Adding pharmacists to primary care teams increases guideline-concordant antiplatelet use in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized trial

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes

BACKGROUND

There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

How Well Are Pharmacists Represented in National Institutes of Health R01 Funding to United States Schools of Pharmacy?

Pharmacists are essential healthcare providers but historically are not well represented as principal investigators (PIs) of R01 grants by the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH). Pharmacy organizations have taken steps to provide pharmacists with research training to improve their chances of achieving PI status. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the NIH RePORTER website about R01 grants awarded to PIs affiliated with US Schools of Pharmacy (SOPs) for the fiscal years 2005−2019. Information regarding professional degrees was supplemented using data from the PIs’ institutional website profiles and other internet-based sources. Only doctorate degrees obtained within the US were included for clinically related degrees. Data regarding more than one year of funding for the same project, equipment supplements, and diversity supplements were excluded to focus on unique projects in year one of funding. PhDs were the primary unique PIs of R01 grants at US SOPs (>90%). Pharmacist representation as unique PIs increased over the 15 years but was still only 10.1% for the years 2015−2019. There was a higher percentage of female pharmacists as unique PIs than female non-pharmacists. Pharmacists are currently underrepresented as unique PIs for NIH R01 grants. This conclusion is limited by not knowing how many pharmacist R01 applications were submitted.

Development of a primary care pharmacy outcomes framework: An umbrella literature review

BACKGROUND

An aging population and rising multi-morbidity has shifted healthcare provision from secondary to primary care. Pharmacy-led services have been introduced to support this. The development of an outcomes framework for these services would facilitate conclusions to be drawn on their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To identify outcomes used to evaluate pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care settings to develop an outcomes framework for future studies.

METHODS

An umbrella literature review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched in June 2020 to identify relevant articles. Eligible reviews were those including studies published from 2010 onwards which reported on the outcomes of pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care, excluding community pharmacy settings. Data were extracted and a content analysis, guided by the ECHO model, stratified the outcomes into four areas: economic, clinical, humanistic and service.

RESULTS

Twenty-four reviews covering 52 unique studies were identified. Pharmacy-led services included: medication reviews (n=24, 46.2%), disease and therapy management (n=17, 32.7%), educational services (n=6, 11.5%), medicines reconciliation (n=3, 5.8%), and medication compliance support (n=1, 1.9%). Services were commonly targeted towards endocrine (n=23, 44.2%) or cardiovascular diseases (n=20, 38.5%). Outcomes most commonly explored were clinical (n=38, 73.1%) and service outcomes (n=37, 71.2%), followed by humanistic (n=23, 44.2%) and economic outcomes (n=13, 25.0%). Overall, 17 sub-categories of outcomes were identified; common sub-categories were: disease indicators [clinical]; medication use and healthcare utilisation [service]; adherence to medicines [humanistic]; and healthcare costs [economic].

CONCLUSIONS

The findings informed the development of an outcomes framework to guide the evaluation of medication therapy and disease management services, and facilitate international standardised outcome measures within primary care pharmacy to be developed. This could help offer vital evidence on the effectiveness of these services to ensure the pharmacy workforce is working optimally to support primary care.

A scoping review of research on Canadian team-based primary care pharmacists

OBJECTIVES

An ageing population with an increasing prevalence of chronic disease and complex medication regimens has placed a strain on healthcare systems in Canada. A limited number of team-based primary care pharmacists are integrated into primary care clinics across the country, working alongside other members of the health care team to identify and resolve drug therapy problems and improve outcomes. While many studies have been completed in the area, the extent of research on integrated team-based primary care pharmacists in Canada is unknown. The objectives of this work were to describe the literature that exists surrounding pharmacists in a primary health care team setting in Canada. A scoping review of research focusing on pharmacists in team-based primary health care settings in Canada was performed. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the identified studies.

KEY FINDINGS

The search identified 874 articles, of which 93 met inclusion criteria relevant to the objective. From these 93 studies, 4 themes and 23 subthemes were identified, with some studies having more than one theme or subtheme. Themes identified were the following: primary care pharmacist scope of practice (n = 79 studies), collaboration/communication within the primary care setting (n = 26), chronic disease management (n = 24) and 'other' (n = 15).

