No abstract

Accrediting bodies for Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) and postgraduate residency training programs recognize the importance of research and scholarship training. However, specific guidance on how research and scholarship fundamentals should be delivered to trainees has not been provided. As a result, competing priorities often create barriers for trainees to develop research and scholarship skills and limit the trainees' ability to conduct and participate in high‐quality, meaningful research experiences. The purpose of this “how‐to” guide is to assist pharmacy school faculty and pharmacy residency program directors with strategies to overcome programmatic, trainee, and project barriers to providing a high‐quality training experience in research and scholarship. Programmatic topics addressed include institutional support and program oversight, expertise and number of research mentors, incentives for mentor engagement, and competing priorities that diminish time for research activities. Trainee topics include lack of trainee interest in the assigned project, trainee departure prior to project completion, lack of knowledge of the publication process, and time constraints to work on the project. Project topics addressed include time needed to initiate a project, training on methodology relevant to a project, selection of projects that lack rigor, depth, or feasibility, and resource constraints to disseminate project results. A summary of specific recommended actions is provided to effectively overcome these common barriers encountered in research and scholarship training programs.

Purpose The attainment of fundamental research skills to create and disseminate new knowledge is imperative for the advancement of pharmacy practice. Research training is an important component of postgraduate residency training; however, the traditional model of performing residency research has several limitations that have hindered the ability of residents to complete high-quality research projects. Therefore, our institution developed and implemented the flipped residency research model with the 2013–2014 pharmacy practice residency class. Summary The flipped residency research model modifies the research timeline to better align research activities with residents’ abilities at specific time points during the year. In the 4 years following implementation of the flipped residency research model, our institution found improvements in a number of areas pertaining to the research process compared with an evaluation of the 7 years prior to implementation. A decrease in the number of reviews required from institutional review boards was observed, resulting in improved institutional review board efficiency. The flipped residency research model also addressed limitations surrounding manuscript development and submission, as demonstrated by an improved publication rate. Additionally, residents who participated in the flipped residency research model self-reported increased comfort with research-related abilities associated with study design, implementation, manuscript development and submission, and biostatistics. Conclusion The modified research timeline of the flipped residency research model better aligns research activities with resident experiences and abilities. This realignment has translated to demonstrable impact in the success of residency projects and dissemination of results. Research is needed to investigate the impact of the flipped residency research model on longer term scholarly success.

Objectives: To evaluate enhanced renal clearance over time in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage via measured creatinine clearance and to compare measured creatinine clearance to creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault equation and estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Diseases equation. Design: Prospective, observational study. Setting: Neurosciences ICU in a tertiary care academic medical center. Patients: Study participants had an admission diagnosis of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage, an expected neurosciences ICU length of stay greater than 48 hours, no evidence of renal dysfunction (admission serum creatinine < 1.5 mg/dL), and no history of chronic kidney disease. Interventions: Eight-hour urine collections to measure creatinine clearance were collected daily as the primary method of measuring renal function. Creatinine clearance was also calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault equation and estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. Enhanced renal clearance was defined as a measured creatinine clearance greater than the calculated creatinine clearance via Cockcroft-Gault and estimated glomerular filtration rate via Modification of Diet in Renal Disease. Augmented renal clearance was defined by a measured creatinine clearance greater than or equal to 130 mL/min/1.73 m2. Relevant demographic, clinical, and outcome data were recorded. Measurements and Main Results: Fifty aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients and 30 intracerebral hemorrhage patients were enrolled, contributing 590 individual measurements. Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage had a higher mean measured creatinine clearance compared with the mean calculated creatinine clearance based on the Cockcroft-Gault equation (147.9 ± 50.2 vs 109.1 ± 32.7 mL/min/1.73 m2; p < 0.0001) and higher mean measured creatinine clearance compared with the mean calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation (147.9 ± 50.2 vs 126.0 ± 41.9 mL/min/1.73 m2; p = 0.04). Ninety-four percent of participants with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage experienced augmented renal clearance on at least 1 day. In patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, there was a higher mean measured creatinine clearance over the study period compared with the mean calculated creatinine clearance (119.5 ± 57.2 vs 77.8 ± 27.6 mL/min/1.73 m2; p < 0.0001) and higher mean measured creatinine clearance compared with the mean calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation (119.5 ± 57.2 vs 93.0.0 ± 32.8 mL/min/1.73 m2; p = 0.02). Fifty percent of participants with intracerebral hemorrhage experienced augmented renal clearance on at least 1 day. Conclusions: A substantial group of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage experienced enhanced renal clearance, which may be otherwise unknown to clinicians. Enhanced renal clearance may lead to increased renal solute elimination over what is expected, resulting in subtherapeutic renally eliminated drug concentrations. This may result in underexposure to critical medications, leading to treatment failure and other medical complications.

Aspirin has been used for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for several decades. The efficacy of aspirin for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is well established, but the clinical benefit of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD is less clear. The primary literature suggests that aspirin may provide a reduction in CVD events, but the absolute benefit is small and accompanied by an increase in bleeding. For aspirin to be beneficial for an individual patient, the risk of a future CVD event must be large enough to outweigh the risk of bleeding. The estimation of CVD risk is multifaceted and can involve numerous risk scores and assessments of concomitant comorbidities that confer additional CVD risk. Numerous guidelines provide recommendations for the use of aspirin for primary prevention, but they often contradict one another despite being based on the same clinical trials. Additional literature suggests that the presence of comorbidities that increase CVD risk, such as diabetes mellitus, asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease, or chronic kidney disease, does not ensure that aspirin therapy will be beneficial. Ongoing clinical trials may provide additional insight, but until more data are available, an individualized assessment of CVD risk with careful evaluation of risk and benefit should be performed before recommending aspirin therapy for primary prevention of CVD.