James C. McAllister III, MS, FASHP, Pharmacy Times Editor, Health-Systems Pharmacy Section
I recently read a newspaper article
that described a consumer-use study
conducted to determine the feasibility
of making lovastatin (Mevacor) an
OTC product. The Merck-sponsored
study concluded that lovastatin could
be safely and effectively used by consumers
with the aid of a self-management
system developed by the manufacturer.
The FDA, however, disagreed
with the conclusions drawn from the
data and denied approval of lovastatin
OTC status. What bothered me about
the article was a reference to the design
of the study, which used nurses as
study investigators who "assumed the
role"of pharmacists!
I searched out the article by Melin et
al from the American Journal of Cardiology
(November 15, 2004) to try to
understand the study design and
review the trial results. I was particularly
interested in why nurses were used in
lieu of pharmacists. I was even more
appalled to learn that nurse investigators
were explicitly instructed not to volunteer
any information or perform an eligibility
assessment that could assist the
consumer as they contemplated initiating
therapy. They were allowed to use
scripted responses if patients (study
participants) asked questions.
Although the consumers were
required to know their baseline high-density
lipoprotein, low-density
lipoprotein (LDL), and triglyceride levels,
no efforts were made to ensure
accurate recollection by the patient. On
request, consumers could purchase
a cholesterol test.
Then I got it! The study was
designed to evaluate a layperson's
potential for self-treatment
without any help. To me,
this is an affront to the pharmacist's
role and value in
improving health.
The authors suggested that
>23 million Americans comprise
the intermediate-risk
population for coronary heart
disease and that 62% of this
population remains untreated.
Clearly there is an important unmet
need here. The statistics reflect little
awareness on the part of consumers
regarding the impact of abnormal cholesterol
levels, much less the lifestyle
changes needed to help ameliorate the
problem. Pharmacists know that too
many people decline counseling, are
marginally compliant, and communicate
inconsistently or poorly with
their providers.
Lovastatin seems to be a perfect drug
to be designated as a "limited-distribution"
drug that could be safely and
effectively managed by pharmacists.
Cholesterol screening could be offered
to determine baseline cholesterol levels
and treatment monitors. Pharmacists
are accomplished patient counselors
when given the time and patient interest.
Pharmacists could notify the
patients'physician about laboratory
test results and the drug-dose regimen
initiated by them. Education could
include improving lifestyle behaviors
and monitoring for possible side
effects. Periodic reassessments would
enable dosage refinement or suggest
the need to see a physician.
This relatively safe and effective
drug could serve as a trial of the effectiveness
of pharmacists as integral
providers of patient care, whose value
has been underestimated and underutilized.
Imagine the impact of aggregated
national results that reflected
that pharmacists initiated therapy for
75% of the moderate-risk patients,
which in turn resulted in effective
lowering of LDL!
Perhaps Merck and other manufacturers
should consider partnering with
pharmacists to improve health, by supporting
pharmacists who manage limited-
distribution drugs. We pharmacists
are ready for this responsibility.