SUMMARY

This research quantified and categorized 93 studies on pharmacists in interprofessional primary care teams in Canada. As this is an expanding role for pharmacists in Canada, understanding the current state of the literature is an important consideration when developing future team-based primary care roles.

Impact of the pharmacist-led intervention on the control of medical cardiovascular risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in general practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacist interventions in reducing the medical risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

METHODS

A systemic search was undertaken in 8 databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBAS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS and Science Citation Index, with no start date up to 27 March 2019. Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions delivered in the general practice in reducing the medical risk factors of cardiovascular events were included in the review. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 1604 studies were identified, with 21 randomised controlled trials (8933 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies were conducted in patients with diabetes, 7 in hypertension, 2 involving dyslipidaemia, and 2 with hypertension and diabetes together. The most frequently used interventions were medication review and medication management. The quality of the included studies was variable. Patients receiving pharmacist-led interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in their systolic blood pressure (-9.33 mmHg [95% Confidence Interval (CI) -13.36 to -5.30]), haemoglobin A1C (-0.76% [95% CI -1.15 to -0.37]) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (-15.19 mg/dL [95% CI -24.05 to -6.33]). Moreover, practice-based pharmacists' interventions were also reported to have a positive impact on patient adherence to medications.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review suggest that pharmacist-led interventions in general practice can significantly reduce the medical risk factors of cardiovascular disease events. These findings support the involvement of pharmacists as healthcare providers in managing patients with hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia.

The Role of Pharmacists in General Practice in Asthma Management: A Pilot Study

Background: Asthma is principally managed in general practice. Appropriate prescribing and medication use are essential, so general practice pharmacists appear suitable to conduct asthma management consultations. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the asthma management role of a pharmacist in general practice. Methods: Analysis of an activity diary and stakeholder interviews were conducted to identify interventions in asthma management; determine whether asthma control changed following pharmacist input; and determine acceptability of asthma management review by a pharmacist in one general practice in Canberra, Australia. Results: Over 13 months, the pharmacist saw 136 individual patients. The most common activities were asthma control assessment; recommendations to adjust medication or device; counselling on correct device use; asthma action plan development and trigger avoidance. For patients with multiple consultations, the mean Asthma Control Test score improved from the initial to last visit (14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 19.3 ± 4.7, n = 23, p < 0.0001). Eight of the 19 (42%) patients moved from having poor to well-controlled asthma. Case studies and qualitative data indicated probable hospital admission avoidance and stakeholder acceptability of asthma management by a practice pharmacist. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated it is feasible, acceptable and potentially beneficial to have a general practice pharmacist involved in asthma management. Fuller evaluation is warranted.

Primary prevention aspirin use in high-risk patients: A pharmacist intervention and comparison of risk stratification tools

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project are 1) to describe aspirin use for primary prevention in an underserved, minority population; 2) to determine the impact of a pharmacist-led intervention on the prevalence of aspirin use for primary prevention; and 3) to compare aspirin indications based on Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score.

METHODS

Men and women age 45-79 and 55-79 years, respectively, without ASCVD were screened for aspirin use. An FRS of 10% or greater and low risk for a serious bleed were considered indications for primary prevention aspirin on the basis of guideline-directed medical therapy recommendations. When treatment with aspirin was indicated, providers were notified with patient-specific messages. Patients' FRS and ASCVD risk score distributions were plotted and compared. Primary prevention aspirin indications were identified using both risk stratification tools.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients were evaluated for aspirin use in a predominantly black (80%), middle-aged (mean age, 58 years), and indigent population. Thirty-one patients (27%) had an FRS of 10% or greater and low risk for bleeding, and 10 patients (9%) were taking aspirin at baseline. Providers approved recommendations to start administering aspirin in 19 of 31 patients (61%), which significantly increased the overall proportion receiving aspirin compared to baseline (9%-25%; P < 0.01). Patients were more than twice as likely to meet the minimum risk score threshold (≥10%) for a primary prevention aspirin indication using ASCVD risk scores versus FRS (70% vs. 30%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline utilization of primary prevention aspirin was low in an indigent, minority population. A provider-focused pharmacist intervention improved the prevalence of aspirin use for primary prevention, while minimizing risk for serious bleeding events. Among our cohort, more patients had indications for primary prevention aspirin using ASCVD risk scores versus FRS.

