Treatment of insulin poisoning: A 100-year review.

BACKGROUND: Insulin poisoning, as opposed to hypoglycaemia induced by therapeutic doses of insulin, is rare, and guidelines on management differ. We have reviewed the evidence on treatment of insulin poisoning. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and J-Stage with no restrictions of date or language for controlled studies on treatment of insulin poisoning, collected published cases of insulin poisoning from 1923, and used data from the UK National Poisons Information Service. RESULTS: We identified no controlled trials of treatment in insulin poisoning and few relevant experimental studies. Case reports described 315 admissions (301 patients) with insulin poisoning between 1923 and 2022. The insulin with the longest duration of action was long-acting in 83 cases, medium-acting in 116, short-acting in 36 and a rapid-acting analogue in 16. Decontamination by surgical excision of the injection site was reported in six cases. To restore and maintain euglycaemia, almost all cases were treated with glucose, infused for a median 51 hours, interquartile range 16-96 h in 179 cases; 14 patients received glucagon and nine octreotide; adrenaline was tried occasionally. Both corticosteroids and mannitol were occasionally given to mitigate hypoglycaemic brain damage. There were 29 deaths reported, 22/156 (86% survival) up to 1999 and 7/159 (96% survival) between 2000 and 2022 (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There is no randomized controlled trial to guide treatment of insulin poisoning. Treatment with glucose infusion, sometimes supplemented with glucagon, is almost always effective in restoring euglycaemia, but optimum treatments to maintain euglycaemia and restore cerebral function remain uncertain.

Medicines legislation and regulation in the United Kingdom 1500-2020.

The initial purposes of regulation of medicines in England, and latterly in the United Kingdom, were principally to raise government revenue, to discourage murder by poisoning and to regulate the activities of pharmacists. It was only much later that regulators sought to ensure that medicines were of good quality, reasonably safe, and at least somewhat effective, and to curtail misuse of drugs. Here we survey the history of the regulation of medicines and poisons in England from the perspective of clinicians with an interest in therapeutics.

Drug shortages. Part 1. Definitions and harms.

Drug shortages are repeatedly in the news. The earliest drug shortages were reported during the First World War, but the numbers of shortages have increased in recent years. In the first part of this two-part review, we discuss definitions of drug shortages and so-called stockouts, which are localized shortages, and the harms that they can cause. Drug shortages make it difficult or impossible to meet the therapeutic needs of individual patients or populations, but we lack an adequate definition. The problems are too complicated to be encompassed in a brief intensional dictionary-style definition, and that is reflected in the many different attempts at definition that have been proposed. We therefore propose an extensional operational definition that incorporates the processes by which products are manufactured, the causes of shortages and the contributory factors. A definition of this sort allows one to identify the main causes of a particular drug shortage and therefore the remedies that might prevent, mitigate or manage it. In the second part of the review we discuss the causes and solutions in more detail. Adverse drug reactions and medication errors attributable to shortages occur but are not often reported. Adverse reactions to substitute medicines are possible, and errors can occur because of unfamiliarity or unnecessary treatment with replacement medicines. Other harmful outcomes include withdrawal reactions, undertreatment, treatment delays and cancellations, failure of alternatives and disruption of clinical trials.

Drug shortages. Part 2: Trends, causes and solutions.

Drug shortages make it difficult or impossible to meet the therapeutic needs of individual patients or populations. In the first part of this review we proposed an operational definition that incorporates the processes by which products are manufactured, the causes of shortages and stock-outs (local shortages), and the contributory factors. Here we discuss causes and possible solutions. Drug shortages have complex causes, and a single cause cannot always be identified. Reasons include lack or shortage of raw materials, manufacturing difficulties, regulatory and political actions, voluntary recalls, just-in-time inventory systems, halts in production for financial or other business reasons, low demand (eg, orphan products, reduced usage), mergers, market shifts (eg, diversion to home markets) and unexpected increases in demand (eg, improved diagnosis, new trial information, epidemics and pandemics, inappropriate use, off-label use). Potential solutions are as diverse as the potential causes. Prevention is hard, because shortages are not easily predicted. Everyone in the supply chain is involved in anticipating and managing shortages, with responsibilities for preventing them or at least trying to mitigate their effects. This includes manufacturers and suppliers, particularly of generic formulations, pharmacists, prescribers, patients and governments. Solutions can therefore be linked to the causes and classified according to where the responsibility for implementing them lies.

