Pub Date : 2020-08-14DOI: 10.1177/8755122520950692
Chris Piszczatoski, J. Gums
Objective: To review the clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy of the Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) vaccine for the prevention of the Ebola virus disease. Data Sources: A literature search through PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library was conducted for clinical trials published between January 2014 and June 2020 in the English language using the keywords Ervebo, rVSVΔG-ZEBOV, rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP, Ebola Zaire, and vaccine. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Articles were selected if they were related to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) or provided novel data regarding this entity. Twelve articles noted in the FDA approval were chosen, along with 2 additional articles identified as providing novel information. Data Synthesis: The findings of the review show that Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) is a safe, immunogenic, and likely effective vaccine for the prevention of Ebola virus disease. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Ebola virus disease is highly infectious and often fatal. There have been multiple large outbreaks in the past 5 years, with no licensed treatments or vaccines. An effective vaccine could largely curtail current outbreaks and prevent further ones. Conclusion: The recent FDA approval of Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) offers the first approved vaccine for the prevention of Ebola virus disease. It has been shown to be safe, immunogenic, and likely effective for use in real-world applications for those at risk of contracting the disease.
{"title":"Ervebo (Ebola Zaire Vaccine, Live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP): The First Licensed Vaccine for the Prevention of Ebola Virus Disease","authors":"Chris Piszczatoski, J. Gums","doi":"10.1177/8755122520950692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122520950692","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To review the clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy of the Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) vaccine for the prevention of the Ebola virus disease. Data Sources: A literature search through PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library was conducted for clinical trials published between January 2014 and June 2020 in the English language using the keywords Ervebo, rVSVΔG-ZEBOV, rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP, Ebola Zaire, and vaccine. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Articles were selected if they were related to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) or provided novel data regarding this entity. Twelve articles noted in the FDA approval were chosen, along with 2 additional articles identified as providing novel information. Data Synthesis: The findings of the review show that Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) is a safe, immunogenic, and likely effective vaccine for the prevention of Ebola virus disease. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Ebola virus disease is highly infectious and often fatal. There have been multiple large outbreaks in the past 5 years, with no licensed treatments or vaccines. An effective vaccine could largely curtail current outbreaks and prevent further ones. Conclusion: The recent FDA approval of Ervebo (Ebola Zaire vaccine, live/rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) offers the first approved vaccine for the prevention of Ebola virus disease. It has been shown to be safe, immunogenic, and likely effective for use in real-world applications for those at risk of contracting the disease.","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"55 1","pages":"243 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80448706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-08DOI: 10.1177/8755122520947637
Allison M. Dering-Anderson, Madeline Blaha, J. Neville
Background: Pharmacy technicians serve as pharmacist extenders. Attempts at advancing their practice have not been as rapid as the profession would prefer. We postulated that a barrier to this advancement is lack of agreement between pharmacists and technicians on how advancement should occur and on what it means. Objective: The objectives were to evaluate the differences in definitions and expectations of “technician advancement” between pharmacists and pharmacy technicians as potential impediments to advancement. Methods: Multimodal: An initial questionnaire for pharmacy technicians was collected during the American Association of Pharmacy Technicians Annual Convention to identify major topics for further survey. From those data, a survey was developed to ask pharmacists and pharmacy technicians about “technician advancement.” Surveys were provided to technicians in seminar settings; to members of the Nebraska Pharmacists Association; and via online platforms such as Facebook. Additionally, face-to-face targeted interviews were conducted with pharmacy technicians attending American Association of Pharmacy Technicians conventions and with the pharmacy technician and pharmacist leaders at the Nebraska Pharmacists Association. Results: Responses show that pharmacists’ expectations for advancing the practice of pharmacy technicians and the expectations of the technicians themselves vary widely. A notable finding is that 96% of all technicians responding see technician payment as a significant issue in advancement, while less than 4% of pharmacists commented on rate of pay. Conclusion: While both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are hopeful for pharmacy technician role advancement, there is substantial disagreement about the definition of advancement that may be a barrier to the process.
