Evaluation of the Impact of Corticosteroid Dose on the Incidence of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients with an Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend systemic corticosteroids for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) albeit in lower doses than studies that cemented corticosteroids' place in therapy. Corticosteroids potentiate hyperglycemia, however it is undetermined how corticosteroid dose impacts hyperglycemia incidence. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether a greater incidence of steroid-induced hyperglycemia (SIHGLY) exists for high- versus low-dose corticosteroids. METHODS: Patients with primary discharge diagnosis 491.21/491.22 in a community hospital were retrospectively reviewed and divided into tertiles based on corticosteroid dosage. Baseline characteristics and primary endpoint were statistically assessed between tertiles using logistic regression analysis. A Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model adjusted for potential covariates. Post hoc analysis for primary outcome and CPH model was run removing non-insulin dependent diabetics because of disproportionate event count. A secondary endpoint used a Kaplan-Meier curve to evaluate time to event between tertiles. RESULTS: Tertile divisions were 125 and 187.5 mg methylprednisolone equivalents. The primary outcome for incidence of SIHGLY was insignificant; post hoc analysis removing non-insulin-dependent diabetics narrowly missed significance between tertiles 1 and 3 (P = .056). CPH analysis found significant differences in SIHGLY between tertiles 1 and 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.02-2.76) and tertile 1 and 3 (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.84), further post hoc analysis resulted in a loss of significance for the CPH analysis. Of 21 non-insulin-dependent diabetics, 20 met event status. The Kaplan-Meier analysis results were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Study results suggest that a link between larger corticosteroid doses and hyperglycemia incidence may exist, but it requires further study. RESULTS in non-insulin-dependent diabetics provide evidence for increased glucose monitoring upon initiation of corticosteroid therapy.

A Cross-sectional Analysis Investigating Organizational Factors That Influence Near-Miss Error Reporting Among Hospital Pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: Underreporting near-miss errors undermines hospitals' ability to improve patient safety. The objective of this analysis was to determine the extent to which punitive work climate, inadequate error feedback to staff, or insufficient preventative procedures are associated with decreased frequency of near-miss error reporting among hospital pharmacists. METHODS: Survey data were obtained from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality 2010 Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Near-miss error reporting was defined using a Likert scale response to the question, "When a mistake is made, but is caught and corrected before affecting the patient, how often is this reported?" Work climate, error feedback to staff, and preventative procedures were defined similarly using responses to survey questions. Multivariate ordinal regressions estimated the likelihood of agreeing that near-miss errors were rarely reported, conditional upon perceived levels of punitive work climate, error feedback, or preventative procedures. RESULTS: Pharmacists disagreeing that procedures were sufficient and that feedback on errors was adequate were more likely to report that near-miss errors were rarely reported (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.8; OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.5-5.1). Those agreeing that mistakes were held against them were equally likely as those disagreeing to report that errors were rarely reported (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate error feedback to staff and insufficient preventative procedures increase the likelihood that near-miss errors will be underreported. Hospitals seeking to improve near-miss error reporting should improve error-reporting infrastructures to enable feedback, which, in turn, would create a more preventative system that improves patient safety.

Associations between communication climate and the frequency of medical error reporting among pharmacists within an inpatient setting.

OBJECTIVE: Although error-reporting systems enable hospitals to accurately track safety climate through the identification of adverse events, these systems may be underused within a work climate of poor communication. The objective of this analysis is to identify the extent to which perceived communication climate among hospital pharmacists impacts medical error reporting rates. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used survey responses from more than 5000 pharmacists responding to the 2010 Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC). Two composite scores were constructed for "communication openness" and "feedback and about error," respectively. Error reporting frequency was defined from the survey question, "In the past 12 months, how many event reports have you filled out and submitted?" Multivariable logistic regressions were used to estimate the likelihood of medical error reporting conditional upon communication openness or feedback levels, controlling for pharmacist years of experience, hospital geographic region, and ownership status. RESULTS: Pharmacists with higher communication openness scores compared with lower scores were 40% more likely to have filed or submitted a medical error report in the past 12 months (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; P = 0.004). In contrast, pharmacists with higher communication feedback scores were not any more likely than those with lower scores to have filed or submitted a medical report in the past 12 months (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3; P = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital work climates that encourage pharmacists to freely communicate about problems related to patient safety is conducive to medical error reporting. The presence of feedback infrastructures about error may not be sufficient to induce error-reporting behavior.

Asenapine: a clinical review of a second-generation antipsychotic.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are both prevalent types of psychiatric illness in the United States. As second-generation antipsychotics have become a more viable first-line treatment option, their use has been associated with a new era of adverse events (AEs), most notably metabolic and cardiovascular concerns. Although treatment options for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have arguably improved, there continues to be a need for medications that achieve and maintain desired efficacy with minimal AEs. OBJECTIVES: This article serves as a comprehensive review of the pharmacologic profile of the second-generation antipsychotic asenapine, as well as a review of its efficacy and safety profiles based on the findings from clinical trials in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. METHODS: Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and IDIS were conducted (January 1996 to November 2011) to identify clinical studies and other primary literature sources with the following search terms: asenapine, bipolar disorder, antipsychotic, psychosis, dopamine, and schizophrenia. Only studies of asenapine and placebo and/or active-comparator arms were included. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 67 unique articles, including review articles, which were excluded. The efficacy of asenapine was reported in 3 clinical studies in patients with schizophrenia, 1 each in acute and long-term settings, measured as significant changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores over 6 and 52 weeks. Asenapine also had reported efficacy in the prevention of relapse in schizophrenia during a 26-week extension study. In addition, efficacy of asenapine was reported in 2 studies in acute mania as well as extension phases of both 9 and 40 weeks, as determined by significant changes in Young Mania Rating Scale scores. The most commonly reported AEs in these studies were somnolence (13%-24%), extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) (7%-12%), and dizziness (11%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from multiple studies have suggested that asenapine is efficacious in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. Asenapine has reported long-term efficacy for this indication and the potential to reduce the incidence of relapse. Asenapine efficacy was also reported in the treatment of acute manic or mixed states associated with bipolar I disorder. Asenapine had an acceptable safety profile across the different disease states studied, although it was not devoid of metabolic and EPS-related AEs.

Impact of health literacy on health outcomes in ambulatory care patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between low health literacy and disease state control and between low health literacy medication adherence in the primary care setting. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched for relevant articles from date of inception to April 2008: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Iowa Drug Information Service. MEDLINE was searched from 1966 to April 2008. Key words included literacy, health literacy, health education, educational status, disease outcomes, health outcomes, adherence, medication adherence, and patient compliance. Additional articles were identified by reviewing reference sections of retrieved articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies using a validated measure of health literacy and performing statistical analysis to evaluate the relationship between health literacy and disease state control or medication adherence were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven evaluations, including 10 discrete studies, met eligibility criteria. Six studies evaluated the relationship between health literacy and disease state control, 3 evaluated health literacy and medication adherence, and 1 study evaluated health literacy and both outcomes. A quality rating of poor, fair, or good was assigned to each study based on the study question, population, outcome measures, statistical analysis, and results. Eight studies had good quality, 1 was fair, and 2 were poor. Two high-quality studies demonstrated statistically significant relationships with health literacy, 1 with disease state control and 1 with medication adherence. Limitations of the other studies included inadequate sample size, underrepresentation of patients with low health literacy, use of less objective outcome measures, and insufficient statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There may be a relationship between health literacy and disease state control and health literacy and medication adherence. Future research, with adequate representation of patients with low health literacy, is needed to further define this relationship and explore interventions to overcome the impact that low health literacy may have on patient outcomes.