Are high-cost drug funding mechanisms fit for purpose? A retrospective study of individual funding requests in an NHS tertiary hospital.

AIMS: To report on a retrospective study of individual funding request (IFR) submissions from a large tertiary hospital and describe gaps in current mechanisms for funding of high-cost medicines in England. METHODS: Data on the number and outcome of IFR submissions submitted to commissioners between 2014/15 and 2018/19 was extracted from the electronic patient health record and a local high-cost drug database. RESULTS: In total, 230 IFRs were submitted: 112 to NHS England and 118 to a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The decline rate for IFRs was 71% for NHS England and 34% for CCGs. Lack of exceptionality was the primary reason cited for declining IFRs submitted between 2016-18 (n = 42/45; 93%). Half of the patients whose IFR was declined received treatment funded through other routes, the majority (13/23; 57%) from internal hospital budget. This was governed via a local high-cost drug panel. Positive clinical outcomes were observed in 50% (4/8) of patients who received NHS England IFR-funded treatment, 54% (19/35) who received CCG IFR-funded treatment and 91% (21/23) who were funded via other routes. CONCLUSION: The high rate of IFR decline signals inefficient use of resource expended in the IFR process. Gaps in access to high-cost medicines remain for patients with rare and refractory disease requiring urgent treatment, largely due to the demand for exceptionality from NHS commissioners. Local mechanisms address this unmet need but have limitations. An outcomes-based evaluation approach to commissioning and greater transparency of previous funding decisions by commissioners may improve efficiency and equity in the IFR system.

Effectiveness of biosimilar adoption within a UK tertiary hospital: 6-year follow-up.

Health systems encourage switching from originators to biosimilars as biosimilars are more cost-effective. The speed and completeness of biosimilar adoption is a measure of efficiency. We describe the approach to biosimilar adoption at a single hospital Trust and compare its efficiency against the English average. We additionally follow up patients who reverted to a previously used biologic, having switched to a biosimilar, to establish whether they benefitted from re-establishing prior treatment. The approach we describe resulted in a faster and more complete switch to biosimilars, which saved an additional £380 000 on drug costs in 2021/2022. Of patients who reverted to their original biologic, 87% improved short-term, and a time on treatment analysis showed the benefit was retained long term. Our approach to biosimilar adoption outperformed the English average and permits patients to revert to their original biosimilar post-switch if appropriate.

How to assess pharmacogenomic tests for implementation in the NHS in England.

AIMS: Pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to target medicines more effectively towards those who will benefit and avoid use in individuals at risk of harm. Health economies are actively considering how pharmacogenomic tests can be integrated into health care systems to improve use of medicines. However, one of the barriers to effective implementation is evaluation of the evidence including clinical usefulness, cost-effectiveness, and operational requirements. We sought to develop a framework that could aid the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing. We take the view from the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: We used a literature review using EMBASE and Medline databases to identify prospective studies of pharmacogenomic testing, focusing on clinical outcomes and implementation of pharmacogenomics. Using this search, we identified key themes relating to the implementation of pharmacogenomic tests. We used a clinical advisory group with expertise in pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, formulary evaluation, and policy implementation to review data from our literature review and the interpretation of these data. With the clinical advisory group, we prioritized themes and developed a framework to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomics tests. RESULTS: Themes that emerged from review of the literature and subsequent discussion were distilled into a 10-point checklist that is proposed as a tool to aid evidence-based implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into routine clinical care within the NHS. CONCLUSION: Our 10-point checklist outlines a standardized approach that could be used to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomic tests. We propose a national approach, taking the view of the NHS in England. Using this approach could centralize commissioning of appropriate pharmacogenomic tests, reduce inequity and duplication using regional approaches, and provide a robust and evidence-based framework for adoption. Such an approach could also be applied to other health systems.

Preventable deaths involving opioids in England and Wales, 2013-2022: a systematic case series of coroners' reports.

