Patients' perceptions on the facilitators and barriers using injectable therapies in dyslipidaemia: An empirical qualitative descriptive international study.

BACKGROUND: Injectable medicines are increasingly used to manage abnormal levels of lipids, which is a major risk factor for cardiovascular events. Enhancing our understanding of patients' perceptions of these injectables, can inform practice with the aim of increasing uptake and medication adherence. AIM: To explore patient's experiences of using injectables and to identify potential facilitators and barriers to using injectable therapies in dyslipidaemia. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews was conducted with patients who were using injectables to manage their cardiovascular conditions. METHODS: A total of 56 patients, 30 from the United Kingdom and 26 from Italy, were interviewed online from November 2020 to June 2021. Interviews were transcribed and schematic content analysis performed. RESULTS: Four distinct themes emerged from interviews with patients and caregivers: (i) Their behaviours and personal beliefs; (ii) Knowledge and education about injectable medication; (iii) Clinical skills and previous experiences and (iv) Organizational and governance. Participants expressed initial fears such as needle phobia, and their concerns about commencing therapy were compounded by a lack of accessible information. However, patients' pre-existing knowledge of lipid lowering medication, previous experience with statins and history of adverse side effects informed their decision-making regarding using injectables. Organization and governance-related issues were primarily around the distribution and management of medication supply within primary care, and the lack of a standardized clinical support monitoring system. CONCLUSION: Changes are needed in clinical practice to better educate and support patients to improve the uptake of injectables and optimize their use of these medications in the management of dyslipidaemia. IMPACT: This study suggests that injectable therapies were acceptable to people with cardiovascular disease. However, healthcare professionals need to play a key role in improving education and providing support to aid patients' decision-making regarding commencing and adhering to injectable therapies. REPORTING METHOD: The study adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no patient or public contribution.

Managing drug-induced QT prolongation in clinical practice.

Many drug therapies are associated with prolongation of the QT interval. This may increase the risk of Torsades de Pointes (TdP), a potentially life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia. As the QT interval varies with a change in heart rate, various formulae can adjust for this, producing a 'corrected QT' (QTc) value. Normal QTc intervals are typically <450 ms for men and <460 ms for women. For every 10 ms increase, there is a ~5% increase in the risk of arrhythmic events. When prescribing drugs associated with QT prolongation, three key factors should be considered: patient-related risk factors (eg, female sex, age >65 years, uncorrected electrolyte disturbances); the potential risk and degree of QT prolongation associated with the proposed drug; and co-prescribed medicines that could increase the risk of QT prolongation. To support clinicians, who are likely to prescribe such medicines in their daily practice, we developed a simple algorithm to help guide clinical management in patients who are at risk of QT prolongation/TdP, those exposed to QT-prolonging medication or have QT prolongation.

The my experience of taking medicines (MYMEDS) questionnaire for assessing medicines adherence barriers in post-myocardial infarction patients: development and utility.