{"title":"Defining the Role of the Advanced Pharmacy Technician: Perspective Dissonance","authors":"Allison M. Dering-Anderson, Madeline Blaha, J. Neville","doi":"10.1177/8755122520947637","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122520947637","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Pharmacy technicians serve as pharmacist extenders. Attempts at advancing their practice have not been as rapid as the profession would prefer. We postulated that a barrier to this advancement is lack of agreement between pharmacists and technicians on how advancement should occur and on what it means. Objective: The objectives were to evaluate the differences in definitions and expectations of “technician advancement” between pharmacists and pharmacy technicians as potential impediments to advancement. Methods: Multimodal: An initial questionnaire for pharmacy technicians was collected during the American Association of Pharmacy Technicians Annual Convention to identify major topics for further survey. From those data, a survey was developed to ask pharmacists and pharmacy technicians about “technician advancement.” Surveys were provided to technicians in seminar settings; to members of the Nebraska Pharmacists Association; and via online platforms such as Facebook. Additionally, face-to-face targeted interviews were conducted with pharmacy technicians attending American Association of Pharmacy Technicians conventions and with the pharmacy technician and pharmacist leaders at the Nebraska Pharmacists Association. Results: Responses show that pharmacists’ expectations for advancing the practice of pharmacy technicians and the expectations of the technicians themselves vary widely. A notable finding is that 96% of all technicians responding see technician payment as a significant issue in advancement, while less than 4% of pharmacists commented on rate of pay. Conclusion: While both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are hopeful for pharmacy technician role advancement, there is substantial disagreement about the definition of advancement that may be a barrier to the process.","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"30 1","pages":"223 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87007769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1177/8755122520911689
Tahnia Alauddin, Sarah E. Petite
Background: Contraindications and precautions to metformin have limited inpatient use, and limited evidence exists evaluating metformin in hospitalized patients. Objective: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of inpatient metformin use. Methods: This study was an observational, retrospective, cohort study at an academic medical center between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018. Hospitalized adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving at least 1 metformin dose were included. The primary endpoint was to identify hospitalized patients using metformin with at least 1 contraindication or precautionary warning against use. Secondary endpoints included assessing metformin efficacy with glycemic control, characterizing adverse outcomes of inpatient metformin, and comparing the efficacy of metformin-containing regimens. Results: Two hundred patients were included. There were 126 incidences of potentially unsafe use identified in 111 patients (55.5%). The most common reasons were age ≥65 years (47%), heart failure diagnosis (7.5%), and metformin within 48 hours of contrast (6%). Metformin was contraindicated in 2 patients (1%) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2. The overall median daily blood glucose was 146 mg/dL (interquartile range [IQR] = 122-181). Patients were divided into 3 groups: metformin monotherapy, metformin plus oral antihyperglycemic therapy, and metformin plus insulin. The median daily blood glucoses were 129 mg/dL (IQR = 110-152), 154 mg/dL (IQR = 133-178), and 174 mg/dL (IQR = 142-203; P < .001), respectively. Two patients (1%) developed acute kidney injury, and no patients developed lactic acidosis. Conclusions: Metformin was associated with goal glycemic levels in hospitalized patients with no adverse outcomes. These results suggest the potential for metformin use in hospitalized, non–critically ill patients.
{"title":"Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Metformin Use in Hospitalized, Non–Critically Ill Patients","authors":"Tahnia Alauddin, Sarah E. Petite","doi":"10.1177/8755122520911689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122520911689","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Contraindications and precautions to metformin have limited inpatient use, and limited evidence exists evaluating metformin in hospitalized patients. Objective: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of inpatient metformin use. Methods: This study was an observational, retrospective, cohort study at an academic medical center between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018. Hospitalized adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving at least 1 metformin dose were included. The primary endpoint was to identify hospitalized patients using metformin with at least 1 contraindication or precautionary warning against use. Secondary endpoints included assessing metformin efficacy with glycemic control, characterizing adverse outcomes of inpatient metformin, and comparing the efficacy of metformin-containing regimens. Results: Two hundred patients were included. There were 126 incidences of potentially unsafe use identified in 111 patients (55.5%). The most common reasons were age ≥65 years (47%), heart failure diagnosis (7.5%), and metformin within 48 hours of contrast (6%). Metformin was contraindicated in 2 patients (1%) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2. The overall median daily blood glucose was 146 mg/dL (interquartile range [IQR] = 122-181). Patients were divided into 3 groups: metformin monotherapy, metformin plus oral antihyperglycemic therapy, and metformin plus insulin. The median daily blood glucoses were 129 mg/dL (IQR = 110-152), 154 mg/dL (IQR = 133-178), and 174 mg/dL (IQR = 142-203; P < .001), respectively. Two patients (1%) developed acute kidney injury, and no patients developed lactic acidosis. Conclusions: Metformin was associated with goal glycemic levels in hospitalized patients with no adverse outcomes. These results suggest the potential for metformin use in hospitalized, non–critically ill patients.","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"124 1","pages":"102 - 109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89842737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1177/8755122520911208