BACKGROUND: Opioid deaths have increased in England and Wales. Coroners' Prevention of Future Deaths reports (PFDs) provide important insights that may enable safer use and avert harms, yet reports implicating opioids have not been synthesized. We aimed to identify opioid-related PFDs and explore coroners' concerns to prevent future deaths. METHODS: In this systematic case series, we screened 3897 coronial PFDs dated between 01 July 2013 and 23 February 2022, obtained by web scraping the UK's Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. PFDs were included when an opioid was implicated in the death. Included PFDs were descriptively analysed, and content analysis was used to assess concerns reported by coroners. RESULTS: Opioids were involved in 219 deaths reported in PFDs (5·6% of PFDs), equating to 4418 years of life lost (median 33 years/person). Morphine (29%), methadone (23%) and diamorphine (16%) were the most common implicated opioids. Coroners most frequently raised concerns regarding systems and protocols (52%) or safety issues (15%). These concerns were most often addressed to National Health Service (NHS) organizations (51%), but response rates were low overall (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Opioids could be used more safely if coroners' concerns in PFDs were addressed by national organizations such as NHS bodies, government agencies and policymakers, as well as individual prescribing clinicians.

Prescribing direct-acting oral anticoagulants - Mind the evidence gap.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are licensed for the prevention of thromboembolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation, amongst other indications. Prescribers use information derived from the summary of product characteristics which is based on the key trials supporting the DOAC's market authorisation. However, prescribers may not be aware of the limitations within these trials regarding underrepresentation of patient populations commonly encountered in clinical practice and how this may adversely impact them. This review highlights the gaps in the licensing evidence using four clinical vignettes that explore prescribing challenges in older adults, female patients, patients with obesity and patients from non-Europid ethnic backgrounds.

Free-of-charge medicine schemes in the NHS: A local and regional drug and therapeutic committee's experience.

INTRODUCTION: Free-of-charge (FoC) medicine schemes are increasingly available and allow access to investigational treatments outside clinical trials or in advance of licensing or NHS commissioning. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed FoC medicine schemes evaluated between 2013 and 2019 by a single NHS trust and a regional drug and therapeutics committee (DTC). The details of each locally reviewed FoC scheme, and any nationally available Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Early Access to Medicines Scheme (MHRA EAMS) in the same period, were recorded and categorised. RESULTS: Most FoC schemes (95%) allowed access to medicines intended to address an unmet clinical need. Over 7 years, 90% were company-FoC schemes and 10% were MHRA EAMS that were locally reviewed. Phase 3 clinical trial data were available for 44% of FoC schemes, 37% had phase 2 data and 19% were supported only by phase 1 data, retrospective observational studies or preclinical data. Utilisation of company-FoC schemes increased on average by 50% per year, while MHRA EAMS schemes showed little growth. CONCLUSION: Company-FoC medicine schemes are increasingly common. This may indicate a preference for pharmaceutical companies to independently co-ordinate schemes. Motivations for company-FoC schemes remain unclear and many provide access to treatments that are yet to be evaluated in appropriately conducted clinical trials, and whose efficacy and risk of harm remain uncertain. There is no standardisation of this practice and there is no regulatory oversight. Moreover, no standardised data collection framework is in place that could demonstrate the utility of such programmes in addressing unmet clinical need or to allow generation of further evidence.

Coping with COVID: Preparing prescribers during the pandemic.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) and the University of Birmingham provided National Health Service (NHS) staff free access to SCRIPT, a national eLearning programme for safer prescribing and therapeutics. The eLearning was particularly for those returning to work or being redeployed. In the year March 2020-21, 3412 users registered to access portfolios and opened an aggregate of 17 198 modules. Each user completed a median of 2 (range 1-50, interquartile range [IQR] 1-7) assessed learning modules. Marks improved from pre-test to post-test by a median of 2 (IQR 0-3) marks out of 10. The most frequently selected modules were Adherence and Concordance (1109 users), Fluids (981 users) and Diabetic Emergencies (818 users). A total of 878 users accessed the unassessed COVID-19 module. The SCRIPT modules provided standardised education in core principles relating to prescribing and therapeutics, and were used by professionals from many healthcare disciplines.

Overprescribing and rational therapeutics: Barriers to change and opportunities to improve.

There is increasing national and international interest in overprescribing and polypharmacy, and the burden that the inappropriate use of multiple medicines can place on individual patients and on society as a whole. This paper explores the challenges faced by prescribers and pharmacists wishing to reduce polypharmacy, including the uncertainties about the risks and benefits of continuing or stopping individual drugs. We discuss the factors influencing us to prescribe-which may lead to overprescribing-including the increasing number of guidelines, perceived patient pressure and advertising. We offer a critical appraisal of the tools currently available to clinicians and pharmacists aiming to rationalise medicines, and finally a systems-wide approach to improving overprescribing and problematic polypharmacy.

A novel approach to support implementation of biosimilars within a UK tertiary hospital.