BACKGROUND: The 'My Experience of Taking Medicines' (MYMEDS) questionnaire is a self-reporting tool for identifying modifiable adherence barriers among individuals prescribed post-myocardial infarction (MI) secondary prevention medicines (SPM) in clinical practice. It was found to be a useful tool to support the conduction of patient-centred consultation in cardiology outpatient leading to improved outcomes including better adherence to SPM and patient satisfaction. This study describes the rationale and development of the MYMEDS tool, its performance and usefulness in identifying modifiable barriers to adherence in cardiology medical practice including user feedback of 204 consecutive post-MI patients who completed an evaluation based on MYMEDS. METHODS: Modifiable non-adherence factors were initially identified based on literature review and stakeholder feedback. A draft MYMEDS questionnaire was piloted in 10 patients and adapted accordingly. The final version comprises six sections, covering current medicines, understanding and satisfaction with medicines, concerns about medicines, practical adherence barriers, fitting medicines into daily routine, and adherence to individual SPMs. The questionnaire was mailed to post-MI patients who then attended an outpatient medicines optimisation clinic. RESULTS: Mean age was 70.5 years and 67.6% were male. The tool was effective in revealing modifiable adherence barriers that could be addressed during the consultation. There were high rates of concern that SPMs could be harmful (33.2%) or overprescribed (43.2%), practical issues with swallowing medicines (8.2%), opening packaging (7.3%) or accessing repeat prescriptions (5.2%), forgetfulness (19.7%), and concerns about inconvenience (13.5%). Mean number of barriers per patient was 1.8 ± 1.5. The medications most commonly associated with non-adherence were statins (21.5%), angiotensin II receptor blockers (21.1%), and antiplatelet agents (18.5%). In total, 42.5% of patients acknowledged non-adherence behaviour. Patient feedback on MYMEDS was positive, with near-unanimous agreement that it was simple, clear and not too long, and that it enabled them to raise any concerns they had about their medicines. Patients reported that their individual medicines related needs were better addressed. CONCLUSIONS: MYMEDS is a practical tool that can successfully identify modifiable barriers to SPM adherence which can be addressed in a clinical setting. It can be easily rolled out in daily clinical practice to enable individualised person-centred medicines optimisation consultation.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on use of PCSK9 inhibitors in cardiovascular disease: an in-depth qualitative study.

AIM: Injectable medicines such as PCSK-9 inhibitors are increasingly used to manage risk factors for cardiovascular events with little information around the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the administrative and clinical practicalities. The aim was to identify the facilitators and barriers on the use of injectable therapies with CV benefits through interviews with HCPs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in the United Kingdom (London and Leeds) and Italy (Rome and Milan) in 2021. Coding was undertaken using NVivo and thematic analysis performed. A total of 38 HCPs were interviewed, 19 in each country composing of physicians (n = 18), pharmacists (n = 10), nurses (n = 9) and pharmacy technician (n = 1). Four themes emerged: (i) Clinicians' previous experiences with injectable therapies (ii) Challenges with patients' behaviours and beliefs (iii) Clinicians' knowledge of injectable therapies and therapeutic inertia and (iv) Organisational and governance issues. The behaviour and beliefs from healthcare professionals focused on facilitating behaviour change as well as the poor interdisciplinary working and collaboration. Therapeutic inertia was raised where physicians either lacked awareness of injectable therapies or were unwilling to prescribe them. The importance of facilitating patient education on injection techniques was highlighted while organisational and governance issues identified the lack of guidance to inform practice. Clear pathways are required to identify those who were eligible for injectable therapies as well as on how injectables should be prescribed. CONCLUSION: If medicine optimisation is to be achieved, there needs to be structured processes in place to identify eligible patients and the development of educational material.

Developing a post-myocardial infarction medicines optimisation clinic: core competencies for upskilling pharmacists and initial patient feedback.

BACKGROUND: Medicines optimisation and adherence support are essential to secondary prevention after myocardial infarction (MI). Following successful implementation of a consultant pharmacist-led post-MI medicines optimisation clinic, the service was expanded by training advanced clinical pharmacists to manage clinics (with appropriate multidisciplinary team support). METHODS: Key steps in the development process were: definition of a key competency framework based on relevant qualifications and experience, knowledge, skills and clinic management practicalities; creation and enaction of trainee-specific development plans to address gaps (including independent learning, teaching from multidisciplinary colleagues and shadowing in clinics); establishment of relevant protocols and proformas to ensure consistent standards (eg, a patient self-reporting tool for identifying adherence barriers, consultation proforma, directory of clinical parameters and pathway for onward referral when needed); phased clinic roll-out, initially under supervision; and gathering of feedback from patients and colleagues. Clinic letters from 50 attending patients were reviewed to quantify resulting interventions; the first 50 anonymously completed patient feedback questionnaires were also analysed. RESULTS: Expansion of the service initially doubled capacity. A review of clinic letters from attending patients demonstrated that various interventions were recommended, including further investigations, medication changes, lifestyle adjustments and onward referrals. Most respondents to the patient feedback questionnaire thought the clinic was patient friendly and welcoming (n=48/50; 96%); felt listened to (n=48/50; 96%); considered that adequate explanation was given (n=47/50; 94%); and felt clear plans were provided (n=45/49; 92%). Most agreed that it was valuable (n=44/50; 88%), and the mean rating was 4.48 (on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent)). CONCLUSIONS: A person-centred post-MI medicines optimisation service was successfully delivered by appropriately trained advanced cardiology pharmacists. A structured competency framework and training programme were required, but once completed, the clinic was highly valued by patients. A similar model could be rolled out elsewhere with adaption to local requirements.

