Updating the Model: The Case for Independent Pharmacy to Embrace Digital Health

Objectives: To advocate for independent pharmacy to embrace digital health as a means to improve patient outcomes and compete more strongly in an increasingly competitive business environment. Summary: Independent pharmacies are positioned to be at the forefront of adopting digital health tools for a variety of reasons.  They often can make changes to their business model faster than a major retail chain, are often in rural locations where few other providers are located, and are already starting to offer the types of clinical services that can be greatly aided by digital health. This commentary presents the case for a change in the current model of pharmacy practice to one which embraces digital health. The role of the pharmacist would grow beyond exclusively medication management to incorporate tools such as wearable health trackers and mobile phone applications. By utilizing digital health, the pharmacist can obtain a greater amount of patient health data via an asynchronous electronic uploading process, and then use that data to further improve their ability to offer clinical services. Conclusion: Digital health is a powerful tool that should be embraced by independent pharmacy. By leveraging digital health, pharmacies can improve both accessibility and quality of care, thus providing a competitive advantage in the retail marketplace.   Article Type: Commentar

Clinical decision support tools: analysis of online drug information databases

BACKGROUND: Online drug information databases are used to assist in enhancing clinical decision support. However, the choice of which online database to consult, purchase or subscribe to is likely made based on subjective elements such as history of use, familiarity, or availability during professional training. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical decision support tools for drug information by systematically comparing the most commonly used online drug information databases. METHODS: Five commercially available and two freely available online drug information databases were evaluated according to scope (presence or absence of answer), completeness (the comprehensiveness of the answers), and ease of use. Additionally, a composite score integrating all three criteria was utilized. Fifteen weighted categories comprised of 158 questions were used to conduct the analysis. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square were used to summarize the evaluation components and make comparisons between databases. Scheffe's multiple comparison procedure was used to determine statistically different scope and completeness scores. The composite score was subjected to sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of the choice of percentages for scope and completeness. RESULTS: The rankings for the databases from highest to lowest, based on composite scores were Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, Lexi-Comp Online, Facts & Comparisons 4.0, Epocrates Online Premium, RxList.com, and Epocrates Online Free. Differences in scope produced three statistical groupings with Group 1 (best) performers being: Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, Facts & Comparisons 4.0, Lexi-Comp Online, Group 2: Epocrates Premium and RxList.com and Group 3: Epocrates Free (p < 0.05). Completeness scores were similarly stratified. Collapsing the databases into two groups by access (subscription or free), showed the subscription databases performed better than the free databases in the measured criteria (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Online drug information databases, which belong to clinical decision support, vary in their ability to answer questions across a range of categories

Ability of online drug databases to assist in clinical decision-making with infectious disease therapies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Infectious disease (ID) is a dynamic field with new guidelines being adopted at a rapid rate. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) have proven beneficial in selecting treatment options to improve outcomes. However, there is a dearth of information on the abilities of CDSTs, such as drug information databases. This study evaluated online drug information databases when answering infectious disease-specific queries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight subscription drug information databases: American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information (AHFS), Clinical Pharmacology (CP), Epocrates Online Premium (EOP), Facts & Comparisons 4.0 Online (FC), Lexi-Comp (LC), Lexi-Comp with AHFS (LC-AHFS), Micromedex (MM), and PEPID PDC (PPDC) and six freely accessible: DailyMed (DM), DIOne (DIO), Epocrates Online Free (EOF), Internet Drug Index (IDI), Johns Hopkins ABX Guide (JHAG), and Medscape Drug Reference (MDR) were evaluated for their scope (presence of an answer) and completeness (on a 3-point scale) in answering 147 infectious disease-specific questions. Questions were divided among five classifications: antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, antiparasitic, and vaccination/immunization. Classifications were further divided into categories (e.g., dosage, administration, emerging resistance, synergy, and spectrum of activity). Databases were ranked based on scope and completeness scores. ANOVA and Chi-square were used to determine differences between individual databases and between subscription and free databases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Scope scores revealed three discrete tiers of database performance: Tier 1 (82-77%), Tier 2 (73-65%) and Tier 3 (56-41%) which were significantly different from each other (p < 0.05). The top tier performers: MM (82%), MDR (81%), LC-AHFS (81%), AHFS (78%), and CP (77%) answered significantly more questions compared to other databases (p < 0.05). Top databases for completeness were: MM (97%), DM (96%), IDI (95%), and MDR (95%). Subscription databases performed better than free databases in all categories (p = 0.03). Databases suffered from 37 erroneous answers for an overall error rate of 1.8%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Drug information databases used in ID practice as CDSTs can be valuable resources. MM, MDR, LC-AHFS, AHFS, and CP were shown to be superior in their scope and completeness of information, and MM, AHFS, and MDR provided no erroneous answers. There is room for improvement in all evaluated databases.</p

