Pharmacists in Pharmacovigilance: Can Increased Diagnostic Opportunity in Community Settings Translate to Better Vigilance?

The pharmacy profession has undergone substantial change over the last two to three decades. Whilst medicine supply still remains a central function, pharmacist’s roles and responsibilities have become more clinic and patient focused. In the community (primary care), pharmacists have become important providers of healthcare as Western healthcare policy advocates patient self-care. This has resulted in pharmacists taking on greater responsibility in managing minor illness and the delivery of public health interventions. These roles require pharmacists to more fully use their clinical skills, and often involve diagnosis and therapeutic management. Community pharmacists are now, more than ever before, in a position to identify, record and report medication safety incidents. However, current research suggests that diagnostic ability of community pharmacists is questionable and they infrequently report to local or national schemes. The aim of this paper is to highlight current practice and suggest ways in which community pharmacy can more fully contribute to patient safety

Drug utilization and cost in a Medicaid population: A simulation study of community vs. mail order pharmacy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Outpatient drugs are dispensed through both community and mail order pharmacies. There is no empirical evidence that substitution of community pharmacy with mail order reduces overall drug expenditures. The need for evaluating the potential effects on utilization and costs of the possible extension of mail order services in Medicaid provides the rationale for conducting this study. This study compares drug utilization and drug product cost in community vs. mail order pharmacy dispensing services in a Medicaid population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study is a retrospective cohort study comparing utilization and cost patterns in community vs. mail order pharmacy. A simulation model was employed to assess drug utilization and cost in mail order pharmacy using community pharmacy claim data. The model assumed that courses of drug therapy (CDT) in mail order pharmacy would have utilization patterns similar to those found in community pharmacy. A 95% confidence interval surrounding changes in average utilization and average cost were estimated using bootstrap analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed by varying drug selection criteria and supply, fill point, and medication possession ratio (MPR). Sub-analyses were performed to address differences between mail order and community pharmacy related to therapeutic class and dual-eligible patients.</p> <p>Data for the study derived from pharmacy claims database of Ohio Medicaid State program for the period January 2000-September 2004. Drug claims were aggregated to obtain a set of CDTs representing unique patient IDs and unique drug products. Drug product cost estimates excluded dispensing fees and were used to estimate the cost reduction required in mail order to become cost neutral in comparison with community pharmacy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The baseline model revealed that the use of mail order vs. community pharmacy would result in a 5.5% increase in drug utilization and a 5.4% cost reduction required in mail order to become cost neutral. Results from Ohio Medicaid drugs for chronic use revealed a 5.1% increase in utilization and a 4.9% cost reduction required to become cost neutral in comparison with community pharmacy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of the simulation model indicate that mail order pharmacy increases drug utilization and can also increase drug product cost if the cost per unit is not reduced accordingly. Prior consideration should be given to the patient population, day-supply, disease, therapy, and insurance characteristics to ensure the appropriate use of mail order pharmacy services.</p

Combined analgesics in (headache) pain therapy: shotgun approach or precise multi-target therapeutics?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain in general and headache in particular are characterized by a change in activity in brain areas involved in pain processing. The therapeutic challenge is to identify drugs with molecular targets that restore the healthy state, resulting in meaningful pain relief or even freedom from pain. Different aspects of pain perception, i.e. sensory and affective components, also explain why there is not just one single target structure for therapeutic approaches to pain. A network of brain areas ("pain matrix") are involved in pain perception and pain control. This diversification of the pain system explains why a wide range of molecularly different substances can be used in the treatment of different pain states and why in recent years more and more studies have described a superior efficacy of a precise multi-target combination therapy compared to therapy with monotherapeutics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In this article, we discuss the available literature on the effects of several fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of headaches and discuss the evidence in support of the role of combination therapy in the pharmacotherapy of pain, particularly of headaches. The scientific rationale behind multi-target combinations is the therapeutic benefit that could not be achieved by the individual constituents and that the single substances of the combinations act together additively or even multiplicatively and cooperate to achieve a completeness of the desired therapeutic effect.</p> <p>As an example the fixesd-dose combination of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), paracetamol (acetaminophen) and caffeine is reviewed in detail. The major advantage of using such a fixed combination is that the active ingredients act on different but distinct molecular targets and thus are able to act on more signalling cascades involved in pain than most single analgesics without adding more side effects to the therapy.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Multitarget therapeutics like combined analgesics broaden the array of therapeutic options, enable the completeness of the therapeutic effect, and allow doctors (and, in self-medication with OTC medications, the patients themselves) to customize treatment to the patient's specific needs. There is substantial clinical evidence that such a multi-component therapy is more effective than mono-component therapies.</p

Dietary supplement use among academic pharmacists.

United States sales of dietary supplements exceeded $18 billion in 2002, indicating that dietary supplement use is common among the American public. This report describes a survey of academic pharmacists and their use of dietary supplements and herbs. To date, most data comes from retail or community pharmacists, so a survey was developed to collect information regarding dietary supplement and herb usage from academic pharmacists. Academic pharmacists are probably the most knowledgeable group in regards to assessing the clinical value of supplements. Our results showed that 54% of academic pharmacists have used dietary supplements or herbs. However, it is interesting to note that most of the dietary supplements listed were not in the top ten most commonly used supplements. In addition, there was no excessive use of supplements or herbs by this group of pharmacists since the majority of respondents listed multivitamins