Background

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may disrupt control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients and increase their risk of morbidity, mortality, and the costs of care. The objective of this study was to examine the association between incident use of NSAIDs and blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult hypertensive patients to determine the effects of their first prescription for NSAID on systolic blood pressure and antihypertensive drug intensification. Data were collected from an electronic medical record serving an academic general medicine practice in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Using propensity scores to minimize bias, we matched a cohort of 1,340 users of NSAIDs with 1,340 users of acetaminophen. Propensity score models included covariates likely to affect blood pressure or the use of NSAIDs. The study outcomes were the mean systolic blood pressure measurement after starting NSAIDs and changes in antihypertensive therapy.

Results

Compared to patients using acetaminophen, NSAID users had a 2 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure (95% CI, 0.7 to 3.3). Ibuprofen was associated with a 3 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure compared to naproxen (95% CI, 0.5 to 4.6), and a 5 mmHg increase compared to celecoxib (95% CI, 0.4 to 10). The systolic blood pressure increase was 3 mmHg in a subgroup of patients concomitantly prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers and 6 mmHg among those prescribed a beta-adrenergic blocker. Blood pressure changes in patients prescribed diuretics or multiple antihypertensives were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Compared to acetaminophen, incident use of NSAIDs, particularly ibuprofen, is associated with a small increase in systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Effects in patients prescribed diuretics or multiple antihypertensives are negligible.

When patients consult more than one source of information about their medications, they may encounter conflicting information. Although conflicting information has been associated with negative outcomes, including worse medication adherence, little is known about how patients make health decisions when they receive conflicting information. The objective of this study was to explore the decision making strategies that individuals with arthritis use when they receive conflicting medication information. Qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with 20 men and women with arthritis. Interview vignettes posed scenarios involving conflicting information from different sources (e.g., doctor, pharmacist, and relative), and respondents were asked how they would respond to the situation. Data analysis involved inductive coding to identify emergent themes and deductive contextualization to make meaning from the emergent themes. In response to conflicting medication information, patients used rules of thumb, trial and error, weighed benefits and risks, and sought more information, especially from a doctor. Patients relied heavily on trial and error when there was no conflicting information involved in the vignette. In contrast, patients used rules of thumb as a unique response to conflicting information. These findings increase our understanding of what patients do when they receive conflicting medication information. Given that patient exposure to conflicting information is likely to increase alongside the proliferation of medication information on the Internet, patients may benefit from assistance in identifying the most appropriate decision strategies for dealing with conflicting information, including information about best information sources.

Objectives

To describe the funding, education, enrollment, and graduation patterns from economic, social, and administrative sciences PhD programs in colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States.

Methods

Economic, social, and administrative sciences PhD programs were identified from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Web site. A 41-item online survey instrument was sent to the director of graduate studies of each identified program. Only programs offering a PhD degree were included in the study.

Results

Of the 26 programs surveyed, 20 (77%) provided useable responses to the survey instrument. Approximately 91% of PhD programs guarantee funding to incoming students with an average commitment of 2.9 years. On average, students were paid a stipend of $18,000 per year for commitments to research and teaching assistantships, each averaging approximately 2 years in length. Programs admitted an average of 3.5 students per year and graduated approximately 85% of entering students. The majority of students are non-US citizens and accept positions in either academic or industrial positions after graduation.

Conclusions

Most economic, social, and administrative sciences PhD programs guarantee funding to incoming PhD candidates. Programs offering funding packages significantly below the average may be at a competitive disadvantage. It is unclear whether the number of students graduating from PhD programs is adequate to fulfill academic and industrial needs.

Objectives

To assess differences in the practice of pharmacy and in job satisfaction between graduates of a nontraditional doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) program and a bachelor of science (BS) in pharmacy program.

Methods

Two separate survey instruments were mailed to 293 PharmD graduates and 293 BS graduates.

Results

Two hundred fourteen (73.0%) of the 293 nontraditional PharmD graduates and 189 (64.5%) of the 293 BS graduates completed the survey instruments. Nontraditional PharmD graduates expressed greater satisfaction, both in their current position and with pharmacy as a career, compared to BS graduates. Nontraditional PharmD graduates were more likely than BS graduates to practice in a hospital and have more clinical responsibilities.

Conclusions

Nontraditional PharmD graduates are more likely to have greater satisfaction with their job and with pharmacy as a career compared to BS-trained pharmacists.

Objectives

To determine the extent to which the structured interview is used in the PharmD admissions process in US colleges and schools of pharmacy, and the prevalence and content of interviewer training.

Methods

A survey instrument consisting of 7 questions regarding interviews and interviewer training was sent to 92 colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States that were accredited or seeking accreditation.

Results

Sixty survey instruments (65% response rate) were returned. The majority of the schools that responded (80%) used interviews as part of the PharmD admissions process. Of the schools that used an interview as part of the admissions process, 86% provided some type of interviewer training and 13% used a set of predefined questions in admissions interviews.

Conclusions

Most colleges and schools of pharmacy use some components of the structured interview in the PharmD admissions process; however, training for interviewers varies widely among colleges and schools of pharmacy.