Pharmaco-disparities in heart failure: a survey of the affordability of guideline recommended therapy in 10 countries.

AIMS: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is treatable but guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) may not be affordable or accessible to people living with the disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this cross-sectional survey, we investigated the price, affordability, and accessibility of four pivotal classes of HFrEF GDMT: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI); beta-blockers; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA); and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). We sampled online or community pharmacies in 10 countries across a range of World Bank income groups, assessing mean 30 day retail prescription prices, affordability relative to gross national income per capita per month, and accessibility. We reported median price ratios relative to the International Reference Standard. We performed a literature review to evaluate accessibility to GDMT classes through publicly funded drug programmes in each country. HFrEF GDMT prices, both absolute and relative to the international reference, were highest in the United States and lowest in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The most expensive drug was the ARNI, sacubitril/valsartan, with a mean (standard deviation, SD) 30 day price ranging from $11.06 (0.81) in Pakistan to $611.50 (3.54) in United States. The least expensive drug was the MRA, spironolactone, with a mean (SD) 30 day price ranging from $0.18 (0.00) in Pakistan to $12.32 (0.00) in England. Affordability (SD) of quadruple therapy-ARNI, beta-blockers, MRA, and SGLT2i-was best in high-income and worst in low-income countries, ranging from 1.49 (0.00)% of gross national income per capita per month in England to 232.47 (31.47)% in Uganda. Publicly funded drug programmes offset costs for eligible patients, but ARNI and SGLT2i were inaccessible through these programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Price, affordability, and access were substantially improved in all countries by substituting ARNI for ACEi/ARB. CONCLUSIONS: There was marked variation between countries in the retail price of HFrEF GDMT. Despite higher prices in high-income countries, GDMT was more accessible and affordable than in low- and middle-income countries. Publicly funded drug programmes in lower income countries increased affordability but limited access to newer HFrEF GDMT classes. Pharmaco-disparities must be addressed to improve HFrEF outcomes globally.

Patient-reported outcome measures and patient engagement in heart failure clinical trials: multi-stakeholder perspectives.

There are many consequences of heart failure (HF), including symptoms, impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physical and social limitations (functional status). These have a substantial impact on patients' lives, yet are not routinely captured in clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can quantify patients' experiences of their disease and its treatment. Steps can be taken to improve the use of PROs in HF trials, in regulatory and payer decisions, and in patient care. Importantly, PRO measures (PROMs) must be developed with involvement of patients, family members, and caregivers from diverse demographic groups and communities. PRO data collection should become more routine not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice. This may be facilitated by the use of digital tools and interdisciplinary patient advocacy efforts. There is a need for standardization, not only of the PROM instruments, but also in procedures for analysis, interpretation and reporting PRO data. More work needs to be done to determine the degree of change that is important to patients and that is associated with increased risks of clinical events. This 'minimal clinically important difference' requires further research to determine thresholds for different PROMs, to assess consistency across trial populations, and to define standards for improvement that warrant regulatory and reimbursement approvals. PROs are a vital part of patient care and drug development, and more work should be done to ensure that these measures are both reflective of the patient experience and that they are more widely employed.

