Team-based care has been recommended for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH), but its efficacy in this setting is unknown. We compared a physician-pharmacist collaborative model (PPCM) to usual care in patients with TRH participating in the Collaboration Among Pharmacists and physicians To Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION) study. At baseline, 169 patients (27% of CAPTION patients) had TRH: 111 received the PPCM intervention and 58 received usual care. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms. After 9 months, adjusted mean systolic BP was reduced by 7 mmHg more with PPCM intervention than usual care (p=0.036). BP control was 34.2% with PPCM versus 25.9% with usual care (adjusted OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.33–11.2). These findings suggest that team-based care in the primary care setting may be effective for TRH. Additional research is needed regarding the long-term impact of these models and to identify patients most likely to benefit from team-based interventions.

Doxycycline remains on intermittent shortage. Evidence supports the substitution of minocycline in skin and soft-tissue infections and carefully selected cases of pneumonia. Minocycline may be carefully considered in Lyme disease prophylaxis and Rickettsial disease in the complete absence of doxycycline.

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death among patients with diabetes. Consequently, as antidiabetic medications have demonstrated cardiovascular benefit, cardiologists have been asked to weigh in regarding antidiabetic therapy. The cardiologist's role will continue to grow as antidiabetic agents with cardiovascular benefit are being studied in prediabetes as part of an evolving clinical environment. Still, current guidelines primarily recommend high-intensity lifestyle intervention or metformin for diabetes prevention. Considering that many patients cared for by a cardiologist will have prediabetes, we propose herein that cardiologists can also facilitate diabetes prevention through direct intervention, referring patients to community-based highintensity lifestyle interventions, and through advocacy, policy, and additional guideline development. The most important messaging for a patient is that avoiding new-onset diabetes can reduce microvascular disease, reduce healthcare cost, and improve health related quality of life. Moreover, as the mortality risk of patients with a history of myocardial infarction and diabetes is almost double that of patients with a history of myocardial infarction who are free of diabetes, there is even more potential benefit in delaying/avoiding diabetes in patients with cardiovascular disease. Despite these important health advantages, the implementation of diabetes prevention strategies is lagging. The under implementation may be exaggerated by published opinions conflicting major guidelines in addition to conflicting guideline recommendations. In conclusion, we propose cardiologists can play a key role in preventing diabetes and aligning practice patterns with guideline recommendations among endocrinology, cardiology, and primary care stake holders.

Summary Aims The 2012 American College of Chest Physician Evidence‐Based Management of Anticoagulant Therapy guidelines suggest an international normalized ratio (INR) testing interval of up to 12 weeks, rather than every 4 weeks, for patients with consistently stable INRs while taking vitamin K antagonists. We aimed to examine the feasibility of extended‐interval follow‐up in a real‐world setting. Methods Patients receiving stable warfarin therapy for ≥12 weeks at baseline began extended‐interval follow‐up with visits occurring at 6 weeks, 14 weeks, and every 12 weeks thereafter to a maximum of 68 weeks or until they were no longer suitable for extended‐interval follow‐up. A single INR excursion >0.3 from goal was permitted if a reversible precipitating factor was identified and the INR was expected to return to goal without dose adjustment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing all study follow‐up visits. Results Of 48 patients enrolled, 47 had evaluable data. The most common indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation/flutter (53.2%). At baseline, mean prior warfarin treatment duration was 6.7 ± 6 years and median number of weeks on a stable regimen was 24 weeks (IQR, 19–37.5). Eleven patients (23%) completed all study follow‐up visits, whereas 17 (36%) did not maintain a stable INR past the 14‐week follow‐up. Conclusion A large proportion of patients with previously stable (≥3 months) INRs were not able to maintain stable INRs during extended‐interval follow‐up. More research is needed to identify patient characteristics predictive of success with extended‐interval follow‐up prior to broad implementation.

