An Evaluation of Managing and Educating Patients on the Risk of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the impact of risk management activities on patient risk of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.MethodsNinety-six adult patients taking chronic glucocorticoid therapy in 15 community pharmacies. Patients in the control group received usual and customary care. Patients in the treatment pharmacies received education and an educational pamphlet about the risks of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. In addition, the treatment group pharmacists monitored the patients' drug therapy, to identify and address drug-related problems. Data including the glucocorticoid taken by the patient, medications, and osteoporosis risk factors were collected at baseline and after 9 months of monitoring, via Web-based survey completed in the pharmacy. Using an intent to treat approach, the pre–post frequency changes were compared with contrasts for presence of bisphosphonate therapy, presence of estrogen therapy, presence of calcium supplement, discussion of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis risk, discussion of bone density test, presence of bone mineral density test, reported inactivity, and reported low calcium diet.ResultsThe contrast was significant in favor of the treatment pharmacies for the frequency of patients taking a calcium supplement (Control [−6.9%] vs. Treatment [17.1%], P < 0.05). No other contrast was significant.ConclusionsCommunity pharmacists are capable of increasing calcium supplementation among patients at risk for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Pharmacists who educate at-risk patients can impact the self-care of these patients

Hypertension Outcomes Through Blood Pressure Monitoring and Evaluation by Pharmacists (HOME Study)

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a community pharmacist–based home blood pressure (BP) monitoring program. DESIGN: Trial of a high-intensity (HI) versus low-intensity (LI) intervention randomized in 12 community pharmacies. The HI intervention comprised 4 face-to-face visits with a trained pharmacist. Pharmacists provided patient-specific education about hypertension. Following the first and third visits, patients were provided with a home BP monitoring device and instructed to measure their BP at least once daily for the next month. Home BP readings were used by the pharmacists to develop treatment recommendations for the patient's physician. Recommendations were discussed with the physician and, if approved, implemented by the pharmacist. In the LI intervention, pharmacists measured patients BP in the pharmacy and referred them to their physician for evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with uncontrolled BP at baseline. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcomes were the differences in systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) from baseline to follow-up between the HI and LI patients. RESULTS: The study enrolled 125 patients, 64 in the HI and 61 in the LI group. From baseline, SBP declined 13.4 mmHg in the HI group and 9.0 mmHg in the LI group. At the final visit, the difference in SBP/DBP change between the HI and LI group was −4.5/−3.2 mmHg (P=.12 for SBP and P=.03 for DBP). CONCLUSIONS: The HI intervention achieved a lower DBP and this model could be a strategy for patients with hypertension