Bronchodilator drugs are the foundation for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The principal inhaled bronchodilator treatments used are β(2) -agonists and anticholinergics, either alone or in combination. Currently available β(2) -agonists are of either short duration and used multiple times/day, or of long duration, which requires twice-daily administration. Indacaterol is considered an ultra-long-acting β(2) -agonist and was recently approved for use in the United States. Its duration of action is approximately 24 hours, allowing for once-daily administration. Cough was the most commonly reported adverse effect with use of indacaterol. Cough usually occurred within 15 seconds of inhalation of the drug, lasted around 6 seconds, was not associated with bronchospasm, and did not cause discontinuation of the drug. Otherwise, the drug's safety profile was similar to that of other bronchodilators. Based on similar improvement in spirometric measurements compared with other bronchodilator drugs and the convenience of its once-daily dosing, indacaterol may be beneficial in the management of mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, either alone or in combination with anticholinergic drugs administered once/day.

Effective utilization of evidence-based medicine requires skillful development of a critical literature evaluation process. Although traditional journal club activities are a common modality to teach and refine these skills, they may limit a learner’s motivation to perform a well-rounded critique of primary literature. Innovation: In response to the challenges with these traditional formats, we describe a novel approach to refining critical literature evaluation skills in an Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) setting utilizing a focused, article-centric journal club debate. Students, in pairs, are assigned a single article and are tasked with building critical arguments for both pro and con sides of the article, which culminates in a one-on-one debate. Key Findings: The debate has been well received by students and faculty for increasing engagement in the critical literature evaluation process. The article-centric nature of the debate pushes students to a deeper understanding of an article’s merits and pitfalls. Ongoing limitations include significant faculty assessment burden and lack of a standardized, debate-specific evaluation rubric. Next Steps: Future efforts should focus on evaluating student performance and perceptions of the debate compared to traditional journal club formats utilizing pre- and post- surveys.  The creation of a debate-specific grading rubric may streamline the evaluation process and reduce faculty assessment burden.   Article Type:  Note

Background: Medication nonadherence leads to an increase in morbidity and mortality. In the United States, it results in an annual estimated cost of $290 billion in patients with chronic diseases. Several adherence screening tools are available for use, but none have been adopted for widespread use. Objective: Examine the impact of using a novel 3-item adherence tool (The Adherence Estimator) and individualized patient counseling on medication adherence, as determined by rate of initial prescription fill. Methods: This prospective, descriptive study enrolled patients discharged home from an inpatient adult family medicine service who received a prescription for at least one new chronic medication. Patients completed the Adherence Estimator survey for each new medication prescribed. All patients received counseling from a pharmacist or student pharmacist. Date of initial fill was determined by contacting the dispensing pharmacy. Results: The survey was completed for 79 medications. The rate of first fill for medications identified as low, medium, and high risk for nonadherence was 76.5% (n = 28), 71.4% (n = 20), and 94% (n = 17), respectively. Conclusions: The brevity of The Adherence Estimator and the ease of scoring allow the possibility of adoption for widespread clinical use. The survey permits immediate results that allow the clinician to tailor medication counseling toward the 3 most common predictors of nonadherence. The rate of first fill for medications classified as high risk was improved following administration of the tool and targeted medication counseling, 94% in our population compared to predicted probability of adherence of <32%. Several factors, including targeted counseling or study/tool limitations, could account for these results. Consideration should be given to revising the statements in the tool to a lower reading level. This screening tool provides significant advantages over available tools; however, further research is needed to determine the most appropriate population and setting for use of this tool.

No abstract