No abstract

Extended-interval monitoring of warfarin has been proposed to reduce follow-up burden and improve patient satisfaction. We aimed to make an initial assessment of anticoagulation satisfaction before and after an extended-interval warfarin monitoring intervention. We conducted a translational prospective single-arm pilot study of extended-interval warfarin monitoring in five pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics. Patients meeting CHEST guideline criteria for extended-interval warfarin monitoring began progressive extended-interval follow-up (6, 8, and 12 weeks thereafter). The Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS) was administered at baseline and at end-of-study or study removal (in patients no longer appropriate for extended interval follow-up). Forty-six patients had evaluable pre- and post-intervention DASS survey data. Mean age of patients was 66.5 years, 74 % were non-Hispanic whites, and 48 % were men. Patients completed a mean ± SD of 34 ± 22 weeks of follow-up. Mean ± SD total DASS score at baseline was 45.2 ± 14.2 versus 49.1 ± 14.9 at end-of-study (mean change, +3.9 [95 % CI -0.6-8.4; p = 0.09]), indicating no benefit-and trending toward decrement-to anticoagulation satisfaction. Change in anticoagulation satisfaction varied substantially following extended-interval monitoring, with no evidence of improved satisfaction. Plausible reasons for patients not preferring extended-interval monitoring include increased anxiety and disengagement from self-management activities, both potentially related to less frequent feedback and reassurance during extended interval-monitoring. Additional research is needed to identify who is likely to benefit most from extended-interval monitoring. Anticoagulation satisfaction should be considered with clinical factors and shared-decision making when implementing extended-interval warfarin monitoring.

Little is known about the impact of treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) on health-related quality of life (HrQoL). We aimed to compare HrQoL measures in adults with apparent TRH (aTRH) and non-resistant hypertension among nationally representative US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data pooled from 2000 to 2011. Cohorts compared were adults with aTRH (⩾2 unique fills from ⩾4 antihypertensive classes during a year) versus non-resistant hypertension (those with hypertension not meeting the aTRH definition). Key outcomes were cohort differences in SF-12v2 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores and disease-state utility using the SF-6D. Of 57 150 adults with hypertension, 2501 (4.4%) met criteria for aTRH. Persons with aTRH, compared with non-resistant hypertension, were older (mean, 68 vs 61 years), had a higher BMI (30.9 vs 29.7 kg m(-)(2)) and were more likely to be Black (20% vs 14%), but less likely to be female (46% vs 54%). Persons with aTRH, compared with non-resistant hypertension, had lower mean PCS scores (35.8 vs 43.2; P<0.0001), and utility (0.68 vs 0.74; P<0.0001), but similar MCS scores (49.1 vs 50.4). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, aTRH was associated with a 2.37 (95% CI 1.71 to 3.02) lower PCS score and 0.02 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.03) lower utility, compared with non-resistant hypertension. In conclusion, aTRH was associated with substantially lower HrQoL in physical functioning and health utility, but not in mental functioning, compared with non-resistant hypertension. The multivariable-adjusted reduction in physical functioning was similar in magnitude to previous observations comparing hypertension with no hypertension.

Most patients with diabetes mellitus require multiple medications to achieve glycemic goals. Considering this and the increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes worldwide, the need for effective combination therapy is pressing. Basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are frequently used to treat type 2 diabetes. Though both classes of medication are exclusively injectable, which may cause initial hesitation from providers, evidence for their combined use is substantial. This review summarizes the theoretical benefit, supporting evidence, and implementation of a combined basal insulin-GLP-1 receptor agonist regimen. Basal insulin added to a GLP-1 receptor agonist reduces hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) without weight gain or significantly increased hypoglycemia. A GLP-1 receptor agonist added to basal insulin reduces HbA1c and body weight. Compared with the addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin, a GLP-1 receptor agonist produces similar or greater reduction in HbA1c, weight loss instead of weight gain, and less hypoglycemia. Gastrointestinal adverse events are common with GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially during initiation and titration. However, combination with basal insulin is not expected to augment expected adverse events that come with using a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Basal insulin can be added to a GLP-1 receptor agonist with a slow titration to target goal fasting plasma glucose. In patients starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist, the dose of basal insulin should be decreased by 20 % in patients with an HbA1c ≤8 %. The evidence from 15 randomized prospective studies supports the combined use of a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin in a broad range of patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.