Little is known about the general public’s perceptions regarding community pharmacist-delivered naloxone services at the national level. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to describe the US general public’s awareness, knowledge, beliefs, comfort, perceived barriers, abilities, and communication preferences related to community pharmacy-based naloxone services. A national, online cross-sectional survey was conducted in September 2021 among US adults ≥18 years recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Primary outcome measures were assessed via 5-point Likert-type scales, including: (1) naloxone awareness and knowledge; (2) naloxone beliefs; (3) comfort with pharmacist-provided naloxone; (4) perceived barriers to pharmacy-based naloxone; (5) opioid overdose competencies, concerns, and readiness; and (6) preferred pharmacist-patient naloxone communication strategy. Analyses included descriptive statistics and logistic regression models to assess predictors of preferred communication strategies. Of 301 respondents, 82.1% were White, 48.8% female, and mean 43 years. Eighty-five percent were unaware of pharmacy-provided naloxone and mean [SD] knowledge score was low (29.3% [16.8]). Mean [SD] beliefs (3.78 [0.61]) and comfort (3.70 [0.54]) were positive, while perceived barriers were low/neutral (2.93 [0.78]). For communication, 54% preferred general advertisement, 32.9% universal offer, and 13.3% targeted offer. The odds of preferring a general advertisement or universal offer over a targeted offer increased with greater awareness (AOR:4.52; p = 0.003) and comfort (AOR:3.79; p = 0.003), and decreased with greater competence (AOR:0.35; p = 0.001). Although awareness and knowledge regarding community pharmacy-based naloxone services was low, beliefs and comfort were positive and perceived barriers were low/neutral. General or universal offers of naloxone were preferred over targeted approaches. Future studies should test the impact of communication strategies on naloxone uptake.

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose To provide an overview of the safety and efficacy, pharmacology, dosing, place in therapy, and clinical trials for tirzepatide, a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Summary Diabetes is a chronic disease state with a high burden on healthcare spending and patient quality of life. Incretin-influencing agents such as GLP-1 receptor agonists have gained favor as diabetes therapeutic options due to their impact on multiple glycemic factors as well as resulting weight loss and cardiovascular benefits. Tirzepatide was approved in 2022 for the management of type 2 diabetes and utilizes GLP-1 receptor agonism along with GIP agonism to simultaneously address 2 incretin pathways. Thus far, the SURPASS and SURMOUNT trials, for which findings have been published, have shown great efficacy of tirzepatide in glycosylated hemoglobin and weight reduction in multiple subgroup populations with and without diabetes. Tirzepatide has similar gastrointestinal adverse reactions and contraindications as traditional GLP-1 receptor agonists. Conclusion Tirzepatide is a novel agent on the market for type 2 diabetes management that offers targeting of a familiar pathway along with the new GIP pathway to address glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Tirzepatide is approved for use in patients with diabetes and may serve as a strong option for patients requiring improved glycemic and weight control.

Background: Patient care in the community pharmacy setting is often hindered due to limited access to adequate patient health information (PHI). Various studies suggest that lack of access to PHI is a main reason for delay in pharmaceutical care, medication dispensing errors, and lacking interprofessional relationships between prescribers and pharmacists. Literature has shown that interprofessional collaboration and improved access to PHI can improve transitions of care and communication for pharmacists, but literature is sparse on implementation of electronic health record (HER) access within independent community pharmacies. Methods: This observational study follows implementation of HER access into a rural community pharmacy to enhance common clinical services carried out by pharmacy staff. Metrics include number of enhanced consultations by pharmacy staff, type of consultations provided, potential reimbursement, decreased need to follow up with other providers, potential for decreased time to treatment or refills, and aspects of EHR most utilized during search. Results: Two-hundred sixty three patients’ profiles were assessed, with 164 (62.4%) deemed appropriate for EHR access and searching. Most interventions made were related to cardiovascular, endocrinologic, neuropsychiatric, and COVID-19 therapy medications. Conclusion: EHR access in community pharmacy has the potential to improve both the quality and availability of clinical patient interventions through enhanced knowledge of PHI.

There is a paucity of literature regarding the optimal selection of combination antiseizure medications (ASMs) for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate current evidence related to "rational polytherapy" among adults with DRE. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SCr) guidelines, PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched using DRE-and polytherapy-related keywords. The exclusion criteria applied included: non-English; non-human studies; non-research studies; participants less than 18 years; status epilepticus; ASM monotherapy; and certain ASMs. In Covidence, two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion at each phase, with a third resolving conflicts. Data were extracted, with quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Of the 6477 studies imported for screening, 33 studies were included. Clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes were reported by 26, 12, and one study, respectively.Common efficacy-related clinical outcomes included ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency (n = 14), seizure freedom (n = 14), and percent reduction in seizure frequency (n = 8). Common humanistic outcomes included quality of life (n = 4), medication adherence (n = 2), sleep-related outcomes (n = 2), and physician and patient global assessments (n = 2). The economic study reported quality-adjusted life years. The median MMAT score was 80 (range: 60-100). Two studies referenced the standard definition of DRE, whereas five studies did not specifically define DRE. Gaps in the literature include limited generalizability, minimal reports in pregnancy, and lack of optimal ASM combinations, among others. Strengths of the evidence include addressing a variety of outcomes. Inconsistent definitions of DRE, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity among studies limit the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Optimal combinations of ASMs for rational polytherapy for DRE is unclear.

No abstract