Jacob Budnitz, Stephanie L Hon, J. Punzi
{"title":"The Efficacy of Flow Restrictors on Children’s Liquid Acetaminophen Products","authors":"Jacob Budnitz, Stephanie L Hon, J. Punzi","doi":"10.1177/8755122520911208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122520911208","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"26 1","pages":"114 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73698624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-21DOI: 10.1177/8755122520906291
Adam Root, Robert D. Raiff, T. Ortel, Kimberly L. Hodulik
Objective: To report the utilization of emicizumab in a patient with severe hemophilia A with inducible inhibitors and the reduction of drug costs related to decreased on-demand recombinant factor VIIa use. Case Summary: A 65-year-old African American man with established hemophilia A with an inducible factor VIII inhibitor presented with a bleeding hematoma from the right posterior thigh. The patient was historically managed on frequent administration of recombinant factor VIIa to achieve hemostasis and was started on every 2-hour dosing during this admission. Emicizumab, a new therapy for hemophilia A, became available during this admission, and the patient discontinued recombinant factor VIIa and transitioned to weekly emicizumab injections. The patient did not require any recombinant factor VIIa during the following 12 months resulting in substantial drug cost savings. Discussion: After initiation of emicizumab therapy, the patient no longer required on-demand treatment with recombinant factor VIIa for bleeds. Through this reduction in recombinant factor VIIa, there was a large decrease in inpatient drug costs and inpatient admissions for bleeding events. Conclusion: The potential reduction in drug costs and inpatient admissions should be considered when determining if emicizumab therapy is appropriate for hemophilia A patients with inhibitors. Further research is needed to confirm that continued long-term use of emicizumab remains associated with a reduction in on-demand treatment.
{"title":"Initiation of Emicizumab Therapy in an Adult Patient With Hemophilia A With Inhibitors and Associated Drug Cost Savings","authors":"Adam Root, Robert D. Raiff, T. Ortel, Kimberly L. Hodulik","doi":"10.1177/8755122520906291","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122520906291","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To report the utilization of emicizumab in a patient with severe hemophilia A with inducible inhibitors and the reduction of drug costs related to decreased on-demand recombinant factor VIIa use. Case Summary: A 65-year-old African American man with established hemophilia A with an inducible factor VIII inhibitor presented with a bleeding hematoma from the right posterior thigh. The patient was historically managed on frequent administration of recombinant factor VIIa to achieve hemostasis and was started on every 2-hour dosing during this admission. Emicizumab, a new therapy for hemophilia A, became available during this admission, and the patient discontinued recombinant factor VIIa and transitioned to weekly emicizumab injections. The patient did not require any recombinant factor VIIa during the following 12 months resulting in substantial drug cost savings. Discussion: After initiation of emicizumab therapy, the patient no longer required on-demand treatment with recombinant factor VIIa for bleeds. Through this reduction in recombinant factor VIIa, there was a large decrease in inpatient drug costs and inpatient admissions for bleeding events. Conclusion: The potential reduction in drug costs and inpatient admissions should be considered when determining if emicizumab therapy is appropriate for hemophilia A patients with inhibitors. Further research is needed to confirm that continued long-term use of emicizumab remains associated with a reduction in on-demand treatment.","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"4 1","pages":"110 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85284382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1177/8755122520905582
Bianca Mayzel, Sandra S. Axtell, Carolyn M. Richardson, N. Link
Background: Studies are needed to evaluate medication-related problems (MRPs) to assess the effect of a pharmacist on managing medications postdischarge. Objective: To assess the ability of pharmacist-led medication review and reconciliation to reduce the number of MRPs found in transitional care medicine (TCM) visits, leading to medication optimization. Methods: This study involved a retrospective chart review of standard TCM procedure at a family/internal medicine clinic and a prospective, team-based TCM visit in the same clinic. Inclusion criteria included patients discharged from any hospital within our institution and seen in the clinic. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of MRPs found between the prospective and retrospective groups. Secondary outcomes included the number and specific type of MRPs found, classified by the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe tool, and further subdivided by patient aware or unaware of MRP, only in the prospective group, as well as 30-day readmission rate. Results: Patients in the prospective group (n = 50) had an average age of 67.9 years versus 65.5 years in the retrospective group (n = 50). Four times as many patients in the prospective group were found to have MRPs than the retrospective group. The most common MRP was due to a patient-related factor, meaning the cause is related to a patient’s behavior. Patients were unaware of the MRP in a majority of these cases. Thirty-day readmission rate did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Team-based TCM visits that included a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation uncovered more MRPs than patients who did not have a pharmacist perform a medication reconciliation.
