Two-year changes in bone mineral density and T scores in patients treated at a pharmacist-run teriparatide clinic.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and T scores of patients after 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and to determine the number of fractures that occurred during therapy. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Pharmacist-run teriparatide clinic in a private-practice endocrinology group. PATIENTS: Sixty patients with osteoporosis who experienced fractures or adverse events while receiving antiresorptive therapy and were referred by the endocrinologists to the clinic between January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2004. INTERVENTION: After a 1-hour counseling and training session with a clinical pharmacist, patients self-administered subcutaneous teriparatide 20 microg/day for the next 2 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome measures were dual x-ray absorptiometry-determined BMDs and T scores for the total hip, spine, and wrist at baseline and at 1 and 2 years. Patients' BMDs for the hip significantly increased by 3.5% at 1 year and by 3.9% at 2 years. In addition, BMD for the spine significantly increased by 7.2% at 1 year and 10.9% at 2 years. In 56 (93%) patients, BMD for the spine increased after 2 years of treatment. For the wrist, BMD decreased by 0.75% at 1 year and by 2.4% at 2 years, but the change was only significant at 2 years (p=0.011). At both 1 and 2 years, T scores for the total hip and spine significantly improved from baseline (p< or =0.019), whereas T scores for the wrist significantly declined after 2 years of therapy (p<0.003). No new fractures were documented in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with osteoporosis, the use of teriparatide in a pharmacist-run clinic significantly increased BMD at the total hip and spinal sites and significantly decreased BMD in the wrist.

Colesevelam hydrochloride-ezetimibe combination lipid-lowering therapy in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome and a history of statin intolerance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of colesevelam hydrochloride (HCl) and ezetimibe combination therapy in statin-intolerant patients with dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus (DM) or metabolic syndrome (MS). METHODS: We identified potential study subjects through a computerized text search of patient electronic medical records using the terms colesevelam, WelChol, ezetimibe, and Zetia. Medical records were subsequently reviewed to identify all patients with DM or MS. Baseline total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, and triglyceride levels immediately before the initiation of therapy with colesevelam HCl (1.875 g twice a day) or ezetimibe (10 mg daily) were compared with those after a minimum of 3 months of single drug therapy and after a minimum of 3 months of combination therapy. Drug safety was evaluated by review of transaminase levels and reports of side effects or drug discontinuation. RESULTS: The computerized search initially identified 91 electronic medical records; 16 patients fulfilled all study criteria. Baseline patient demographics included a mean age of 62.5 (+/-11.8) years and a mean body mass index of 31.4 (+/-5.2) kg/m2; 50% of patients were female, 75% had type 2 DM, and 25% had MS. In comparison with baseline, colesevelam HCl-ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with significant reductions in mean levels of total cholesterol (27.5%), LDL-C (42.2%), and non-HDL-C (37.1%). In addition, 50% of patients achieved the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL. Therapy was well tolerated, with no significant changes in mean transaminase levels, no reports of myalgia, and no discontinuation of therapy. CONCLUSION: Colesevelam HCl-ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with improved TC, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C lipid profiles and was well tolerated. Such therapy may be a reasonable consideration for statin-intolerant patients with DM or MS who have elevated cholesterol levels.

Precision and accuracy of two blood glucose meters: FreeStyle Flash versus One Touch Ultra.

PURPOSE: The precision and accuracy of two blood glucose meters were evaluated using finger and forearm blood samples. METHODS: Duplicate blood glucose measurements on the same forearm and finger as venipuncture were performed with the FreeStyle Flash and the One Touch Ultra. Accuracy was assessed by error-grid analysis and the number of values within 10% of the laboratory reference value. Precision was determined by calculating the absolute mean percent differences in glucose values between the first and second fingers and forearm test results. Forearm testing success was defined as an accurate glucose reading obtained with one lance. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients completed the study; 93% had diabetes and 53% were female. Patients' mean +/- S.D. age was 63 +/- 12 years, and glucose measurements ranged from 69 to 354 mg/dL. All finger-stick samples fell within error-grid zones A and B; 72% and 57% of FreeStyle Flash and One Touch Ultra values fell within 10% of the laboratory reference values, respectively (p = 0.027). Forearm samples were successfully obtained in 99 and 74 patients using the FreeStyle Flash and One Touch Ultra (p < 0.001), with 64 and 36 samples, respectively, falling within 10% of the laboratory reference values (p = 0.035). There was no difference in meter precision. CONCLUSION: The FreeStyle Flash and the One Touch Ultra are precise glucose meters; however, the FreeStyle Flash was associated with greater accuracy. Success rates of forearm glucose sampling were significantly greater when the FreeStyle Flash meter was used.