Top 10 Blockchain Predictions for the (Near) Future of Healthcare

To review blockchain lessons learned in 2018 and near-future predictions for blockchain in healthcare, Blockchain in Healthcare Today (BHTY) asked the world's blockchain in healthcare experts to share their insights. Here, our internationally-renowned BHTY peer-review board discusses their major predictions. Based on their responses, presented in detail below, ten major themes (Table) for the future of blockchain in healthcare will emerge over the 12 months

Clinically relevant safety issues associated with St. John's wort product labels

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>St. John's wort (SJW), used to treat depression, is popular in the USA, Canada, and parts of Europe. However, there are documented interactions between SJW and prescription medications including warfarin, cyclosporine, indinavir, and oral contraceptives. One source of information about these safety considerations is the product label. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinically relevant safety information included on labeling in a nationally representative sample of SJW products from the USA.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight clinically relevant safety issues were identified: drug interactions (SJW-HIV medications, SJW-immunosupressants, SJW-oral contraceptives, and SJW-warfarin), contraindications (bipolar disorder), therapeutic duplication (antidepressants), and general considerations (phototoxicity and advice to consult a healthcare professional (HCP)). A list of SJW products was identified to assess their labels. Percentages and totals were used to present findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the seventy-four products evaluated, no product label provided information for all 8 evaluation criteria. Three products (4.1%) provided information on 7 of the 8 criteria. Four products provided no safety information whatsoever. Percentage of products with label information was: SJW-HIV (8.1%), SJW-immunosupressants (5.4%), SJW-OCPs (8.1%), SJW-warfarin (5.4%), bipolar (1.4%), antidepressants (23.0%), phototoxicity (51.4%), and consult HCP (87.8%). Other safety-related information on labels included warnings about pregnancy (74.3%), lactation (64.9%), discontinue if adverse reaction (23.0%), and not for use in patients under 18 years old (13.5%). The average number of <it>a priori </it>safety issues included on a product label was 1.91 (range 0–8) for 23.9% completeness.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The vast majority of SJW products fail to adequately address clinically relevant safety issues on their labeling. A few products do provide an acceptable amount of information on clinically relevant safety issues which could enhance the quality of counseling by HCPs and health store clerks. HCPs and consumers may benefit if the FDA re-examined labeling requirements for dietary supplements.</p

Evaluation of State Drug Information Resource Requirements

Background. Requirements for drug information (DI) resources can differ by state, practice setting or specialty. Objective. To determine each State’s requirements for the type and format of DI resources that must be kept in a pharmacy according to general or specialty practice. Methods. All States were targeted to identify mandated DI resources. Criteria were: 1) whether a range or specified references are permitted, 2) if general resources or specialty practices require additional references, 3) whether format (i.e. print or electronic) is specified, and 4) if law resources are mandated. Information was culled from each State’s Board of Pharmacy. Results. All Boards of Pharmacy listed reference requirements. Sixty-five percent of States specified additional resources according to specialty or site including: chemotherapy, compounding, dialysis, immunization, parenterals, nuclear/radiopharmaceuticals, sterile injectables, as well as clinics, hospital pharmacies, home health services, opioid treatment programs, specialty pharmacies, long-term care pharmacies, prison clinics, and tele-pharmacies. Only 3.8% of States (South Dakota and Minnesota) require print or hardcopy editions of resources must be kept in the pharmacy. Seventy-seven percent of States also mandate that current law resources must be maintained in the pharmacy. Conclusion. Almost all States now allow electronic resources to satisfy Board of Pharmacy requirements. The majority of States also require that DI resources other than core holdings be maintained when the scope or setting includes specialty practices. Consequently, pharmacists need to be aware that their scope of practice can dictate which DI resources they need to maintain to be in compliance for their State