Study protocol: the Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) study--a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with diabetes have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of effective BP treatment, yet there are high rates both of poor medication adherence and failure to intensify medications. Successful medication management requires an effective partnership between providers who initiate and increase doses of effective medications and patients who adhere to the regimen. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness study, primary care teams within sites were randomized to a program led by a clinical pharmacist trained in motivational interviewing-based behavioral counseling approaches and authorized to make BP medication changes or to usual care. This study involved the collection of data during a 14-month intervention period in three Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and two Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. The clinical pharmacist was supported by clinical information systems that enabled proactive identification of, and outreach to, eligible patients identified on the basis of poor BP control and either medication refill gaps or lack of recent medication intensification. The primary outcome is the relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements over time. Secondary outcomes are changes in Hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), medication adherence determined from pharmacy refill data, and medication intensification rates. DISCUSSION: Integration of the three intervention elements--proactive identification, adherence counseling and medication intensification--is essential to achieve optimal levels of control for high-risk patients. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention at the team level allows us to study the program as it would typically be implemented within a clinic setting, including how it integrates with other elements of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT00495794.

Accessibility, availability and affordability of anti-malarials in a rural district in Kenya after implementation of a national subsidy scheme.

BACKGROUND: Poor access to prompt and effective treatment for malaria contributes to high mortality and severe morbidity. In Kenya, it is estimated that only 12% of children receive anti-malarials for their fever within 24 hours. The first point of care for many fevers is a local medicine retailer, such as a pharmacy or chemist. The role of the medicine retailer as an important distribution point for malaria medicines has been recognized and several different strategies have been used to improve the services that these retailers provide. Despite these efforts, many mothers still purchase ineffective drugs because they are less expensive than effective artemisinin combination therapy (ACT). One strategy that is being piloted in several countries is an international subsidy targeted at anti-malarials supplied through the retail sector. The goal of this strategy is to make ACT as affordable as ineffective alternatives. The programme, called the Affordable Medicines Facility - malaria was rolled out in Kenya in August 2010. METHODS: In December 2010, the affordability and accessibility of malaria medicines in a rural district in Kenya were evaluated using a complete census of all public and private facilities, chemists, pharmacists, and other malaria medicine retailers within the Webuye Demographic Surveillance Area. Availability, types, and prices of anti-malarials were assessed. There are 13 public or mission facilities and 97 medicine retailers (registered and unregistered). RESULTS: The average distance from a home to the nearest public health facility is 2 km, but the average distance to the nearest medicine retailer is half that. Quinine is the most frequently stocked anti-malarial (61% of retailers). More medicine retailers stocked sulphadoxine-pyramethamine (SP; 57%) than ACT (44%). Eleven percent of retailers stocked AMFm subsidized artemether-lumefantrine (AL). No retailers had chloroquine in stock and only five were selling artemisinin monotherapy. The mean price of any brand of AL, the recommended first-line drug in Kenya, was $2.7 USD. Brands purchased under the AMFm programme cost 40% less than non-AMFm brands. Artemisinin monotherapies cost on average more than twice as much as AMFm-brand AL. SP cost only $0.5, a fraction of the price of ACT. CONCLUSIONS: AMFm-subsidized anti-malarials are considerably less expensive than unsubsidized AL, but the price difference between effective and ineffective therapies is still large.

A Pharmacology-Based Enrichment Program for Undergraduates Promotes Interest in Science.

There is a strong need to increase the number of undergraduate students who pursue careers in science to provide the "fuel" that will power a science and technology-driven U.S. economy. Prior research suggests that both evidence-based teaching methods and early undergraduate research experiences may help to increase retention rates in the sciences. In this study, we examined the effect of a program that included 1) a Summer enrichment 2-wk minicourse and 2) an authentic Fall research course, both of which were designed specifically to support students' science motivation. Undergraduates who participated in the pharmacology-based enrichment program significantly improved their knowledge of basic biology and chemistry concepts; reported high levels of science motivation; and were likely to major in a biological, chemical, or biomedical field. Additionally, program participants who decided to major in biology or chemistry were significantly more likely to choose a pharmacology concentration than those majoring in biology or chemistry who did not participate in the enrichment program. Thus, by supporting students' science motivation, we can increase the number of students who are interested in science and science careers.

Veterans health administration hepatitis B testing and treatment with anti-CD20 antibody administration.

AIM: To evaluate pretreatment hepatitis B virus (HBV) testing, vaccination, and antiviral treatment rates in Veterans Affairs patients receiving anti-CD20 Ab for quality improvement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a national repository of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic health record data. We identified all patients receiving anti-CD20 Ab treatment (2002-2014). We ascertained patient demographics, laboratory results, HBV vaccination status (from vaccination records), pharmacy data, and vital status. The high risk period for HBV reactivation is during anti-CD20 Ab treatment and 12 mo follow up. Therefore, we analyzed those who were followed to death or for at least 12 mo after completing anti-CD20 Ab. Pretreatment serologic tests were used to categorize chronic HBV (hepatitis B surface antigen positive or HBsAg+), past HBV (HBsAg-, hepatitis B core antibody positive or HBcAb+), resolved HBV (HBsAg-, HBcAb+, hepatitis B surface antibody positive or HBsAb+), likely prior vaccination (isolated HBsAb+), HBV negative (HBsAg-, HBcAb-), or unknown. Acute hepatitis B was defined by the appearance of HBsAg+ in the high risk period in patients who were pretreatment HBV negative. We assessed HBV antiviral treatment and the incidence of hepatitis, liver failure, and death during the high risk period. Cumulative hepatitis, liver failure, and death after anti-CD20 Ab initiation were compared by HBV disease categories and differences compared using the χ(2) test. Mean time to hepatitis peak alanine aminotransferase, liver failure, and death relative to anti-CD20 Ab administration and follow-up were also compared by HBV disease group. RESULTS: Among 19304 VHA patients who received anti-CD20 Ab, 10224 (53%) had pretreatment HBsAg testing during the study period, with 49% and 43% tested for HBsAg and HBcAb, respectively within 6 mo pretreatment in 2014. Of those tested, 2% (167/10224) had chronic HBV, 4% (326/7903) past HBV, 5% (427/8110) resolved HBV, 8% (628/8110) likely prior HBV vaccination, and 76% (6022/7903) were HBV negative. In those with chronic HBV infection, ≤ 37% received HBV antiviral treatment during the high risk period while 21% to 23% of those with past or resolved HBV, respectively, received HBV antiviral treatment. During and 12 mo after anti-CD20 Ab, the rate of hepatitis was significantly greater in those HBV positive vs negative (P = 0.001). The mortality rate was 35%-40% in chronic or past hepatitis B and 26%-31% in hepatitis B negative. In those pretreatment HBV negative, 16 (0.3%) developed acute hepatitis B of 4947 tested during anti-CD20Ab treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSION: While HBV testing of Veterans has increased prior to anti-CD20 Ab, few HBV+ patients received HBV antivirals, suggesting electronic health record algorithms may enhance health outcomes.