Aims To assess the transfer of patients treated with originator biological therapies to biosimilar products in a large UK tertiary referral hospital reflecting practice within the National Health Service (NHS) using prospectively collected data by a hospital-based registry administered by the Biologics Steering Group (BSG). METHODS: We analysed data collected prospectively in a hospital-based registry in a large NHS tertiary referral hospital in the UK. The registry was administered by the hospital's BSG, which considered requests for patients to remain on or revert to originator products. The registry contained prospectively collected data on patients switching therapy from an originator to a biosimilar. The data included clinical circumstances or rationale for each request, whether it was granted, and the results of clinical reviews at 3-6 months. RESULTS: In a 12-month period, we identified 1299 patients who could switch to the respective biosimilar and, of these, 1196 (92%) did so. Of the 260 patients taking infliximab, 250 (96%) switched to infliximab biosimilar; of the 390 patients taking etanercept 50 mg, 298 (76%) switched to etanercept 50 mg biosimilar; and of the 649 patients taking rituximab, 648 (99%) switched to rituximab biosimilar. The BSG received 39 applications: 12 (out of 39) applications were to remain on the originator and 27 (out of 39) were to switch back to the originator. Of the applications to remain on the originator 10 (out of 12) were approved. At 3-6 month review, 2 of these approvals reported continued efficacy, 3 switched to the biosimilar, 3 switched to an alternative therapy and 2 stopped treatment. Two (out of 10) applications were not approved, both applicants reported efficacy with the biosimilar at follow up. Of the 27 applications to switch back to the originator, 16 (out of 27) applications were approved. At 3-6 months, 9 (out of 16) applicants reported regain of efficacy, 6 (out of 16) reported cessation of reported adverse effects and 1 (out of 16) switched to alternative therapy. Eight (out of 27) applications were not approved, and, at point of follow up, 50% reported efficacy with the biosimilar and 50% had switched to an alternative therapy. Three (out of 27) applications were withdrawn by the clinical team as efficacy was achieved with the biosimilar. CONCLUSION: We have set up a system within a busy NHS clinical practice to successfully switch patients to biosimilars, and established a mechanism to guide decisions on continuing with or reverting back to the originator. Such a system could be of use more broadly within the NHS and other health care systems.

Correction to: Suspected paracetamol overdose in Monrovia, Liberia: a matched case-control Study.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Suspected paracetamol overdose in Monrovia, Liberia: a matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: A cluster of cases of unexplained multi-organ failure was reported in children at Bardnesville Junction Hospital (BJH), Monrovia, Liberia. Prior to admission, children's caregivers reported antibiotic, antimalarial, paracetamol, and traditional treatment consumption. Since we could not exclude a toxic aetiology, and paracetamol overdose in particular, we implemented prospective syndromic surveillance to better define the clinical characteristics of these children. To investigate risk factors, we performed a case-control study. METHODS: The investigation was conducted in BJH between July 2015 and January 2016. In-hospital syndromic surveillance identified children with at least two of the following symptoms: respiratory distress with normal pulse oximetry while breathing ambient air; altered consciousness; hypoglycaemia; jaundice; and hepatomegaly. After refining the case definition to better reflect potential risk factors for hepatic dysfunction, we selected cases identified from syndromic surveillance for a matched case-control study. Cases were matched with in-hospital and community-based controls by age, sex, month of illness/admission, severity (in-hospital), and proximity of residence (community). RESULTS: Between July and December 2015, 77 case-patients were captured by syndromic surveillance; 68 (88%) were under three years old and 35 (46%) died during hospitalisation. Of these 77, 30 children met our case definition and were matched with 53 hospital and 48 community controls. Paracetamol was the most frequently reported medication taken by the cases and both control groups. The odds of caregivers reporting supra-therapeutic paracetamol consumption prior to admission was higher in cases compared to controls (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1-21.3). Plasma paracetamol concentration on day of admission was available for 19 cases and exceeded 10 µg/mL in 10/13 samples collected on day one of admission, and 4/9 (44%) collected on day two. CONCLUSIONS: In a context with limited diagnostic capacity, this study highlights the possibility of supratherapeutic doses of paracetamol as a factor in multi-organ failure in a cohort of children admitted to BJH. In this setting, a careful history of pre-admission paracetamol consumption may alert clinicians to the possibility of overdose, even when confirmatory laboratory analysis is unavailable. Further studies may help define additional toxicological characteristics in such contexts to improve diagnoses.

Susceptibility to adverse drug reactions.

