Aims To investigate how seamless pharmaceutical care could be delivered. Methods Elderly patients discharged from hospital, to their own home, were randomized into control and study groups. Control and study group patients received the normal discharge information. The study group were also counselled about their medicines and informed about their pharmaceutical care plan. Copies of the plan were given to the study patients. All patients received a domiciliary visit between 7 and 10 days after discharge. Their current medication was compared with that on discharge and contact was made with the General Practitioner as appropriate. Results Twenty‐eight study and 25 control patients with a mean (s.d.) age of 77.5 (7.3) and 77.6 (6.1) years completed the study. A pharmaceutical domiciliary visit was necessary for 21 (75%) and 24 (96%) of the study and control patients respectively. Compliance was better (P<0.01) in the study group. Unintentional changes to the medication of 31 (14 study and 17 control) patients were found during the visit and after contact with the prescriber all but one prescription was restored to that on discharge. Conclusions At present it is difficult to ensure seamless pharmaceutical care. A pharmaceutical domiciliary visit may be useful to ensure seamless therapeutic care and thus avoid unnecessary healthcare events and costs after a patient is discharged home.

Objective:To assess if the pharmacy department should be more involved in the medication reconciliation process to assist in the reduction of medication errors that occur during transition of care points in the hospital setting.Methods:This was an observational prospective cohort study at a 531-bed hospital in Pensacola, FL from June 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014. Patients were included in the study if they had health insurance and were taking five or more medications. Patients with congestive heart failure were excluded from the study. Student pharmacists collected and evaluated medication histories obtained from patients’ community pharmacies, and directed patient interviews. Primary care providers were only contacted on an as needed basis. The information collected was presented to the clinical pharmacist, where interventions were made utilizing clinical judgment.Results:During the three month study, 1045 home medications were reviewed by student pharmacist. Of these, 290 discrepancies were discovered (27.8%; p=0.02). The most common medication discrepancy found was dose optimization (45.5%). The remaining discrepancies included: added therapy (27.6%), other (15.2%), and discontinued therapy (11.7%). Pharmacists made 143 interventions based on clinical judgment (49.3%; p=0.04).Conclusion:Involvement of pharmacy personnel during the medication reconciliation process can be an essential component in reducing medical errors. With the addition of the pharmacy department during the admission process, accuracy, cost savings, and patient safety across all phases and transition points of care were achieved.

Background:Many medications can be used safely and effectively to provide health benefits for disease state management during pregnancy with minimal risk to the fetus or mother. Today nine out of ten women take at least one medication during pregnancy, and the number of women taking four or more medications has more than doubled over the past 30 years. However, the lack of safety data combined with the generalizations of the current risk category system (A, B, C, D, X) makes risk versus benefit assessment difficult.Discussion:In response to these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to implement a new pregnancy and lactation labeling rule designed to improve risk versus benefit assessment of drugs used in pregnant and nursing mothers; this rule is set to take effect in June of 2015. This change is designed to provide clear and detailed information for both patients and healthcare providers pertaining to three main categories: pregnancy, lactation, and females and males of reproductive potential. The new labeling rule also removes the previous letter risk categorization system.Conclusion:The upcoming changes regarding pregnancy and lactation safety labeling are going to have a vast impact on drug safety interpretation and prescribing practices. While this rule will provide practitioners with more detailed information pertaining to pregnancy, lactation, and reproduction, it will also place more responsibility on the practitioners to ensure the safety of their patients. This review will summarize these changes and discuss their potential effect on clinical practice.

This review analyzes Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin 9 inhibitors (PCSK-9), a new medication class that has arisen in the last year to combat hypercholesterolemia. They are targeted towards patients who are unable to achieve acceptable low density lipoprotein (LDL) levels despite maximum statin therapy, as well as those who are unable to tolerate maximum statin therapy due to side effects such as myopathy or myalgia. Two of these medications have been released in the last year: alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). This article will overview this medication class, describe their pathophysiology, and analyze the clinical data from the numerous studies and trials done on both of these medications for their efficacy and safety outcomes. Data compiled on this new class of medications support the research that PCSK-9 inhibitors are both a safe and effective means of lowering the LDL levels of resistant or otherwise currently unmanaged hypercholesterolemia patients.

Background Medication cost does not solely dictate patient preference of brand name or generic medications. However, few studies have been completed to assess the influence of other factors, such as demographics and chronic diseases. Methods Responses were collected from 347 English speaking adults in the United States, age 18 and older, pertaining to demographics, diagnosed conditions, preference and knowledge of brand and generic medications. Results Participants with COPD, epilepsy, and high cholesterol felt that their condition influenced their preference of brand or generic medication more as compared with participants diagnosed with other conditions. If cost was not an issue, then 46% of respondents would prefer the brand name product, while 18% of participants felt their preference depended on the condition that the medication was intended to treat. Roughly one-third of the participants did not fully understand why there are both brand name and generic medications, and education level did not impact comprehension significantly. Conclusion The incentive for generic preference over brand name is primarily due to cost differences. However, improvement of education pertaining to brand/generic equivalency is needed, as some patients still believe brand name medications are superior to generic alternatives for certain disease states.