Atomoxetine is the first nonstimulant drug approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the only agent approved by the FDA for the treatment of ADHD in adults. Atomoxetine is a norepinephrine transport inhibitor that acts almost exclusively on the noradrenergic pathway. Its mechanism of action in the control and maintenance of ADHD symptoms is thought to be through the highly specific presynaptic inhibition of norepinephrine. Clinical trials to evaluate the short-term effects of atomoxetine in children and adults have shown that atomoxetine is effective in maintaining control of ADHD. Likewise, long-term trials have determined that atomoxetine is effective in preventing relapse of ADHD symptoms without an increase in adverse effects. A comparative trial of atomoxetine with methylphenidate in school-aged children indicated similar safety and efficacy without the abuse liability associated with some psychostimulants. The most commonly reported adverse effects in children and adolescents are dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and weight loss. The rates of adverse events in the trials were similar for both the once- and twice-daily dosing regimens. The discontinuation rate was 3.5% in patients treated with atomoxetine versus 1.4% for placebo and appeared to be dose dependent, wit a higher percentage of discontinuation at dosages greater than 1.5 mg/kg/day. In clinical trials involving adults, the emergence of clinically significant or intolerable adverse events was low. The most common adverse events in adults were dry mouth, insomnia, nausea, decreased appetite, constipation, urinary retention or difficulties with micturition, erectile disturbance, dysmenorrhea, dizziness, and decreased libido. Sexual dysfunction occurred in approximately 2% of patients treated with atomoxetine. Atomoxetine should be used with caution in patients who have hypertension or any significant cardiovascular disorder. Overall, atomoxetine therapy in patient with ADHD appears to be effective in controlling symptoms and maintaining remission, with the advantages being comparable efficacy with that of methylphenidate, a favorable safety profile, and non-controlled substance status. Additional long-term studies are needed to determine its continued efficacy for those who require lifelong treatment, and comparative trials against other stimulant and nonstimulant agents.

Diabetes management services from clinical pharmacists achieved significant improvements in A1C values, blood pressure, and aspirin use. Continued efforts in diabetes education and management are needed to further improve clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes.

We sought to determine the demographics of pharmacists who were certified diabetes educators (CDEs) and information about their training, professional affiliations, and types of diabetes education services that they provide. We also queried these pharmacists about clinical activities, reimbursement, impact of certification, and intent to pursue CDE recertification. A list of pharmacists who were CDEs as of August 31, 2000, was obtained from the National Certification Board for Diabetes Educators. We then sent a six-page anonymous survey to 415 pharmacist CDEs; 233 surveys (56.1%) were returned. Of these respondents, 140 are women and 93 are men, with a mean age of 41.5 years. Most reside in Southern or Western states. Average time since pharmacist licensure was 17 years, and average time as a CDE was 5 years. Most had completed postgraduate training, including residencies and/or fellowships; 52.8% had faculty appointments; 46.7% stated they were billing for their services; and 45.9% were obtaining reimbursement. Most pharmacists (84.4%) stated that they intended to pursue CDE recertification. Providing details about pharmacist CDEs and their clinical activities may motivate other pharmacists to pursue this credential. Pharmacists are often the most accessible of all health care providers, and earning the CDE credential may be an important contribution to diabetes care and education.

Background:Medication adherence is an integral aspect of disease state management for patients with chronic illnesses, including diabetes mellitus. It has been hypothesized that patients with diabetes who have poor medication adherence may have less knowledge of overall therapeutic goals and may be less likely to attain these goals.Objective:The purpose of this study was to assess self-reported medication adherence, knowledge of therapeutic goals (hemoglobin A1C [A1C], low density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] and blood pressure [BP]), and goal attainment in adult patients with diabetes.Methods:A survey was created to assess medication adherence, knowledge of therapeutic goals, and goal attainment for adult patients with diabetes followed at an internal medicine or a family medicine clinic. Surveys were self-administered prior to office visits. Additional data were collected from the electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed.Results:A total of 149 patients were enrolled. Knowledge of therapeutic goals was reported by 14%, 34%, and 18% of survived patients for LDL-C, BP, and A1C, respectively. Forty-six percent, 37%, and 40% of patients achieved LDL-C, BP, and A1C goals, respectively. Low prescribing of cholesterol-lowering medications was an interesting secondary finding; 36% of patients not at LDL-C goal had not been prescribed a medication targeted to lower cholesterol. Forty-eight percent of patients were medication non-adherent; most frequently reported reasons for non-adherence were forgot (34%) and too expensive (14%). Patients at A1C goal were more adherent than patients not at goal (p=0.025).Conclusion:The majority did not reach goals and were unknowledgeable of goals; however, most were provided prescriptions to treat these parameters. Goal parameters should be revisited often amongst multidisciplinary team members with frequent and open communications. Additionally, it is imperative that practitioners discuss the importance of medication adherence with every patient at every visit.

Until recently, Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR) measurements have typically been used to monitor patients on warfarin through institutional laboratories via venous puncture. The Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) device has revolutionized the patient care process by allowing for laboratory testing outside of the central laboratory.Objective:To analyze humanistic and clinical outcomes in patients currently treated with warfarin and monitored through a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic using point-of-care testing (POCT) device versus venipuncture within ambulatory care clinics at our institution.Methods:All patients currently treated with warfarin therapy who were managed by clinical pharmacists for anticoagulation monitoring at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Family Medicine Center and University Diagnostic Center, were enrolled. Patients were asked to complete a satisfaction survey regarding their anticoagulation monitoring. In addition, data related to emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations and percent of time in the INR therapeutic range for 6 months pre- and post-implementation of POCT device was collected. This information was obtained through an electronic patient information database, Oacis.Results:A total of 145 patients were included in the data collection from the two clinics. The majority (41%) of these patients were taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation. Satisfaction surveys were completed by 86 (59 %) of patients. The surveys revealed that POCT device was preferred over venipuncture in 95% of patients. Reasons for the preference included more face-to-face interaction, less wait time, less pain, less blood needed, and quicker results. Of the 145 patients who were included in the objective data analysis, no significant differences were found in the number of hospitalizations, ED visits, or percent of time in the INR therapeutic range pre- and post-implementation of POCT device.Conclusion:The results of this study demonstrate improvement in patient satisfaction with POCT compared to venipuncture, with limited value in clinical outcomes.