{"title":"The Impact of Face-to-Face Pharmacist Transitional Care Management Visits on Medication-Related Problems","authors":"Bianca Mayzel, Sandra S. Axtell, Carolyn M. Richardson, N. Link","doi":"10.1177/8755122520905582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122520905582","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Studies are needed to evaluate medication-related problems (MRPs) to assess the effect of a pharmacist on managing medications postdischarge. Objective: To assess the ability of pharmacist-led medication review and reconciliation to reduce the number of MRPs found in transitional care medicine (TCM) visits, leading to medication optimization. Methods: This study involved a retrospective chart review of standard TCM procedure at a family/internal medicine clinic and a prospective, team-based TCM visit in the same clinic. Inclusion criteria included patients discharged from any hospital within our institution and seen in the clinic. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of MRPs found between the prospective and retrospective groups. Secondary outcomes included the number and specific type of MRPs found, classified by the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe tool, and further subdivided by patient aware or unaware of MRP, only in the prospective group, as well as 30-day readmission rate. Results: Patients in the prospective group (n = 50) had an average age of 67.9 years versus 65.5 years in the retrospective group (n = 50). Four times as many patients in the prospective group were found to have MRPs than the retrospective group. The most common MRP was due to a patient-related factor, meaning the cause is related to a patient’s behavior. Patients were unaware of the MRP in a majority of these cases. Thirty-day readmission rate did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Team-based TCM visits that included a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation uncovered more MRPs than patients who did not have a pharmacist perform a medication reconciliation.","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"64 1","pages":"101 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84149533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-30DOI: 10.1177/8755122518814935
Ahmet Emre Eyler, Rachel F. Faley, Jan M. Kim, Myeong Gyu Knockel, Brooke Stultz, Jeremy Swanson, Joseph M. Takieddine, S. Tanoshima, Reo Tawil, Samah Terrell, Jamie M. Thiboutot
Abeyta, Agnieszka Ackerbauer, Kimberly Adams, Alex Adeola, Mobolaji Akers, Julie Alalawi, Mai Allen, Bryan Alvarez-Risco, Aldo Anders, Stephanie Anderson, Shawn D. Asal, Nicole Bain, Kevin Baker, Michelle Bandy, Veronica T. Barenholtz Levy, Hedva Barros, Michael C. Bishop, Bryan Black, Robin Boisvert, Louis Bright, David Brown, Jacob Bruce, Susan Buchman, Christina Buckel, Whitney Burgess, Sarah Burghardt, Kyle Burka, Abigail Byerly, Wesley Bystrak, Tamara Carter, Chris Cates, Marshall E. Childs-Kean, Lindsey Chiu, Ada Chong, Christopher Colmenares, Evan Colucci, Vincent J. Conway, Stephanie L. Cook, Elizabeth Covington, Elizabeth Cowart, Kevin Coz-Yataco, Angel Dash, Ranjeet D’Astoli, Joseph Dawwas, Ghadeer Dean, Stacey R. Deen, Beth Deming, Paulina Dharia, Sheetal Diec, Sandy DiScala, Sandra Ditch, Kristen Dougherty, John A. Eaves, Shannon Eljaaly, Khalid Enderby, Cher Eskazan, Ahmet Emre Eyler, Rachel F. Faley, Brian Farinola, Nicholas Felix, Daniel Fleming, James Gibson, Mara Gónzalez Álvarez, Isabel Gören, Jessica Hashida, Tohru Hashmi, Furqan Hellenga, Nadia Hockman, Rebecca