Evaluation of pharmacist-managed diabetes mellitus under a collaborative drug therapy agreement.
ABSTRACT The effect of a pharmacist-managed collaborative drug therapy agreement (CDTA) on diabetes mellitus (DM) management in an outpatient setting is evaluated.
Patients with DM were referred by physicians to the pharmacist for either education or clinical management of DM under the CDTA. A retrospective chart review was conducted between September 2001 and December 2005 and included patients who had laboratory values of interest within one year before and after the initial visit and who had more than two documented visits with the pharmacist. After the pharmacist's intervention in the DM management, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were compared using a paired sample t test. Average costs for inpatient hospitalization and emergency department (ED) admission were also compared.
A total of 110 patients had a mean +/- S.D. of 5.7 +/- 3.9 visits with the pharmacist. A mean reduction in HbA(1c) of 0.7% (p < or = 0.001, n = 93) from 8.9% to 8.2% and a mean reduction in blood glucose of 26.4 mg/dL (p < or = 0.001, n = 99) were achieved. Average costs for inpatient hospitalization and ED admissions were significantly higher in the preintervention period than in the postintervention period for patients with DM as the primary or secondary diagnosis ($2434 versus $636, respectively; p = 0.015). For patients with a primary diagnosis of diabetes, preintervention costs were higher than postintervention costs, but this difference was not significant ($3082 versus $696, respectively; p = 0.100).
Pharmacist interventions under a CDTA resulted in significant improvements in glucose and HbA(1c) levels in patients with DM. Postintervention costs for inpatient hospitalization and ED services were significantly less than preintervention costs when DM was a primary or secondary diagnosis for the admission.
- SourceAvailable from: amcp.org[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections in infants and young children. Most children are exposed to the virus before they are 2 years old and experience such symptoms as cough, fever, and irritability. In a select population of infants, the virus can cause hypoxemia and hospitalization. To avoid hospitalization, good infection control practices should be employed, and for those infants at high risk, prophylaxis with palivizumab is indicated. Palivizumab has been shown to reduce hospitalization rates in high-risk infants by 50%. Because of the high cost of palivizumab, it is prudent to use this medication in the population in which it will be most effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) established the criteria for those infants who would benefit the most from palivizumab prophylaxis, and these criteria were the foundation for a prior authorization (PA) program to determine coverage of palivizumab in a health plan of approximately 500,000 members. To (a) analyze the appropriateness of this PA program for palivizumab used prophylactically for RSV, and (b) determine the financial cost associated with the medication and disease for this health plan. A 3-year, retrospective study was conducted from the 2005- 2006 RSV season through the 2007-2008 season. The primary endpoint outcome was the hospitalization rate associated with RSV infection. Secondary endpoints included the cost of palivizumab and RSV-related emergency room (ER) utilization. Infants were placed into 2 groups: those who received PA approval for use of palivizumab and those who were denied coverage in the PA process. Disease-related hospitalization and ER visits were identified by at least 1 administrative claim containing either a primary or secondary ICD-9-CM code for any of the following: RSV (079.6), acute bronchiolitis caused by RSV (466.11), or pneumonia caused by RSV (480.1). Drug cost was defined as the health plan's allowed amount, which is based on a predefined fee schedule for the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 90378 for palivizumab. Hospital and ER costs are the health plan allowed amounts (health plan plus member cost) based on the reimbursement rates determined by diagnosis related group (DRG) and other coding, and the plan-allowed amount based on DRGs includes all services and drugs provided in the specific encounter. Drug cost avoided was calculated as the average cost of palivizumab treatment per episode multiplied by the number of infants denied coverage of palivizumab over the 3-year study period. Over 3 RSV seasons through May 2008, the PA program received 1,090 requests for coverage of palivizumab, of which 348 (31.9%) were denied. Of 742 PA-approved infants, 629 received at least 1 dose of palivizumab. The mean (SD) gestational age of the PA-denied group was 34.4 (2.5) weeks versus 32.5 (4.0) weeks for the PA-approved group (P < 0.001). In the PA-denied group, 14 infants (4.0%) were subsequently hospitalized with an RSV infection, and 5 (1.4%) had an RSV-related ER visit versus 40 (6.4%) hospitalized and 14 (2.2%) with ER visits for infants in the PA-approved group (P = 0.055 and P = 0.019, respectively); 15 (4.3%) of the PA-denied group had either a hospitalization or an ER visit versus 42 (6.6%) in the PA-approved group (P = 0.060). One patient in the palivizumab PA-approved group died. Over the 3 RSV seasons, the mean number of palivizumab doses and mean allowed palivizumab cost per treatment episode (per infant per season) were 3.64 and $6,950, respectively, and the average allowed palivizumab cost was $7,702 per utilizing infant. Total per infant costs for palivizumab, RSV hospitalizations, and RSV-related ER visits were $8,534 for infants receiving palivizumab compared with $223 for those denied palivizumab coverage (P = 0.002). Drug cost avoidance associated with the PA program was estimated to be $2,418,600 (348 infants times $6,950 palivizumab cost per episode) over the 3 RSV seasons. In a 500,000-member health plan, a PA program to restrict palivizumab use in accordance with AAP recommendations was associated with estimated palivizumab drug cost avoidance of more than $2.4 million over 3 years. There was no significant difference in the RSV-related hospitalization rate for the PA-denied versus the PA-approved groups, but the PA-denied group had a slightly lower rate of RSV-related ER visits.Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 01/2010; 16(1):15-22. · 2.68 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: agents administered during hospi- talization at a tertiary care acade- mic medical center. The retrospec- tive analysis was conducted over 1 year. A total of 416 allergies were reported among 300 patients; more than 1 allergy was reported by more than one-fourth of study patients (82/300 (27.3%)). Only 36.3% (151/416) of allergies reported were accompanied by a reaction description (95% confi- dence interval (CI), 31.7% to
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: MEDICATION SAFETY Overlooked Renal Dosage Adjustments A retrospective analysis of 647 patients at hospital discharge com-pared required renal dosage adjust-ments to dosage actually prescribed. This study was conducted at VieCuri Medical Centre in Venlo, Netherlands. Patient demographics and renal function data were col-lected, and dosage adjustment needs were assessed via the pharmacy-supported discharge counseling ser-vice. The incidence of inappropriate dosing based on renal function was measured at hospital discharge. Thirty-seven percent of patients evaluated during the study period (237/647) had a creatinine clear-ance less than 51 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; dosage adjustment was warranted in 23.9% (411/1,718) of prescrip-tions. When dosage adjustment should have been performed, more than 40% of prescriptions (169/411; 41.1%) were inappropri-ate for renal function (9.8% of pre-scriptions overall; 169/1,718). Fur-thermore, 60.4% (102/169) of inappropriate prescriptions pos-sessed the potential for moderate or severe clinical consequences, as evaluated by a panel of two clinical pharmacologists and one nephrolo-gist. Study authors also noted a lack of standardized dosing guidelines for agents requiring renal dosage adjustment. The authors also sug-gested that augmenting medication systems by adding dynamic renal dosing alerts would improve moni-toring. Summary: A comparison of suggested renal dosing and actual dosing at hospital discharge revealed that appropriate prescribing may be overlooked. van Dijk EA, Drabbe NRG, Kruijtbosch M, De Smet PAGM. Drug dosage adjust-ments according to renal function at hos-pital discharge. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:1254-1260.Hospital pharmacy 12/1122; 41. DOI:10.1310/hpj4311-937