Innovative, centralised, multidisciplinary medicines optimisation clinic for PCSK9 inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9is) are an important but underutilised option to help optimise lipid management. We developed a new service to improve patient access to these medicines in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations. This paper describes the model and provides lipid-lowering results and feedback from the first 100 referred patients. METHODS: The service is based on a centralised multidisciplinary clinic that is the sole prescriber of PCSK9i therapy in the area. Referred patients are assessed for eligibility and given tailored, person-centred support, education and monitoring to promote treatment adherence and lipids optimisation. The clinic also supports referred patients that do not meet PCSK9i eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Among the first 100 patients referred (n=62 male; mean age: 62.9±10.5 years), 48 were initiated on PCSK9i therapy. Mean total cholesterol decreased from 7.7±1.6 mmol/L at baseline to 4.5±1.4 mmol/L at 3 months (41% reduction), while mean low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) fell from 5.0±1.6 mmol/L to 2.1±1.3 mmol/L (58% reduction; p<0.0001) and median LDL-C decreased from 4.8 mmol/L to 1.6 mmol/L (67% reduction) over the same period. These decreases were maintained at 12 months (45%, 65% and 67% reductions, respectively; p<0.0001 for the decrease in mean LDL-C from baseline). Patient feedback on the clinic was positive and overall satisfaction was high. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative, person-centred, multidisciplinary service successfully initiated PCSK9i therapy for eligible patients and drove long-term monitoring, adherence and cholesterol lowering. It also provided medicines optimisation and adherence assistance to PCSK9i-ineligible patients. The model could be used in other areas to support better uptake and optimisation of PCSK9i therapy.

Perceptions of injectable therapies with cardiovascular benefit: an ACNAP survey of healthcare professionals to explore facilitators and barriers.

AIMS: Injectable medicines are increasingly used to manage risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) events, such as dyslipidaemia and diabetes. These include proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Little is known about perceptions of injectable therapies among CV healthcare professionals (HCPs). This study explores their views to identify relevant facilitators and barriers to the use of injectables with CV benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 22-question survey was distributed internationally via online channels. In total, 192 anonymous responses were received (43.7% physicians, 32.6% nurses, 16.8% pharmacists, 6.8% others). Among respondents with experience of these medicines, 69.1% had used an injectable PCSK9 inhibitor and 67.0% had used an injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist. Commonly raised issues were resource problems (36.5%), lack of knowledge among colleagues (32.3%), paperwork (32.3%), and lack of patient knowledge (28.1%). Key barriers respondents felt made patients decline these treatments were fear of injection (56.6%), lack of awareness or education (26.4%), and administration issues (15.1%); potential reasons for discontinuation included side effects (46.4%), perceived lack of benefit (28.6%), and local reactions (21.4%). The main topics around injectables requiring further support included managing non-adherent patients (16.2%), troubleshooting with patients (16.2%), and educating colleagues about injectables (12.2%). Preferred educational methods to support HCPs were face-to-face training (43.5%) and online learning (26.1%); favoured formats were based on role playing and case studies. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals highlighted various potential barriers to initiation, continuation, and adherence with injectable therapies in CV medicine. Although some require healthcare system changes, many could be addressed through simple measures based primarily on enhanced training and support for patients and HCPs.

How Do Hospital Pharmacists Approach Substitution of Nanomedicines? Insights from a Qualitative Pilot Study and a Quantitative Market Research Analysis in Five European Countries.