Haynes Hoke, Kathleen House, Naomi Huang, Yen-Ming Hughes, Jonathan Jackson, Kristy Janzen, Kristin Jellinek-Cohen, Samantha P. Johannesmeyer, Herman Kane, Brenna Keeshin, Susana Keresztes, Jan M. Kim, Myeong Gyu Knockel, Laura Kopcza, Kathleen B. Krantz, Erica Krichbaum, Michelle Krikorian, Susan A. Leffler, Michaela Leo, Andrea Levine, Alexander Liao, Siyun Lilliston, Andrea Michelle Liu, Wenxi Lyles, Adraine Lawrence MacDonald, Nancy C. Macedo, Kelly Mahan, Rebecca Malone, Patrick Mathew, Sheryl Mercuro, Nicholas Merrey, Jessica Molino, Suzanne Mospan, Cortney Muir, Justin Okeahialam, Basil Patel, Hansita Pattie, Stacey Baker Pektezel, Mehmet Petite, Sarah Powers, Mary Redfern, Roberta Rein, Leanne Rhalimi, Mounir Rose, Christina Rosselli, Jennifer Russak, Edward Salerno, David Scherrer, Leigh Seed, Sheila Selvi-Sabater, Pablo Skordallos, Sebastian Slugocki, Malgorzata Smith, Susan Snyder, Scott Spence, Nathan A. Spray, Jeffery Steinberg, Michael Steiner, Chris 814935 PMTXXX10.1177/8755122518814935Journal of Pharmacy Technology other2018
{"title":"Reviewer Acknowledgment","authors":"Ahmet Emre Eyler, Rachel F. Faley, Jan M. Kim, Myeong Gyu Knockel, Brooke Stultz, Jeremy Swanson, Joseph M. Takieddine, S. Tanoshima, Reo Tawil, Samah Terrell, Jamie M. Thiboutot","doi":"10.1177/8755122518814935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122518814935","url":null,"abstract":"Abeyta, Agnieszka Ackerbauer, Kimberly Adams, Alex Adeola, Mobolaji Akers, Julie Alalawi, Mai Allen, Bryan Alvarez-Risco, Aldo Anders, Stephanie Anderson, Shawn D. Asal, Nicole Bain, Kevin Baker, Michelle Bandy, Veronica T. Barenholtz Levy, Hedva Barros, Michael C. Bishop, Bryan Black, Robin Boisvert, Louis Bright, David Brown, Jacob Bruce, Susan Buchman, Christina Buckel, Whitney Burgess, Sarah Burghardt, Kyle Burka, Abigail Byerly, Wesley Bystrak, Tamara Carter, Chris Cates, Marshall E. Childs-Kean, Lindsey Chiu, Ada Chong, Christopher Colmenares, Evan Colucci, Vincent J. Conway, Stephanie L. Cook, Elizabeth Covington, Elizabeth Cowart, Kevin Coz-Yataco, Angel Dash, Ranjeet D’Astoli, Joseph Dawwas, Ghadeer Dean, Stacey R. Deen, Beth Deming, Paulina Dharia, Sheetal Diec, Sandy DiScala, Sandra Ditch, Kristen Dougherty, John A. Eaves, Shannon Eljaaly, Khalid Enderby, Cher Eskazan, Ahmet Emre Eyler, Rachel F. Faley, Brian Farinola, Nicholas Felix, Daniel Fleming, James Gibson, Mara Gónzalez Álvarez, Isabel Gören, Jessica Hashida, Tohru Hashmi, Furqan Hellenga, Nadia Hockman, Rebecca Haynes Hoke, Kathleen House, Naomi Huang, Yen-Ming Hughes, Jonathan Jackson, Kristy Janzen, Kristin Jellinek-Cohen, Samantha P. Johannesmeyer, Herman Kane, Brenna Keeshin, Susana Keresztes, Jan M. Kim, Myeong Gyu Knockel, Laura Kopcza, Kathleen B. Krantz, Erica Krichbaum, Michelle Krikorian, Susan A. Leffler, Michaela Leo, Andrea Levine, Alexander Liao, Siyun Lilliston, Andrea Michelle Liu, Wenxi Lyles, Adraine Lawrence MacDonald, Nancy C. Macedo, Kelly Mahan, Rebecca Malone, Patrick Mathew, Sheryl Mercuro, Nicholas Merrey, Jessica Molino, Suzanne Mospan, Cortney Muir, Justin Okeahialam, Basil Patel, Hansita Pattie, Stacey Baker Pektezel, Mehmet Petite, Sarah Powers, Mary Redfern, Roberta Rein, Leanne Rhalimi, Mounir Rose, Christina Rosselli, Jennifer Russak, Edward Salerno, David Scherrer, Leigh Seed, Sheila Selvi-Sabater, Pablo Skordallos, Sebastian Slugocki, Malgorzata Smith, Susan Snyder, Scott Spence, Nathan A. Spray, Jeffery Steinberg, Michael Steiner, Chris 814935 PMTXXX10.1177/8755122518814935Journal of Pharmacy Technology other2018","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"2013 1","pages":"45 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82697409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-01DOI: 10.1177/8755122517744031