Development of a Pharmacist REferral Program in a primary cARE clinic (PREPARE): A prospective cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Increasing demand for ambulatory health care services has led to the development of primary care multidisciplinary teams that include pharmacists. The objective of this study was to characterize referrals to a pharmacist in a primary care clinic (PCC) based in Chilliwack, British Columbia.

METHODS

This prospective cross-sectional study included all patients referred to the PCC pharmacist over 12 months (May 2015 to April 2016). Data regarding the source/reason for referral, patient demographics, medical problems/medications and number/category of identified drug therapy concerns (DTCs) were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 137 referrals were received. Mean age was 60 years and 59% were female. Twenty patients (15%) did not attend their appointment. Fifty-eight percent were new clinic patients identified using a Medication Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MRAQ), 30% were from PCC clinicians and 12% were from community family physicians. The most common reason for referral was for a medication review (82%). Median number of medical problems and medications per patient were 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 5) and 11 (IQR 7.5), respectively. A total of 460 DTCs were identified (median 4 per patient, IQR 3.5), of which 34% were medication without an indication and 28% an untreated indication.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The most common source of referrals to a PCC pharmacist was for medication reviews of new patients using an MRAQ. Most referred patients had multiple medical problems and polypharmacy, and few were referred for disease-specific management. The number of DTCs per patient was variable and, despite polypharmacy being commonplace, almost one-third of patients had an untreated indication.

Assessing Adherence to Insulin Initiation Recommendations at a Suburban Family Medicine Clinic

The American Diabetes Association recommends insulin initiation when A1c ≥10%. The aim of this study was to determine adherence to insulin initiation in patients with an A1c ≥10% at an outpatient family medicine clinic. The secondary objectives were to determine whether initiation of insulin within 3 weeks of an A1c ≥10% increased the rate or decreased the time to achieve an A1c <7% and to determine whether pharmacist involvement increased the rate of reaching an A1c <7%. This institutional review board-approved, retrospective, observational, cohort study identified 120 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and an A1c ≥10% in 2014. Patients already receiving insulin or those without a follow-up A1c were excluded. Study outcomes included proportion of patients receiving insulin therapy within 3 weeks of A1c >/=10%, rate of meeting A1c <7%, time to reach A1c <7%, and proportion of patients meeting with a pharmacist. Fifty-five patients with a mean age of 55 years, a mean duration of diabetes of 6.4 years, and a mean baseline A1c of 11.7% met the inclusion criteria. Most patients were receiving no therapy (29%), monotherapy (27%), or dual therapy (29%) at baseline. Insulin was initiated in 5 patients (9.1%, P < 0.05) within 3 weeks of the qualifying A1c. Another 5 patients (P < 0.05) received insulin at some point during the study. An A1c <7% was achieved in 35.6% of patients not receiving insulin, 20% of patients receiving early insulin, and no patients who received insulin after 3 weeks. The mean time to A1c <7% was 6 months for patients not on insulin and 3 months for those receiving early insulin. Thirty-three percent of patients who met with a pharmacist reached an A1c <7% compared with 30% of patients who did not. Adherence to insulin initiation guidelines and rate of achieving A1c <7% in patients with A1c ≥10% is low. Increasing pharmacy involvement may increase the rate of reaching goal A1c.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding pharmacists to primary care teams to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with Type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adding pharmacists to primary care teams significantly improved blood pressure control and reduced predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk in patients with Type 2 diabetes. This pre-specified sub-study evaluated the economic implications of this cardiovascular risk reduction strategy.

METHODS

One-year outcomes and healthcare utilization data from the trial were used to determine cost-effectiveness from the public payer perspective. Costs were expressed in 2014 Canadian dollars and effectiveness was based on annualized risk of cardiovascular events derived from the UKPDS Risk Engine.