We conducted research to assess hospital pharmacists' familiarity with/interpretation of data requirements for the different regulatory approval frameworks and the impact of this on their approach to substitution in the formulary. The online questionnaire included a small molecule (acetylsalicylic acid-follow-ons approved via the generic pathway), two biologic drugs (insulin glargine and etanercept-follow-ons approved via the biosimilar pathway), a non-biologic complex drug (NBCD; glatiramer acetate-follow-ons approved via the hybrid pathway) and a nanomedicine, ferric carboxymaltose (no follow-ons approved as yet). The study was conducted in two phases: an initial qualitative pilot study with 30 participants, followed by a quantitative stage involving 201 pharmacists from five European countries. Most expected negligible safety/efficacy differences between reference and follow-on products. Head-to-head clinical data showing therapeutic equivalence as a prerequisite for reference product/follow-on substitution was perceived to be needed most for biologics (47%), followed by NBCDs (44%)/nanomedicines (39%) and small molecules (23%). Overall, 28% did not know the data requirements for follow-on approval via the hybrid pathway; 16% were familiar with this pathway, compared with 50% and 55% for the generic and biosimilar pathways, respectively. Overall, 19% of respondents thought the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was responsible for defining the substitutability of follow-ons. Education is required to increase hospital pharmacist's knowledge of regulatory approval frameworks and their relevance to substitution practices.

Iron deficiency in 78 805 people admitted with heart failure across England: a retrospective cohort study.

Objectives: Iron deficiency (ID), with or without anaemia (IDA), is an important comorbidity in people with chronic heart failure (HF), but the prevalence and significance in those admitted with HF is uncertain. We assessed the prevalence of ID or IDA in adults (age ≥21 years) hospitalised with a primary diagnosis of HF, and examined key metrics associated with these secondary diagnoses. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of Hospital Episode Statistics describing all adults admitted to National Health Service (NHS) hospitals across England from April 2015 through March 2016 with primary diagnostic discharge coding as HF, with or without subsidiary coding for ID/IDA. Results: 78 805 adults were admitted to 177 NHS hospitals with primary coding as HF: 26 530 (33.7%) with secondary coding for ID/IDA, and 52 275 (66.3%) without. Proportionately more patients coded ID/IDA were admitted as emergencies (94.8% vs 87.6%; p<0.0001). Tending to be older and female, they required a longer length of stay (15.8 vs 12.2 days; p<0.0001), with higher per capita costs (£3623 vs £2918; p<0.0001), the cumulative excess expenditure being £21.5 million. HF-related (8.2% vs 5.2%; p<0.0001) and all-cause readmission rates (25.8% vs 17.7%; p<0.05) at ≤30 days were greater in those with ID/IDA against those without, and they manifested a small but statistically significant increased inpatient mortality (13.5% v 12.9%; p=0.009). Conclusions: For adults admitted to hospitals in England, principally with acute HF, ID/IDA are significant comorbidities and associated with adverse outcomes, both for affected individuals, and the health economy.

An integrative review on facilitators and barriers in delivering and managing injectable therapies in chronic conditions: A part of the ACNAP project 'injectable medicines among patients with cardiovascular conditions'.

INTRODUCTION: Although preventive health and therapeutics have benefited from advances in drug development and device innovation, translating these evidence-based treatments into real-world practice remains challenging. AIM: The current integrative review aims to identify facilitators and barriers and perceptions in delivering and managing injectable therapies from patient perspectives. METHODS: An integrative review was conducted in the databases of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane. Keywords were used "Injectable therapy", "IV therapy", "SC therapy", "long term injectable therapies", "self-administered injectable therapy", "patients", "caregivers", "family", "carers", "facilitators", "barriers", "perspectives", "needs", "expectations", "chronic disease", "cardiovascular disease" linked with the words "OR" and "AND". The search was limited from January 2000 to July 2019. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified from the literature search. Studies followed qualitative, quantitative methodology and mixed methods. Facilitators included: health improvement, prevention of disease complications, taking control of their disease, effectiveness of the medication and convenience in management. Barriers included: fear of needles, insulin will cause harm, poor perception of the benefits of injectable therapies on their quality of life, inconvenience in self-management, social stigma, impact on daily living, financial barriers, lack of education. Perceptions included: 'treatment of last resort', 'life becomes less flexible', 'injectables were punishment/restriction', 'personal failure of self-management'. CONCLUSION: Evidence shows how to create effective communication and shared decision-making relationships to provide best possible care to patients who need injectable therapy and support for self-management. Future research might help guide response to the fears and barriers of the patients using patients' perspectives.

