We assessed the efficacy and safety of colchicine and low-dose naltrexone (LDN), alone and in combination, in preventing progression to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In this prospective, randomized, open-label trial, colchicine and LDN were compared to standard of care (SOC) in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 not requiring high levels of ventilatory support. Patients were randomly assigned to colchicine alone, LDN alone, colchicine/LDN in combination, or SOC. The primary outcome was time to disease recovery. Secondary outcomes included total time hospitalized, study enrollment, level of care, oxygen support, and adverse events. One-hundred and thirty-seven patients were randomized (N c = 34, N c+ldn = 33, N ld n = 35, N soc = 35). Eightyfour patients (61%) achieved disease recovery by day 5. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who experienced the primary efficacy outcome among those who received colchicine, LDN, or between the four study arms. Patients receiving colchicine had a shorter length of enrollment but not a significant reduction in the length of stay. Diarrhea was the most common adverse reaction. In adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 not requiring high-level ventilatory support, colchicine and LDN, alone and in combination, were not associated with significant reductions in progression to severe disease.

As it relates to supporting the internal and reflective aspects of professional identity formation (PIF), intention/reflection practices (I/R) have 3 objectives to help students 1) develop habitual ways of contextualizing and directing their own learning, 2) mature their internal influence via defining their values, goals and desired professional characteristics, 3) infuse the educational experience with pharmacy practice relevance.

Background: With 30-day Medicare readmission rates reaching 20%, a heightened focus has been placed on improving the transition process from hospital to home. For many institutions, this charge has identified medication-use safety as an area where pharmacists are well-positioned to improve outcomes by reducing medication therapy problems (MTPs). Methods: This system-wide (425 bed community hospital plus 18 primary care clinics) prospective study recruited inpatient and ambulatory pharmacists to provide comprehensive medication management before and after hospital discharge. The results analyzed were the success rate and timing of the inpatient to ambulatory pharmacist handoff, as well as the number, type, and severity of MTPs resolved in both settings. Results: Of the 105 eligible patients who received a pharmacist evaluation before discharge, 61 (58%) received follow-up with an ambulatory pharmacist an average of 2.88 days after discharge (range 1–8 days). An average of 5 and 1.4 MTPs per patient were identified and resolved in the inpatient vs. ambulatory setting, respectively. Although average MTP severity ratings were higher in the inpatient setting, the highest severity rating was seen most frequently in the ambulatory setting. Conclusions: In the transition from hospital to home, pharmacist evaluation in both the inpatient and ambulatory settings are necessary to resolve medication therapy problems.

Minimum competencies for diagnostic tools, such as the electrocardiogram, are not well-defined in current standards or publications. The electrocardiogram has significant pharmacotherapeutic implications that pharmacists should have an adequate understanding of. This commentary highlights the importance of pharmacists' understanding of key elements of the electrocardiogram and drafts a set of recommended minimum competencies for graduating pharmacy students.

BACKGROUND:The professional need for development of clinical faculty is clear. Previous scholarship provides insight into the formative potential of peer review in both didactic and experiential settings. Less information exists on a comprehensive peer review process (PRP) designed to support faculty change.EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING:A clinical faculty PRP was developed and implemented based on input from the literature, stakeholders, and field experts. The process included: 1) self-reflective pre-work, 2) a peer-observation component, 3) self-reflective post-work, and 4) creation of a specific action plan via meeting with an educational expert. The process was assessed by collecting evaluative data from peer reviewer and clinical faculty participants.FINDINGS:Eight of 26 faculty members participated in a pilot of the PRP and formed four clinical faculty-peer dyads. When surveyed, all participants unanimously reported that they would participate in the PRP again. Aspects perceived among most helpful to clinical teaching included peer observation, self-reflection, and meeting with an educational expert. Challenges related to the process included anxiety of peer observation, burden of pre-work, and logistics of scheduling meetings.DISCUSSION:While instruments are important in guiding and documenting the evaluation of clinical teaching during an observation period, this initiative focused on the process supporting the observation and evaluation, in order to optimize the formative feedback received by participating faculty and encourage professional development actions.SUMMARY:A PRP that incorporates preparation, reflective practice, and a meeting with an educational expert may support meaningful faculty development in the area of clinical teaching.

Objective. To evaluate the composition and effectiveness as an assessment tool of a criterion-referenced examination comprised of clinical cases tied to practice decisions, to examine the effect of varying audience response system (ARS) questions on student examination preparation, and to articulate guidelines for structuring examinations to maximize evaluation of student learning. Design. Multiple-choice items developed over 5 years were evaluated using Bloom’s Taxonomy classification, point biserial correlation, item difficulty, and grade distribution. In addition, examination items were classified into categories based on similarity to items used in ARS preparation. Assessment. As the number of items directly tied to clinical practice rose, Bloom’s Taxonomy level and item difficulty also rose. In examination years where Bloom’s levels were high but preparation was minimal, average grade distribution was lower compared with years in which student preparation was higher. Conclusion. Criterion-referenced examinations can benefit from systematic evaluation of their composition and effectiveness as assessment tools. Calculated design and delivery of classroom preparation is an asset in improving examination performance on rigorous, practice-relevant examinations.