Sakra Saleh, Bandy, L. Jason, Barenholtz Levy, Hedva, Barros, C. Michael, Battaglia, Laura, Kopcza
Abazia, Daniel Adams, Alex Akins, Ronda Al-Shaer, Mohammad Ali, Saadia Alkim, Huseyin Alvarez-Risco, Aldo Bahmaid, Reem Balhareth, Sakra Saleh Bandy, Jason L. Barenholtz Levy, Hedva Barros, Michael C. Battaglia, Jessica N. Bergan, Jennifer Bernknopf, Allison Bonanno, Christina Borja-Hart, Nancy Bork, Sara Brenner, Allison C. Bright, David Britton, Emily Brown, Sherrill J. Bucher, Kasey Burgess, Sarah Burnett, Yvonne Byrnes, Holly Cates, Marshall E. Chaddha, Ashish Chong, Christopher Clements, Jennifer N. Cocchio, Craig Coletti, Daniel Cox, Laura McIntyre Cristofaro, Lisa Dault, Roxanne DeRemer, David DiMondi, Vincent Dunham, Marissa Dunn, Deanna Dutta Choudhury, Shubhasree Ellis, Mary Elsey, Rachel Evans, Shelby Eyler, Rachel F. Faley, Brian Fink, Joseph Fox, Lanae Fuji, Kevin Gillette, Michael Golchin, Negar Goldshtein, Inbal Hahn, Lindsay Hale, Charity Hansen, Kevin Hawks, Kelly Hein, Bradley E. Hill, Jordan Hohmeier, Kenneth Hui, Adrian Hutchison, Lisa Comer Jensen, Leon K. Jordan, Melanie Joseph, Merlyn Justis, Leanne Kang-Birken, Sunghe Lena Kaur, Upinder Keresztes, Jan M. Kliethermes, Mary Ann Knockel, Laura Kopcza, Kathleen B. Kouladjian O’Donnell, Lisa Krajewski, Kristin Lacher, Barbara Laskey, Dayne LaVance, Anne Leonard, Charles Li Ying, Huang Lin, Shin Yi Ling, Hua Lukasiewicz, Ronald H. Manzor Mitrzyk, Beatriz McCoy, Cheryl Merino-Bohórquez, Vicente Morin, Lucas Mruk, Allison Munsour, Emad Eldin Newman, Luke Papadopoulos, Nikolaos Park, Jiehye Patanwala, Asad Pegram, Angela Pervanas, Helen Peterson, Tim Pon, Tiffany Powers, Mary Priano, James Quinn, Andrea Renfro, Chelsea Rice, Kathryn Roberts, Gregory Robinson, Renee F. Rose, Adam J. Rosselli, Jennifer Sargin, Gokhan Scott, James D. Seed, Sheila Serlemitsos-Day, Maritsa Shea, Peter Shin, Maria Sirois, Caroline Skinner, Brian Spooner, Linda M. Stading, Julie A. Stevens, Brooke Stewart, Kyana Stultz, Jeremy Sullivan, Karyn Takieddine, Sheila Tawil, Samah Thompson, Alyssa Thornton, James Thurston, Maria Traeger, Jessica 744031 PMTXXX10.1177/8755122517744031Journal of Pharmacy Technology research-article2017
Abazia,丹尼尔·亚历克斯·亚当斯Akins任务Al-Shaer,穆罕默德·阿里,Saadia Alkim, Huseyin Alvarez-Risco, Aldo Bahmaid, Reem Balhareth Sakra萨利赫武器、杰森·L . Barenholtz Levy,巴罗斯,迈克尔·C .战斗,Jessica Hedva皮娜Bergan号,Jennifer Bernknopf,艾莉森,Christina Borja-Hart,南希的贡献,莎拉·布伦纳艾莉森,C .布莱特,大卫·艾米丽·布朗,Sherrill J . Bucher, Kasey伯吉斯,莎拉·马歇尔Burnett, Yvonne Byrnes,霍莉Cates Chaddha、克里斯托弗·克莱门茨Ashish Chong,,Jennifer Cocchio号,克雷格·Coletti,丹尼尔·考克斯,劳拉McIntyre Cristofaro, Lisa Dault, Roxanne DeRemer、大卫·DiMondi玛丽莎•邓恩,Deanna Vincent Dunham Dutta乔杜里Shubhasree Ellis,玛丽Elsey,蕾切尔·埃文斯,Eyler谢尔比,蕾切尔·F . Faley Brian Fink、约瑟夫·福克斯、Lanae富士、凯文·吉列迈克尔·Golchin剥夺他们Goldshtein,哈恩Inbal,林赛Hale,接生婆慈善Hansen,凯文·凯利Hawks, Hein, Bradley E . Hill,肯尼斯·乔丹Hohmeier詹森Adrian和记黄埔,Lisa Comer,杨辉Leon Merlyn Justis,梅勒妮·约瑟夫·K . Jordan, Leanne Kang-Birken,莉娜Sunghe Kaur, Upinder Keresztes, Jan M . Kliethermes, Mary Ann Knockel劳拉Kopcza、凯瑟琳·B . Kouladjian o ' donnell, Lisa Krajewski, Kristin Lacher,芭芭拉·Laskey, Dayne LaVance,安妮·伦纳德·查尔斯,李英,Huang Lukasiewicz Lin) Shin猫扑Ling,华,罗纳德·H . Manzor Mitrzyk, Beatriz McCoy,谢丽尔Merino-Bohórquez Vicente Morin, Lucas Mruk, Allison Munsour Emad Eldin Newman, Luke Nikolaos朴槿惠,帕帕佐普洛斯Jiehye Patanwala阿萨德Pegram,安吉拉Pervanas、海伦·彼得森,Tim在蒂鲍尔斯、玛丽Priano、詹姆斯·梅特·奎因,安德里亚·Renfro切尔西·凯瑟琳·康多莉扎•赖斯·罗伯茨(Renee ghert F . Rose,格雷戈里·罗宾逊(Mary Robinson)亚当·J . Rosselli,詹妮弗·萨金Gokhan斯科特先生,詹姆斯·D . Seed, Sheila Serlemitsos-Day, cbc Shea,彼得·斯金纳Shin玛丽亚·卡洛琳·Sirois Brian Spooner, Linda M . Stading朱莉。史蒂文斯,布鲁克·斯图尔特、Kyana Stultz,杰里米·沙利文,Karyn Takieddine Sheila Tawil、Samah汤普森Alyssa Thornton, James Thurston, Maria Traeger, Jessica 744040pmtxxx10