RESULTS

The 123 evaluable trial patients included in this analysis had a mean age of 62 ( ± 11) years, 38% were men, and mean diabetes duration was 6 ( ± 7) years. Pharmacists provided 3.0 ( ± 1.9) hours of additional service to each intervention patient, which cost $226 ( ± $1143) per patient. The overall one-year per-patient costs for healthcare utilization were $190 lower in the intervention group compared with usual care [95% confidence interval (CI): -$1040, $668). Intervention patients had a significant 0.3% greater reduction in the annualized risk of a cardiovascular event (95% CI: 0.08%, 0.6%) compared with usual care. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the intervention dominated usual care in 66% of 10,000 bootstrap replications. At a societal willingness-to-pay of $4000 per 1% reduction in annual cardiovascular risk, the probability that the intervention was cost-effective compared with usual care reached 95%. A sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation to replace missing data produced similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a randomized trial, adding pharmacists to primary care teams was a cost-effective strategy for reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with Type 2 diabetes. In most circumstances, this intervention may also be cost saving.

Evaluation of Aspirin Use in Patients With Diabetes Receiving Care in Community Health

Background: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends low-dose aspirin therapy as a primary prevention strategy in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) at increased cardiovascular risk. However, not all patients who are indicated are taking aspirin therapy, and it is not routinely documented in the electronic health record (EHR). Objective: To determine frequencies of appropriate aspirin use and documentation in the EHR in adult patients with DM. Methods: Adult patients with DM were randomized and contacted for participation in a telephonic survey between January and October 2013. Patients who consented were administered a standardized oral telephone survey regarding aspirin use. Patient demographics, current medications, allergies, past medical history, and pertinent laboratory values were collected. Patients were then stratified by the ADA-defined indication for aspirin. The primary outcomes were rates of appropriate aspirin use and documentation of aspirin therapy in the EHR. Results: Investigators contacted 276 patients for inclusion. Of the 81 patients surveyed, 74% were indicated for aspirin therapy. Nearly all (92.3%) patients reporting aspirin use were indicated for aspirin therapy compared with only 57.1% of patients who did not report aspirin but were indicated ( P = 0.0003). Alternatively, 96.7% of patients with aspirin use documented in their EHR were indicated for aspirin therapy compared with only 60.8% of patients who did not have aspirin use documented in the EHR but had an indication ( P = 0.0002). Approximately 20% of the patients indicated for and reporting aspirin use did not have aspirin documented in their EHR. Conclusions: Aspirin use in patients with DM who are indicated for therapy is significantly underutilized and underdocumented.

Impact of clinical pharmacist collaboration in patients beginning insulin pump therapy: a retrospective and cross-sectional analysis

Objective

To measure clinical and qualitative outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus transitioning from intensive insulin therapy using multiple daily injections (MDI) to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) initiated and managed by clinical pharmacists under a collaborative practice agreement in a primary care setting without an endocrinologist.

Research design and methods

This study was a retrospective and cross-sectional analysis of data from an electronic medical record (EMR) and patient survey at a large primary care private practice. Patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were ≥18 years old, started on CSII between 2007 and 2010, and had at least one follow-up visit post-CSII were analyzed. Mean HbA1c results were stratified across 3-month intervals post-CSII initiation and compared to pre-CSII levels. Body mass index (BMI), the number of diabetes-related clinic visits with the primary care physician (PCP), and non-insulin diabetes medication use was compared pre- and post-CSII initiation. Paper-based questionnaires were used to assess patient satisfaction with CSII vs MDI and pharmacist-led services.

Results

Twenty-five patients were included in the analysis. HbA1c decreased from 8.69 to 7.52% pre and post-CSII, respectively (p < 0.001). HbA1c also decreased across all 3-month intervals post-CSII. BMI decreased from 33.0 to 32.3 kg/m² pre- and post-CSII, respectively (p = 0.085). Fewer diabetes-related PCP visits were completed post-CSII (5.09 vs 3.78 visits/year, p = 0.009), and less non-insulin diabetes medications were prescribed post-CSII (p < 0.001). Patients felt more comfortable controlling glycemic excursions and resultant insulin adjustments with CSII compared to MDI (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Pharmacist-led CSII services appear to improve diabetes control in patients requiring intensive insulin therapy. Patients report greater comfort using CSII and strong confidence in the abilities of the pharmacist. Physician–pharmacist collaboration in the management of intensive insulin therapy in the primary care setting should be further explored.