than non-AQCV pharmacists., Conclusions: Practice patterns differ between inpatient pharmacists with and without AQCV. Further research is needed to determine whether AQCV credentialing improves patient outcomes and to delineate what specific tasks performed by inpatient cardiology pharmacists may improve patient outcomes.