Objectives: To describe the evolving process and evaluate the perceived value of peer review for clinical faculty. Methods: Using a 5-point Likert scale, clinical faculty rated the value of an electronic peer review process by completing an electronic 30 item survey across six areas of clinical faculty practice-related activity. Based on feedback, modifications were made and faculty were re-surveyed the following year. Results: Initially, 78% of faculty found peer review to be beneficial, mostly in the area of practice development and portions of practice dissemination. After modifications, 45% found peer review to be beneficial. Conclusions: Clinical faculty are challenged to leverage their practice into teaching and scholarly activities; however, clinical faculty often need feedback to accomplish this. Although the peer review process was designed to address perceived needs of clinical faculty, the process is dynamic and needs further refinement. Overall, clinical faculty find value in a peer review process. This evaluation of peer review illustrates the challenges to provide feedback across six key areas of clinical faculty activity. Type: Original Research

Objective: To evaluate a student-generated question assignment in a pharmacotherapy course for (1) perceived educational value, (2) faculty and student satisfaction, (3) item quality, (4) workload, and (5) perceived benefit.Methods: Second-year pharmacy students in a dual campus college participated in generating patient-based vignettes with associated multiple-choice questions for an exam. Submissions were assessed by faculty in terms of structure and content and then made available to all students as a study aid. Project evaluation included examination of item quality as well as faculty and student surveys exploring educational value, general satisfaction with the assignment. and workload.Results: Post-project satisfaction surveys were completed by 97% of students (n = 165) and 100% of faculty (n = 8). Overall, 80% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they were proud of their group's final submission, and more than 85% agreed or strongly agreed that participation in the project assisted them in analyzing concepts and guidelines taught in class. All faculty members agreed or strongly agreed that the activity should be conducted in future offerings of the course. The average point biserial correlation coefficient for the student-generated items was 0.26 versus 0.22 for faculty-written items. Structure- and content focused faculty spent an average of 27 minutes (SD 6) and 52 minutes (SD 14), respectively, to complete each assignment.Conclusion: A student-generated question assignment can be feasibly conducted across two campuses as an active learning exercise that enhances student-perceived learning of pharmacotherapy principles with a high level of both student and faculty satisfaction. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Objective: To review the available literature on international normalized ratio (INR) and chromogenic factor X (CFX) monitoring in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), specifically lupus anticoagulant (LA), and furthermore, to identify benefits of one monitoring test compared with the other in the presence of LA. Data Sources: A literature search was conducted through MEDLINE (1946-May 2014) utilizing the following MeSH terms chromogenic compounds, anticoagulants, and factor X. Further articles were identified from original literature citations. Study Selection: All English-language studies were included that involved INR and/or CFX monitoring in APS patients that focused on a therapeutic anticoagulation level with warfarin therapy. Data Synthesis: A total of 55 articles were identified, of which nine are referenced because of their relevance for this review: three articles focus on the efficacy of utilizing INR monitoring in patients with APS, five focus on CFX compared with INR for therapeutic warfarin dosing, and one compares different thromboplastins utilizing both INR and CFX monitoring. INR monitoring in patients with APS, specifically LA, was not found to be reliable because thromboplastin reagents are sensitive to LA. Furthermore, when INR was compared to CFX, patients with LA had supratherapeutic INRs despite having CFX within goal range. Conclusions: In a subgroup of APS patients, INR monitoring may not be safe for determining the dose of warfarin because their INR values can be falsely elevated. Although CFX monitoring is more accurate, it too comes with its own downsides. Managing warfarin therapy in the APS population needs to be individualized.

Many changes associated with bariatric surgery have the potential to affect warfarin dosing; yet current literature includes little data describing this phenomenon. Investigating this relationship may allow for determination of post-bariatric surgery warfarin dosing using stable pre-operative dosing levels. A retrospective chart review was completed for 10 patients stabilized on chronic warfarin therapy who underwent bariatric surgery. Data collection consisted of the following: warfarin requirement in mg/week, time in target range (TTR), creatinine, liver function, diarrhoea, medication changes, diet, and signs of bleeding and/or thrombosis. Three study patients underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedures and seven patients underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The average (standard deviation) weekly warfarin dose required in the immediate post-operative interval was 64% (25%) of baseline dosing, corresponding to a TTR of 48%. At 6 months, patients required 85% (19%) of baseline weekly dosing, with TTR of 53.4%. At 1 year, dosing was 90% (16%) of baseline with TTR of 63.5%. Patients underwent medication changes as well as transient bouts of diarrhoea. Two patients suffered unspecified haemorrhages of the gastrointestinal tract (international normalized ratio [INR] = 2.3 and 9.8). This patient set demonstrated an initial drop in warfarin requirement, followed by escalating dosing trends that became more predictable as patients were farther out from procedure.