No abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) causes a third of all strokes, but often goes undetected before stroke. Identification of unknown AF in the community and subsequent anti-thrombotic treatment could reduce stroke burden. We investigated community screening for unknown AF using an iPhone electrocardiogram (iECG) in pharmacies, and determined the cost-effectiveness of this strategy.Pharmacists performedpulse palpation and iECG recordings, with cardiologist iECG over-reading. General practitioner review/12-lead ECG was facilitated for suspected new AF. An automated AF algorithm was retrospectively applied to collected iECGs. Cost-effectiveness analysis incorporated costs of iECG screening, and treatment/outcome data from a United Kingdom cohort of 5,555 patients with incidentally detected asymptomatic AF. A total of 1,000 pharmacy customers aged ≥65 years (mean 76 ± 7 years; 44% male) were screened. Newly identified AF was found in 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8-2.5%); mean age 79 ± 6 years; all had CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. AF prevalence was 6.7% (67/1,000). The automated iECG algorithm showed 98.5% (CI, 92-100%) sensitivity for AF detection and 91.4% (CI, 89-93%) specificity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of extending iECG screening into the community, based on 55% warfarin prescription adherence, would be $AUD5,988 (€3,142; $USD4,066) per Quality Adjusted Life Year gained and $AUD30,481 (€15,993; $USD20,695) for preventing one stroke. Sensitivity analysis indicated cost-effectiveness improved with increased treatment adherence.Screening with iECG in pharmacies with an automated algorithm is both feasible and cost-effective. The high and largely preventable stroke/thromboembolism risk of those with newly identified AF highlights the likely benefits of community AF screening. Guideline recommendation of community iECG AF screening should be considered.

Background: Despite national disease management plans, optimal asthma management remains a challenge in Australia. Community pharmacists are ideally placed to implement new strategies that aim to ensure asthma care meets current standards of best practice. The impact of the Pharmacy Asthma Care Program (PACP) on asthma control was assessed using a multi-site randomised intervention versus control repeated measures study design. Methods: Fifty Australian pharmacies were randomised into two groups: intervention pharmacies implemented the PACP (an ongoing cycle of assessment, goal setting, monitoring and review) to 191 patients over 6 months, while control pharmacies gave their usual care to 205 control patients. Both groups administered questionnaires and conducted spirometric testing at baseline and 6 months later. The main outcome measure was asthma severity/control status. Results: 186 of 205 control patients (91%) and 165 of 191 intervention patients (86%) completed the study. The intervention resulted in improved asthma control: patients receiving the intervention were 2.7 times more likely to improve from ''severe'' to ''not severe'' than control patients (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.37; p,0.001). The intervention also resulted in improved adherence to preventer medication (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.30; p = 0.03), decreased mean daily dose of reliever medication (difference 2149.11 mg, 95% CI 2283.87 to 214.36; p = 0.03), a shift in medication profile from reliever only to a combination of preventer, reliever with or without long-acting b agonist (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.40 to 10.32; p = 0.01) and improved scores on risk of non-adherence (difference 20.44, 95% CI 20.69 to 20.18; p = 0.04), quality of life (difference 20.23, 95% CI 20.46 to 0.00; p = 0.05), asthma knowledge (difference 1.18, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; p,0.01) and perceived control of asthma questionnaires (difference 21.39, 95% CI 22.44 to 20.35; p,0.01). No significant change in spirometric measures occurred in either group. Conclusions: A pharmacist-delivered asthma care programme based on national guidelines improves asthma control. The sustainability and implementation of the programme within the healthcare system remains to be investigated.

Adherence to diabetes medication remains an ongoing problem. This review has highlighted the urgent need to develop consensus about what constitutes good adherence in diabetes. Further research is needed to clarify modifiable factors, in addition to depression and medication cost, that influence adherence and may provide a focus for targeted interventions to promote adherence, optimize diabetes control and limit the progression of diabetes.

A pharmacy diabetes service model resulted in significant improvements in clinical and humanistic outcomes. Thus, community pharmacists can contribute significantly to improving care and health outcomes for patients with Type 2 diabetes. Future research should focus on clarifying the most effective elements of the service model.