Semaglutide once-weekly: improved efficacy with a new safety warning.

INTRODUCTION: Semaglutide once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) injection has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Areas Covered: The safety and efficacy of the semaglutide once-weekly injection are reviewed using results from preliminary pharmacology studies and later-phase randomized control trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. Semaglutide once-weekly is compared to placebo and active comparators for T2DM in the SUSTAIN clinical trial series, with outcomes of: glycemic control, weight loss, major adverse cardiovascular events, and adverse effects. Risk for diabetic retinopathy complications (DRCs) is reviewed in detail, due to significantly higher risk for DRCs seen in SUSTAIN 6. SUSTAIN 6 is the first instance of a GLP-1 RA demonstrating significantly increased risk for DRCs. Semaglutide's current regulatory approvals, practice considerations, and cost-effectiveness compared to similar therapies are also considered. Expert Commentary: Semaglutide demonstrates high glycemic efficacy and favorable safety profile, and reduces the risk for cardiovascular events. Mild to moderate gastrointestinal events and retinopathy complications were more common with semaglutide compared to placebo, though serious adverse events were similar to controls and infrequent. Improved clinical efficacy should be carefully weighed against the risk for GI and retinopathy complications.

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.

White Paper on Natural Products.

The American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) published an initial white paper on herbal products in 2000. Since then, the global market for natural products has continued to expand, with tens of millions of consumers using such products on an annual basis in the United States alone. However, despite this expansion, natural products remain largely unregulated compared with prescription medications, have moderate- to low-level clinical evidence for efficacy, and continue to have safety concerns, including adulteration and misbranding. As comprehensive medication management experts, clinical pharmacists are uniquely qualified to navigate these concerns and advise patients appropriately. To develop and recommend a suitable care plan involving natural products, clinical pharmacists must establish a strong pharmacist-patient relationship, assess the appropriateness of therapy, educate the patient regarding key issues, and continuously monitor and follow up on the effectiveness of the care plan. This process should not only occur in an individual community or hospital setting, but also whenever a patient transitions from one care setting to another in cooperation with other clinicians.

Comparison of dietary supplement product knowledge and confidence between pharmacists and health food store employees.

OBJECTIVES: To determine pharmacists' and health food store employees' knowledge about the safety and efficacy of common, nonvitamin, nonmineral dietary supplements in a retail setting and confidence in discussing, recommending, and acquiring knowledge about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Central and western New York in May and June 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge and confidence survey scores based on true/false and Likert scale responses. RESULTS: Pharmacists' mean knowledge score was significantly higher than that of health food store employees (8.42 vs. 6.15 items of 15 total knowledge questions). Adjusting for differences in experience, education, occupation, and confidence, knowledge scores were significantly higher for pharmacists and those with a higher total confidence score. Pharmacists were significantly less confident about the safety and efficacy of CAM comparatively (13 vs. 16 items of 20 total questions). CONCLUSION: Pharmacists scored significantly higher than health food store employees on a survey assessing knowledge of dietary supplements' safety and efficacy. Despite the significant difference, scores were unacceptably low for pharmacists, highlighting a knowledge deficit in subject matter.