Based on the reviewed literature, aripiprazole is a reasonable therapy option as monotherapy or adjunct therapy in patients with PTSD. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand the role of this atypical antipsychotic in patients with PTSD.

Objective: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of colchicine after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Data Sources: English-language searches were made of MEDLINE and EMBASE from database inception through mid-June 2020. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized trials characterizing the effects of colchicine in ACS were considered. Of 627 title and abstracts identified, nine trials were included. Two reviewers extracted data and rated study quality. Data Synthesis: Four studies showed colchicine did not attenuate C-reactive protein production. Colchicine did modulate the NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3 inflammasome in 3 studies and reduced production of chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2), CCL5, and C-X3-C motif chemokine ligand 1 in 1 study. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were not significantly different at 30 days in 3 studies, administered as 1.8 mg preprocedurally or scheduled 1 mg daily. One study found a significant reduction in MACE with colchicine 0.5 mg daily over median 22.6 months (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.61-0.96). Colchicine is associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events but was generally well tolerated. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Colchicine is likely to reduce MACE in an ACS population if administered for greater than 30 days but does not improve MACE when administered only preprocedurally. Conclusions: Adjunctive colchicine 0.5 mg daily for greater than 30 days is reasonable for an ACS population on guideline-directed medical therapy treated with PCI. Additional studies are needed to validate and determine the durability of these benefits.

Background and Aims: Chemical impurities discovered in angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) products in late 2018–2019 resulted in recalls of various products and has likely had downstream effects for patients and prescribers. The purpose of this study is to determine how the valsartan recall impacted clinical endpoints and prescribing of antihypertensives. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study including patients receiving recalled valsartan with essential hypertension who were mailed a recall letter on 12 March 2019. Mean blood pressure endpoints were collected 6 months before (pre-recall) and after the recall letter was mailed (post-recall). Antihypertensive medication changes and titrations were also characterized post-recall. Results: A total of 300 patients meeting eligibility criteria were included. There was no statistically significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) when pre- and post-recall blood pressures were compared (SBP: 137.2 mmHg versus 135.8 mmHg, p = 0.125; DBP: 78.6 mmHg versus 78.5 mmHg, p = 0.900). In addition, the percentage of patients with controlled blood pressure readings was similar in the pre- and post-recall timeframes (28% versus 27%, p = 0.72). A total of 33 medication changes involving valsartan occurred, with approximately one-third being changed to another ARB ( n = 11) or drug class ( n = 12). In total, 11 valsartan medication changes were specifically documented to be related to the valsartan recall. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate the valsartan recalls that occurred in 2019 did not significantly impact the clinical outcomes of the studied population. Plain Language Summary Impact of a medication recall on Veterans’ outcomes Background: Chemical impurities discovered in a class of blood pressure medications known as angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) occurred in late 2018–2019. This resulted in recalls of various products and has likely had downstream effects for patients and prescribers. Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine how the recall of valsartan, which is a medication in the ARB class, impacted clinical endpoints and prescribing of medications for blood pressure. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study including patients receiving recalled valsartan with high blood pressure who were mailed a recall letter on 12 March 2019. Blood pressure endpoints were collected 6 months before (pre-recall) and after the recall letter was mailed (post-recall). Medication changes and titrations were also characterized post-recall. Results: Three hundred patients meeting eligibility criteria were included. There was no difference found in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) when pre- and post-recall blood pressures were compared (SBP: 137.2 mmHg versus 135.8 mmHg; DBP: 78.6 mmHg versus 78.5 mmHg). In addition, the percent of patients with controlled blood pressure readings was similar in the pre- and post-recall timeframes (28% versus 27%). A total of 33 medication changes involving valsartan occurred, with approximately one-third being changed to another ARB ( n = 11) or drug class ( n = 12). Eleven valsartan medication changes were specifically documented to be related to the valsartan recall. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate the valsartan recalls that occurred in 2019 did not significantly impact the clinical outcomes of the studied population.

Based on the reviewed literature, allopurinol appears to be a promising therapy to improve vascular function and reduce disability in patients who have had a stroke. The benefits seen are in combination with current standard of care treatments with aspirin and lipid-lowering therapy. Larger trials are necessary to better understand the role of allopurinol in patients with history of stroke.

Pharmacy residents' involvement in adjudicating PADRs at a VA healthcare system resulted in substantial cost savings over the course of the residency year.