Evaluating the extent of patient-centred care in a selection of ESC guidelines.

AIMS: Patient-centred care (PCC) is the cornerstone for healthcare professionals to promote high quality care for patients with cardiovascular conditions. It is defined as 'Providing care that is respectful of, and responsive to, individual patient preferences, needs and values, and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions'. PCC can improve patient outcomes and allow patients and healthcare professionals to manage care collaboratively using best available evidence. However, there is no clear understanding how extensively guidelines incorporate PCC recommendations. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incorporation of PCC into a selection of guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a narrative literature review and expert consensus, the Science Committee within the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP) developed a checklist to determine PCC incorporation in clinical guidelines. Nine ESC guidelines were reviewed, with committee members independently evaluating five PCC aspects: patient voice and involvement, multidisciplinary involvement, holistic care recommendations, flexibility to meet patients' needs, and provision of patient tools. The level of congruence in item ratings by experts was then compared. The incorporation of PCC using these respective five categories, ranged from 4% (patient tools) to 53% in the 'multidisciplinary involvement' category. CONCLUSION: Overall, the inclusion of PCC was low, indicating that patient perspectives and needs were less likely to be taken into account when developing, endorsing, or formulating recommendations. Future development of guidelines should ensure better incorporation of patients' perspective, in particular, and other PCC aspects highlighted in this study.

Managing hyperlipidaemia in patients with COVID-19 and during its pandemic: An expert panel position statement from HEART UK.

The emergence of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious and its severity highly variable. The fatality rate is unpredictable but is amplified by several factors including advancing age, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and obesity. A large proportion of patients with these conditions are treated with lipid lowering medication and questions regarding the safety of continuing lipid-lowering medication in patients infected with COVID-19 have arisen. Some have suggested they may exacerbate their condition. It is important to consider known interactions with lipid-lowering agents and with specific therapies for COVID-19. This statement aims to collate current evidence surrounding the safety of lipid-lowering medications in patients who have COVID-19. We offer a consensus view based on current knowledge and we rated the strength and level of evidence for these recommendations. Pubmed, Google scholar and Web of Science were searched extensively for articles using search terms: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, coronavirus, Lipids, Statin, Fibrates, Ezetimibe, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, nicotinic acid, bile acid sequestrants, nutraceuticals, red yeast rice, Omega-3-Fatty acids, Lomitapide, hypercholesterolaemia, dyslipidaemia and Volanesorsen. There is no evidence currently that lipid lowering therapy is unsafe in patients with COVID-19 infection. Lipid-lowering therapy should not be interrupted because of the pandemic or in patients at increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In patients with confirmed COVID-19, care should be taken to avoid drug interactions, between lipid-lowering medications and drugs that may be used to treat COVID-19, especially in patients with abnormalities in liver function tests.

Adherence to coronary artery disease secondary prevention medicines: exploring modifiable barriers.