{"title":"Reviewer Acknowledgment","authors":"Sakra Saleh, Bandy, L. Jason, Barenholtz Levy, Hedva, Barros, C. Michael, Battaglia, Laura, Kopcza","doi":"10.1177/8755122517744031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122517744031","url":null,"abstract":"Abazia, Daniel Adams, Alex Akins, Ronda Al-Shaer, Mohammad Ali, Saadia Alkim, Huseyin Alvarez-Risco, Aldo Bahmaid, Reem Balhareth, Sakra Saleh Bandy, Jason L. Barenholtz Levy, Hedva Barros, Michael C. Battaglia, Jessica N. Bergan, Jennifer Bernknopf, Allison Bonanno, Christina Borja-Hart, Nancy Bork, Sara Brenner, Allison C. Bright, David Britton, Emily Brown, Sherrill J. Bucher, Kasey Burgess, Sarah Burnett, Yvonne Byrnes, Holly Cates, Marshall E. Chaddha, Ashish Chong, Christopher Clements, Jennifer N. Cocchio, Craig Coletti, Daniel Cox, Laura McIntyre Cristofaro, Lisa Dault, Roxanne DeRemer, David DiMondi, Vincent Dunham, Marissa Dunn, Deanna Dutta Choudhury, Shubhasree Ellis, Mary Elsey, Rachel Evans, Shelby Eyler, Rachel F. Faley, Brian Fink, Joseph Fox, Lanae Fuji, Kevin Gillette, Michael Golchin, Negar Goldshtein, Inbal Hahn, Lindsay Hale, Charity Hansen, Kevin Hawks, Kelly Hein, Bradley E. Hill, Jordan Hohmeier, Kenneth Hui, Adrian Hutchison, Lisa Comer Jensen, Leon K. Jordan, Melanie Joseph, Merlyn Justis, Leanne Kang-Birken, Sunghe Lena Kaur, Upinder Keresztes, Jan M. Kliethermes, Mary Ann Knockel, Laura Kopcza, Kathleen B. Kouladjian O’Donnell, Lisa Krajewski, Kristin Lacher, Barbara Laskey, Dayne LaVance, Anne Leonard, Charles Li Ying, Huang Lin, Shin Yi Ling, Hua Lukasiewicz, Ronald H. Manzor Mitrzyk, Beatriz McCoy, Cheryl Merino-Bohórquez, Vicente Morin, Lucas Mruk, Allison Munsour, Emad Eldin Newman, Luke Papadopoulos, Nikolaos Park, Jiehye Patanwala, Asad Pegram, Angela Pervanas, Helen Peterson, Tim Pon, Tiffany Powers, Mary Priano, James Quinn, Andrea Renfro, Chelsea Rice, Kathryn Roberts, Gregory Robinson, Renee F. Rose, Adam J. Rosselli, Jennifer Sargin, Gokhan Scott, James D. Seed, Sheila Serlemitsos-Day, Maritsa Shea, Peter Shin, Maria Sirois, Caroline Skinner, Brian Spooner, Linda M. Stading, Julie A. Stevens, Brooke Stewart, Kyana Stultz, Jeremy Sullivan, Karyn Takieddine, Sheila Tawil, Samah Thompson, Alyssa Thornton, James Thurston, Maria Traeger, Jessica 744031 PMTXXX10.1177/8755122517744031Journal of Pharmacy Technology research-article2017","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":"37 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84963011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-08-11DOI: 10.1177/8755122517725327
Kenya Ie, Maria A. Felton, S. Springer, Stephen A. Wilson, S. Albert