The pharmacological effects of a drug depend on its concentration at the site of action, and therefore on the concentration in blood and on the dose. The relationship between the concentration or dose and the corresponding effect can usually be represented mathematically as a rectangular hyperbola; when effect is plotted against log concentration or log dose, the curve is sigmoidal. Inevitably, the effect size and the doses causing benefit and harm will differ among individuals, since they are biological phenomena: some individuals are more likely than others to suffer harm at any given dose. Some harmful effects can occur at much lower doses than those used in therapeutics; that is, the log dose-response curve for harm lies far to the left of the log dose-response curve for benefit. Those who suffer such reactions are hypersusceptible. When the dose-response curves for harm and therapeutic effect are in the same range, dose cannot separate the harmful effects from the therapeutic effects, and adverse reactions are collateral. Toxic effects occur when harmful doses are above the doses needed for benefit. In this review we consider factors that influence a subject's susceptibility to adverse drug reactions. Determinants of susceptibility include Immunological, Genetic, demographic (Age and Sex), Physiological and Exogenous factors (drug-drug interactions, for example), and Diseases and disorders such as renal failure, giving the mnemonic I GASPED. Some susceptibility factors are discrete (for example, all-or-none) and some are continuous; susceptibility can therefore be discrete or continuous; and the factors can interact to determine a person's overall susceptibility to harm.

Antithrombotic dose: Some observations from published clinical trials.

The clinical doses of antithrombotics-antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents-need to balance efficacy and safety. It is not clear from the published literature how the doses currently used in clinical practice have been derived from preclinical and clinical data. There are few large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare outcomes with different doses vs placebo. For newer antithrombotics, RCT doses appear to have been chosen to maximise the probability of demonstrating noninferiority when compared to established agents such as warfarin or clopidogrel. Data from RCTs show that aspirin is an effective antithrombotic at doses below 75 mg daily, and that direct oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with coronary disease at doses 1/4 of those recommended in atrial fibrillation. Lower doses than those currently recommended are safer and still maintain substantial efficacy.

Efficacy and toxicity of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy relative to effective dose 50.

Antihypertensive drugs have usually been approved at doses near the top of their respective dose-response curves. Efficacy plateaus but adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as falls, cerebral or renal ischaemia, increase as dose is increased, especially in older patients with comorbidities. ADRs reduce adherence and may be difficult to ascertain reliably. Higher doses have generally not been shown to reduce total mortality, which provides a summary of efficacy and safety. Weight loss and other lifestyle measures are essential and may be sufficient treatment in many young and low risk patients. Most antihypertensive drug lower systolic blood pressure by around 10 mmHg, which reduces stroke and heart failure by about a quarter. Clinical trials have not been designed to demonstrate specific blood pressure treatment thresholds and targets, which are mostly extrapolated from epidemiology. Mean population oral effective dose 50 may be the most appropriate dose at which to commence antihypertensive drugs. The dose can then be titrated up if greater efficacy is demonstrated, or lowered if ADRs develop. Lower dose combination therapy may best balance benefit and harms with fewer ADRs and additive, potentially synergistic, efficacy.

Unlicensed and off-label uses of medicines: definitions and clarification of terminology.

The terms 'licensed', 'unlicensed', and 'off-label', often used in relation to marketing and prescribing medicinal products, may confuse UK prescribers. To market a medicinal product in the UK requires a Marketing Authorization ('product licence') for specified indications under specified conditions, regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The Marketing Authorization includes the product's agreed terms of use (the 'label'), described in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). Prescribing a licensed product outside those terms is called 'off-label' prescribing. Products for which no-one holds a UK Marketing Authorization are unlicensed. Prescribers can prescribe authorized products according to the conditions described in the SmPC ('on-label') or outside those conditions ('off-label'). They can also prescribe unauthorized products, even if they are unlicensed in the UK, if they are licensed elsewhere or if they have been manufactured in the UK by a licensed manufacturer as a 'special'. The complexities of this system can be understood by considering the status of the manufacturer of the product, the company that markets it (which may or may not be the same), the product itself, and its modes of use, and by emphasizing the word 'authorized'. If a Marketing Authorization is granted to the supplier of a product, it will specify the authorized modes of use; the product will be prescribable as authorized (i.e. 'on-label') or in other modes of use, which will all be off-label. Unlicensed products with no authorized modes of use can be regarded as 'unauthorized products'. All 'specials' can be regarded as authorized products lacking authorized modes of use.