Background: Non-adherence to secondary prevention medicines (SPMs) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a challenge in clinical practice. This study attempted to identify actual and potential modifiable barriers to adherence that can be addressed in cardiology clinical practice. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, postal survey-based study of the medicines-taking experience of patients with CAD treated at a secondary/tertiary care centre. All participants had been on SPM for ≥3 months. Results: In total, 696 eligible patients were sent the survey and 503 responded (72.3%). The median age was 70 years, and 403 (80.1%) were male; the median number of individual daily doses of all medicines was 6. The rate of non-adherence to at least one SPM was 43.5% (n=219), but 53.3% of reported non-adherence was to only one SPM. Statins contributed to 66.7% and aspirin to 61.7% of overall non-adherence identified by the Single Question (SQ) tool. In 30.8% of non-adherent patients (n=65), this was at least partly intentional. Barriers included forgetfulness (84.9%; n=186), worry that medicines will do more harm than good (33.8%; n=74), feeling hassled about medicines taking (18.7%; n=41), feeling worse when taking medicines (14.2%; n=31) and not being convinced of the benefit of medicines (9.1%; n=20). In a multivariate analysis, modifiable factors associated with overall non-adherence included being prescribed aspirin (OR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.18 to 4.17), having specific concern about SPM (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.18) and issues with repeat prescriptions (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.26 to 4.90). Different factors were often associated with intentional versus unintentional non-adherence. Conclusions: Using appropriate self-report tools, patients share actual and potential modifiable barriers to adherence that can be addressed in clinical practice. Non-adherence behaviour was selective. Most non-adherence was driven by forgetfulness, concern about the harm caused by SPM and practical barriers.

A competency framework for clinical pharmacists and heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: Heart failure is an escalating 'pandemic' with malignant outcomes. Clinical pharmacist heart failure services have been developing for the past two decades. However, little clarity is available on the additional advanced knowledge, skills and experience needed for pharmacists to practice safely and competently. We aimed to provide an expert consensus on the minimum competencies necessary for clinical pharmacists to deliver appropriate care to patients with heart failure. METHODS: There were four methodological parts; (1) establishing a project group from experts in the field; (2) review of the literature, including existing pharmacy competency frameworks in other specialities and previous heart failure curricula from other professions; (3) consensus building, including developing, reviewing and adapting the contents of the framework; and (4) write-up and dissemination to widen the impact of the project. KEY FINDINGS: The final framework defines minimum competencies relevant to heart failure for four different potential levels of specialism: all pharmacists regardless of role (Stage 1); all patient-facing clinical pharmacists (Stage 2); clinical pharmacists with specific planned roles in the care of heart failure patients (Stage 3); and regionally/nationally/internationally recognised expert pharmacists with a direct specialism in heart failure (Stage 4). CONCLUSIONS: The framework delivers the vital first step needed to help standardise care, give pharmacists a blueprint for career progression and continuing professional development and bring clarity to the role of the pharmacist. Future collaboration between professional bodies and training providers is needed to develop structured programmes to align with the framework and facilitate training and resultant accreditation.

Re-engineering the post-myocardial infarction medicines optimisation pathway: a retrospective analysis of a joint consultant pharmacist and cardiologist clinic model.

Background: Inadequate medicines optimisation and adherence are significant problems among patients taking secondary prevention medications following myocardial infarction (MI). A novel joint consultant cardiology pharmacist and cardiologist medicines optimisation clinic was initiated for patients recently discharged following MI. Methods: Patients completed a locally developed tool, the 'My Experience of Taking Medicines' questionnaire, designed to allow sharing of barriers to adherence with medications. They then attended a clinic with the consultant pharmacist or cardiologist (or both). Secondary prevention medicines needs and barriers to adherence were identified and discussed, and an action plan developed. The data provided are from a retrospective review of 270 post-MI patients attending the service between October 2015 and December 2016. Results: Mean age was 67.3 years and 67.8% were male. The mean time from discharge to first outpatient clinic attendance was reduced by 56.1% (49.4 days vs 88 days before the service began). More than 95% of patient without planned non-pharmacological intervention postdischarge did not need a cardiologist's input. Levels of medicines optimisation were improved substantially after attendance: patients receiving a recommended angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker dose increased from 16.3% to 73.9% (p<0.001); patients receiving a recommended beta-blocker dose increased from 6.2% to 46.1% (p<0.001). Patient concerns about their medications were significantly decreased (all p<0.001). Rates of non-adherence fell by 42.6%-70.8% at 3-6 months post-clinic. Readmission rates also declined after the service opened. Conclusions: A medicines optimisation and patient adherence strategy based on a joint consultant cardiology pharmacist and cardiologist clinic can improve both adherence and outcomes post-MI.