Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of death around the world with various efforts being made to reduce risk in patients through preventive measures. One major method for prevention has been managing cholesterol, particularly low-density lipoprotein to decrease atherosclerotic plaque burden, potentially decreasing future cardiac complications. Statins have been the gold standard therapy for hypercholesterolemia treatment due to their ease of dosing, limited drug interactions, and favorable safety profile. Unfortunately, statin therapy alone is not always effective enough to adequately control a patient’s elevated lipid levels and combination therapy may be warranted. Ezetimibe is commonly added to regimens to help augment cholesterol lowering by inhibiting the absorption of cholesterol. The recent approval of a combination tablet of high-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe has introduced a potentially more beneficial option for cholesterol management in addition to the only available combination of moderate intensity simvastatin and ezetimibe. We aimed to identify potential beneficial effects of ezetimibe by comparing its use in combination with high-intensity rosuvastatin compared to a statin therapy alone or in combination with moderate intensity simvastatin through a literature review. The current evidence indicated that combination therapy outperformed statin monotherapy in reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and patients were more likely to achieve their target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal level. This suggests rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination holds a potential place in therapy for patients requiring a more aggressive reduction in cholesterol to help prevent atherosclerotic disease.

Antimicrobial resistance is a widely recognized public health threat, and stewardship interventions to combat this problem are well described. Less is known about antifungal stewardship (AFS) initiatives and their influence within the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate evidence on the impact of AFS interventions on clinical and performance measures. A systematic review of English language studies identified in the PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed through November 2017. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA. Search terms included antifungal stewardship, antimicrobial stewardship, Candida, candidemia, candiduria, and invasive fungal disease. Eligible studies were those that described an AFS program or intervention occurring in the US and evaluated clinical or performance measures. Fifty-four articles were identified and 13 were included. Five studies evaluated AFS interventions and reported clinical outcomes (mortality and length of stay) and performance measures (appropriate antifungal choice and time to therapy). The remaining eight studies evaluated general stewardship interventions and reported data on antifungal consumption. All studies were single center, quasi-experimental with varying interventions across studies. AFS programs had no impact on mortality (3 of 3 studies), with an overall rate of 27% in the intervention group and 23% in the non-intervention group. Length of stay (5 of 5) was also similar between groups (range, 9–25 vs. 11–22). Time to antifungal therapy improved in 2 of 5 studies, and appropriate choice of antifungal increased in 2 of 2 studies. Antifungal consumption was significantly blunted or reduced following stewardship initiation (8 of 8), although a direct comparison between studies was not possible due to a lack of common units. The available evidence suggests that AFS interventions can improve performance measures and decrease antifungal consumption. Although this review did not detect improvements in clinical outcomes, significant adverse outcomes were not reported.

What is known and objective Use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) remains common in older adults, despite the easy availability of screening tools such as the Beers and Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Multiple published studies have implemented these screening tools to encourage deprescribing of PIMs, with mixed results. Little is known about the reasons behind the success or failure of these interventions, or what could be done to improve their impact. Implementation science (IS) provides a set of theories, models and frameworks to address these questions. The goal of this study was to conduct a focused narrative review of the deprescribing literature through an IS lens—to determine the extent to which implementation factors were identified and the intermediate steps in the intervention were measured. A better understanding of the existing literature, including its gaps, may provide a roadmap for future research. Methods PubMed search from 2000‐2019 using appropriate MeSH headings. Inclusion criteria: controlled trials or prospective cohort studies intended to reduce PIMs in the elderly that used hospitalizations and/or emergency department visits as outcome measures. Studies were reviewed to identify potential implementation factors (known as determinants), using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide. In addition, intermediate outcomes were extracted. Results and discussion Of the 548 reviewed abstracts, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent detailed analysis. Of the 14 studies, 10 acknowledged potential implementation determinants that could be mapped onto CFIR. The most commonly identified determinant was the degree of pharmacist integration into the medical team (seven of 14 studies), which mapped onto the CFIR construct of ‘networks and communication’. Several important CFIR constructs were absent in the reviewed literature. Intermediate measures were captured by 12 of the 14 reviewed papers, but the choice of measures was inconsistent across studies. What is new and conclusion In recent high‐quality studies of deprescribing interventions, we found limited acknowledgement of factors known to be important to successful implementation and inconsistent reporting of intermediate outcomes. These findings indicate missed opportunities to understand the factors underlying study outcomes. As a result, we run the risk of rejecting worthwhile interventions due to negative results, when the correct interpretation might be that they failed in implementation. In other words, they were ‘lost in translation’. Studies that rigorously examine and report on the implementation process are needed to tease apart this important distinction.

