BackgroundIt is estimated that 9.3% of the population in the United States have diabetes mellitus (DM), 28% of which are undiagnosed. The high prevalence of DM makes it a common comorbid condition in hospitalized patients. In recent years, government agencies and healthcare systems have increasingly focused on 30-day readmission rates to determine the complexity of their patient populations and to improve quality. Thirty-day readmission rates for hospitalized patients with DM are reported to be between 14.4 and 22.7%, much higher than the rate for all hospitalized patients (8.5–13.5%). The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the incidence and causes of 30-day readmission rates for patients with diabetes listed as either the primary reason for the index admission or with diabetes listed as a secondary diagnosis compared to those without DM and (2) evaluate the impact on readmission of two specialized inpatient DM services: the Hyperglycemic Intensive Insulin Program (HIIP) and Endocrine Consults (ENDO).MethodsFor this study, DM was defined as any ICD-9 discharge diagnosis (principal or secondary) of 250.xx. Readmissions were defined as any unscheduled inpatient admission, emergency department (ED) visit, or observation unit stay. We analyzed two separate sets of patient data. The first pilot study was a retrospective chart review of all patients with a principle or secondary admission diagnosis of diabetes admitted to any adult service within the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. We then did further uncontrolled analysis of the patients with a principal admitting diagnosis of diabetes. The second larger retrospective study included all adults discharged from UMHS between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014 with principal or secondary discharge diagnosis of DM (ICD-9-CM: 250.xx).ResultsIn the pilot study of 7763 admissions, the readmission rate was 26% for patients with DM and 22% for patients without DM. In patients with a primary diagnosis of DM on index admission, the most common cause for readmission was DM-related. In the larger study were 37,702 adult inpatient discharges between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014. Of these, 20.9% had DM listed as an encounter diagnosis. Rates for all encounters (inpatient, ED and Observation care) were 24.3% in patients with DM compared to 17.7% in those without DM (p < 0.001). The most common cause for readmission in patients with DM as a secondary diagnosis to the index admission was infection-related.During the index hospital stay, only a small proportion of patients with DM (approximately 12%) received any DM service consult. Those who received a DM consult had a higher case mix index compared to those who did not. Despite the higher acuity, there was a lower rate of ED /observation readmission in patients followed by the DM services (6.6% HIIP or ENDO vs. 9.6% no HIIP or ENDO, p = 0.0012), though no difference in the inpatient readmission rates (17.6% HIIP or ENDO vs. 17.4% no HIIP or ENDO, p = 0...

Background Hypertension is a prevalent and costly burden in the United States. Clinical pharmacists within care teams provide effective management of hypertension, as does home blood pressure monitoring; however, concerns about data quality and latency are widespread. One approach to close the gap between clinical pharmacist intervention and home blood pressure monitoring is the use of mobile health (mHealth) technology. Objective We sought to investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of BPTrack, a clinical pharmacist-led intervention that incorporates patient- and clinician-facing apps to make electronically collected, patient-generated data available to providers in real time for hypertension management. The patient app also included customizable daily medication reminders and educational messages. Additionally, this study sought to understand barriers to adoption and areas for improvement identified by key stakeholders, so more widespread use of such interventions may be achieved. Methods We conducted a mixed methods pilot study of BPTrack, to improve blood pressure control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension through a 12-week pre-post intervention. All patients were recruited from a primary care setting where they worked with a clinical pharmacist for hypertension management. Participants completed a baseline visit, then spent 12 weeks utilizing BPTrack before returning to the clinic for follow-up. Collected data from patient participants included surveys pre- and postintervention, clinical measures (for establishing effectiveness, with the primary outcome being a change in blood pressure and the secondary outcome being a change in medication adherence), utilization of the BPTrack app, interviews at follow-up, and chart review. We also conducted interviews with key stakeholders. Results A total of 15 patient participants were included (13 remained through follow-up for an 86.7% retention rate) in a single group, pre-post assessment pilot study. Data supported the hypothesis that BPTrack was feasible and acceptable for use by patient and provider participants and was effective at reducing patient blood pressure. At the 12-week follow-up, patients exhibited significant reductions in both systolic blood pressure (baseline mean 137.3 mm Hg, SD 11.1 mm Hg; follow-up mean 131.0 mm Hg, SD 9.9 mm Hg; P=.02) and diastolic blood pressure (baseline mean 89.4 mm Hg, SD 7.7 mm Hg; follow-up mean 82.5 mm Hg, SD 8.2 mm Hg; P<.001). On average, patients uploaded at least one blood pressure measurement on 75% (SD 25%) of study days. No improvements in medication adherence were noted. Interview data revealed areas of improvement and refinement for the patient experience. Furthermore, stakeholders require integration into the electronic health record and a modified clinical workflow for BPTrack to be truly useful; however, both patients and stakeholders perceived benefits of BPTrack when used within the context of a clinical relationship. Conclusions Results demonstrate that a pharmacist-led mHealth intervention promoting home blood pressure monitoring and clinical pharmacist management of hypertension can be effective at reducing blood pressure in primary care patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Our data also support the feasibility and acceptability of these types of interventions for patients and providers. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02898584; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02898584 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/resprot.8059