Background: Prescription-related problems among older adults have been of great interest. However, few data are available regarding the prevalence of these problems in US family medicine residency practices (FMRPs). Objective: The aim of this research was to examine the prevalence of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) use among older adults who visited 5 FMRPs more than once a year. Methods: A cross-sectional hospital record review for patients 65 years or older who visited 1 of the 5 university-affiliated FMRPs at least twice during January 1 to December 31, 2014, was conducted. The prevalence of multimorbidity (24 chronic index conditions), polypharmacy, and PIMs use was examined. Results: A total of 1084 patients were included in the analyses. The most common chronic conditions were hypertension (87.8%), hyperlipidemia (69.7%), and osteoarthritis (56.1%). The mean number of chronic conditions was 5.3 (SD 2.6). The prevalence of multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) was 95.6%. Among these multimorbid older adults (N = 1036), the mean number of medication orders was 9.04 (SD 4.36) and 1.57 (SD 0.92) for PIMs, 86.1% met polypharmacy standards (≥5 medications), and 33.4% were prescribed one or more PIMs. The proportion of patients with fewer prescriptions at the last visit was 45.4% in the polypharmacy group and 38.0% in the PIMs group. Conclusion: Our results suggest a high level of morbidity and complexity among older adults receiving care in FMRPs. Improving the continuity of care as well as promoting interdisciplinary collaboration would have potential to reduce these prescription-related problems. Further research and education to address polypharmacy and PIMs among this population at FMRPs are required.
{"title":"Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy in Family Medicine Residency Practices","authors":"Kenya Ie, Maria A. Felton, S. Springer, Stephen A. Wilson, S. Albert","doi":"10.1177/8755122517725327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/8755122517725327","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Prescription-related problems among older adults have been of great interest. However, few data are available regarding the prevalence of these problems in US family medicine residency practices (FMRPs). Objective: The aim of this research was to examine the prevalence of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) use among older adults who visited 5 FMRPs more than once a year. Methods: A cross-sectional hospital record review for patients 65 years or older who visited 1 of the 5 university-affiliated FMRPs at least twice during January 1 to December 31, 2014, was conducted. The prevalence of multimorbidity (24 chronic index conditions), polypharmacy, and PIMs use was examined. Results: A total of 1084 patients were included in the analyses. The most common chronic conditions were hypertension (87.8%), hyperlipidemia (69.7%), and osteoarthritis (56.1%). The mean number of chronic conditions was 5.3 (SD 2.6). The prevalence of multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) was 95.6%. Among these multimorbid older adults (N = 1036), the mean number of medication orders was 9.04 (SD 4.36) and 1.57 (SD 0.92) for PIMs, 86.1% met polypharmacy standards (≥5 medications), and 33.4% were prescribed one or more PIMs. The proportion of patients with fewer prescriptions at the last visit was 45.4% in the polypharmacy group and 38.0% in the PIMs group. Conclusion: Our results suggest a high level of morbidity and complexity among older adults receiving care in FMRPs. Improving the continuity of care as well as promoting interdisciplinary collaboration would have potential to reduce these prescription-related problems. Further research and education to address polypharmacy and PIMs among this population at FMRPs are required.","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"114 1","pages":"219 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79333268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：