Pharmacists play a key role in deprescribing medications. Incorporation of this concept into pharmacy school curricula is important in ensuring that graduates can address the complex needs of an aging population. The aims of this study were to assess if and how student pharmacists were exposed to deprescribing within their curriculum, to assess students’ perceptions regarding their attitudes, ability and confidence in deprescribing, and to assess if reported curricular exposure to this topic resulted in improved perceptions or objective knowledge assessment scores. An electronic survey was distributed to third- and fourth-year pharmacy students at 132 schools of pharmacy. The survey included three sections including: (i) demographics and questions on their exposure to deprescribing and other experiences within their curriculum; (ii) questions regarding their attitudes, ability, and confidence regarding deprescribing on a 5-point Likert-scale; (iii) a knowledge assessment on polypharmacy and deprescribing in the form of 12 multiple-choice questions. Likert-scale questions were analyzed as scales utilizing the mean score for items measuring student perceptions regarding deprescribing attitudes, ability, and confidence. Comparisons were made on each variable between students with and without curricular exposure to deprescribing using t-tests. Ninety-one responses were included in the analysis. Only 59.3% of respondents reported exposure to deprescribing in their didactic coursework. The mean scores on the polypharmacy and deprescribing knowledge assessments were 61.0% and 64.5%, respectively. Those with exposure to deprescribing concepts within their curriculum were more likely to agree that their school’s curriculum prepared them to deprescribe in clinical practice (t(89) = −2.26, p = 0.03). Pharmacy schools should evaluate their curricula and consider the addition of specific deprescribing objectives and outcome measures for didactic and experiential training.

Background: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was introduced to reduce readmission rates among Medicare beneficiaries, however little is known about readmissions and costs for HRRP-targeted conditions in younger populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine readmission trends and costs for targeted conditions during policy implementation among younger and older adults in the U.S. Methods: We analyzed the Nationwide Readmission Database from January 2010 to September 2015 in younger (18–64 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), pneumonia, and acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Pre- and post-HRRP periods were defined based on implementation of the policy for each condition. Readmission rates were evaluated using an interrupted time series with difference-in-difference analyses and hospital cost differences between early and late readmissions (≤30 vs. > 30 days) were evaluated using generalized linear models. Results: Overall, this study included 16,884,612 hospitalizations with 3,337,266 readmissions among all age groups and 5,977,177 hospitalizations with 1,104,940 readmissions in those aged 18–64 years. Readmission rates decreased in all conditions. In the HRRP announcement period, readmissions declined significantly for those aged 40–64 years for AMI (p < 0.0001) and HF (p = 0.003). Readmissions decreased significantly in the post-HRRP period for those aged 40–64 years at a slower rate for AMI (p = 0.003) and HF (p = 0.05). Readmission rates among younger patients (18–64 years) varied within all four targeted conditions in HRRP announcement and post-HRRP periods. Adjusted models showed a significantly higher readmission cost in those readmitted within 30 days among younger and older populations for AMI (p < 0.0001), HF (p < 0.0001), pneumonia (p < 0.0001), and AECOPD (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Readmissions for targeted conditions decreased in the U.S. during the enactment of the HRRP policy and younger age groups (< 65 years) not targeted by the policy saw a mixed effect. Healthcare expenditures in younger and older populations were significantly higher for early readmissions with all targeted conditions. Further research is necessary evaluating total healthcare utilization including emergency department visits, observation units, and hospital readmissions in order to better understand the extent of the HRRP on U.S. healthcare.