At the University of Michigan, PCMH pharmacists currently provide direct patient care services at eight general medicine health centers for patients with diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and polypharmacy via referral from physicians.

BACKGROUND: Despite effective monotherapy for diabetes, approximately 50% of patients require additional medications after 3 years to achieve target glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) < 7%. Three new agents, each the first in its therapeutic class with a unique mechanism of action, have been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes by the U.S. OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of 3 new agents for type 2 diabetes (exenatide and pramlintide by subcutaneous injection and sitagliptin by oral administration) and to define their place in therapy given their relatively high cost and unknown long-term safety and efficacy.METHODS: A MEDLINE search (1950 to June 2007) for English-language articles of studies in human subjects was conducted using these search terms: type 2 diabetes, exenatide, pramlintide, and sitagliptin. This database was supplemented by systematic reviews and meta-analyses through December 2007 and reference citations from the articles identified in the MEDLINE search.RESULTS: Exenatide, pramlintide, and sitagliptin have all been shown to have a modest effect on reducing A1C. In several relatively short-term trials (generally 15-30 weeks in duration), exenatide injection has been shown to be safe and effective for patients with type 2 diabetes who are either at the maximum doses of or cannot tolerate metformin, sulfonylurea, and/or thiazolidinedione therapy and need to further decrease A1C by at least 0.5% to 1%. While weight loss of 1.5 kg to 2.5 kg associated with exenatide is modest, this effect is of obvious value in many patients with type 2 diabetes. Nausea is the most notable side effect with exenatide, occurring in up to 50% of patients within the first 8 weeks of therapy but decreasing to 5% to 10% by week 24. In addition, the risk for hypoglycemia increases 4-to 5-fold when used in combination with sulfonylureas. Like exenatide, pramlintide injection reduces A1C by approximately 0.5% to 1%, carries the advantage of modest weight loss (1.5 kg over 1 year), and has a high incidence of nausea. Pramlintide can also result in severe hypoglycemia because of its ability to enhance the effects of insulin, a concern given that it is only indicated for use in combination with insulin. Sitagliptin is an oral agent that can be used alone or in combination with other oral hypoglycemic agents and has been shown to reduce A1C by 0.5% to 0.7%. It has only been studied in short-term studies, to date, so the long-term safety and efficacy are unknown. There is potential for severe allergic and dermatologic reactions with sitagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: The 3 new agents for the management of type 2 diabetes have been shown to reduce A1C by no more than 1.0%, modest by comparison with insulin and the older oral agents. The 3 newer agents have either modest positive effects on body weight or are weight neutral. The longterm safety and efficacy of the 3 newer agents are unknown, and their cost is considerably higher than the first-line agents, metformin and sufonylureas, which are available by generic n...

No abstract