Clinical Pharmacy Services in a Multidisciplinary Specialty Pain Clinic.

PURPOSE: To describe a model of clinical pharmacy services as part of a multidisciplinary specialty pain clinic by discussing (1) the role of a clinical pharmacist in a specialty setting, including clinical interventions implemented, and (2) how integration of a clinical pharmacist may translate into an improved patient care model for the management of chronic pain. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of pharmacist visits from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015, in a specialty pain clinic at an academic medical center in Los Angeles, California. Data were collected regarding medication-related problems (MRPs) identified by the pharmacist, interventions implemented to resolve the MRPs, and types of medication care coordination activities (MCCAs) performed by the pharmacist, such as responding to medication refill requests and insurance issues. Descriptive statistics were used. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to initiating the study. RESULTS: At least 1 MRP was identified in 98.7% of the 380 visits. Problems identified by the clinical pharmacist were divided into 5 categories: medication refills needed (43%), medication appropriateness/effectiveness (18%), miscellaneous (17%), safety (16%), and nonadherence/patient variables (6%). Interventions focused on referral to appropriate providers, medication counseling, medication initiation, dose adjustment, and medication discontinuation. The most common MCCA was responding to refill requests. CONCLUSION: A clinical pharmacist can identify many MRPs and implement interventions in chronic pain management. Integration of clinical pharmacy services may improve practice management by facilitating the completion of MCCAs and increase access to patients' needs outside the clinic.

Topical Ketamine in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of topical ketamine in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome. Retrospective charts were reviewed of patients 18 years or older diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome and treated with topical ketamine during the study period of May 2006 to April 2013 in an academic medical center specialty pain clinic. Exclusion criteria consisted of subjects who 1) were treated with topical ketamine for pain syndromes other than complex regional pain syndrome, 2) initiated other pain therapies concurrently with topical ketamine, 3) had less than two documented visits, 4) began use of topical ketamine prior to the start of the study period, 5) were under 18 years of age. Subjects with ICD-9 diagnoses codes complex regional pain syndrome-1 or complex regional pain syndrome-2 were identified from encounter-based data and billing records. Data collected for each subject included demographics, description of complex regional pain syndrome, concurrent medications and medical conditions, type of ketamine compound prescribed, duration of therapy, side effects, reasons for discontinuation (if any), and pain scores (numerical pain rating scale; 0 to 10). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to initiating the study. Sixteen subjects met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study, 69% of which were female with an average age of 46 years (range: 24 to 60). Subjects took an average of 3.7 other pain medications (range: 2 to 8), had an average of 2.7 other co-morbid pain conditions (range: 1 to 5), and 1.6 other co-morbid non-pain conditions (range: 0 to 4). Eight (50%) reported that their pain had improved, while 7 (44%) reported a worsening of pain. One reported no change in pain score. No subjects reported adverse effects. Based on the findings in this study, the use of topical ketamine in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome shows promise due to the overall limited options available to treat this condition, as well as the favorable safety profile of topical agents. Future prospective controlled studies are needed to demonstrate a clear benefit.

A comparison of pharmacist travel-health specialists' versus primary care providers' recommendations for travel-related medications, vaccinations, and patient compliance in a college health setting.

BACKGROUND: Pretravel medication and vaccination recommendations and receipt were compared between primary care providers (PCPs) without special training and clinical pharmacists specializing in pretravel health. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients seen for pretravel health services in a pharmacist-run travel clinic (PTC) compared to PCPs at a University Student Health Center. Vaccine/medication recommendations were assessed for consistency with national/international guidelines. Medical/pharmacy records were queried to determine the receipt of medications/vaccinations. RESULTS: The PTC recommended antibiotics for travelers' diarrhea were given more often when indicated (96% vs 50%, p < 0.0001), and patients seen in the PTC received their medications more often (75% vs 63%, p = 0.04). PCPs prescribed more antibiotics for travelers' diarrhea that were inconsistent with guidelines (not ordered when indicated 49% vs 6%, p < 0.0001 and ordered when not indicated 21% vs 3%, p < 0.0001). The PTC prescribed antimalarials more often when indicated (98% vs 81%, p < 0.0001), while PCPs prescribed more antimalarials that were inconsistent with guidelines (not ordered when indicated 15% vs 1%, p < 0.0001 and ordered when not indicated 19% vs 2%, p < 0.0001). The PTC ordered more vaccines per patient when indicated (mean = 2.77 vs 2.31, p = 0.0012). PTC patients were more likely to receive vaccines when ordered (mean = 2.38 vs 1.95, p = 0.0039). PCPs recommended more vaccines per patient that were inconsistent with guidelines (not ordered when indicated: mean = 0.78 vs 0.12, p < 0.0001, ordered when not indicated: mean 0.18 vs 0.025, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacist-run pretravel health clinic can provide consistent evidence-based care and improve patient compliance compared to PCPs without special training. Pretravel health is a dynamic and specialized field that requires adequate time, resources, and expertise to deliver the best possible care.

Mosquito-borne illnesses in travelers: a review of risk and prevention.

In 2008, residents of the United States made 12 million visits to developing countries in Asia, South America, Central America, Oceania, the Middle East, and Africa. Due to the presence of Anopheles, Aedes, and Culex mosquitoes, travel to these destinations poses a risk for diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, and Japanese encephalitis that cause significant morbidity and mortality. To gain a better understanding of the major emerging and established travel-related infectious diseases transmitted principally by mosquitoes and the measures for their prevention in U.S. residents who travel to these developing countries, we performed a literature search of the PubMed and MEDLINE databases (January 1950-February 2010). Information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization and relevant references from the publications identified were also reviewed. Vaccines for the prevention of Japanese encephalitis and yellow fever are commercially available to U.S. travelers and should be administered when indicated. However, the prevention of malaria, dengue fever, chikungunya, and West Nile virus relies on personal insect protection measures and chemoprophylaxis for malaria. As the rate of international travel continues to rise, individuals traveling overseas should be made aware of the risk of various infectious diseases and the importance of prevention. Physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and other practitioners can play a vital role in disease education and prevention, including the administration of vaccines and provision of chemoprophylactic drugs.