International trends in clozapine use: a study in 17 countries.

OBJECTIVE: There is some evidence that clozapine is significantly underutilised. Also, clozapine use is thought to vary by country, but so far no international study has assessed trends in clozapine prescribing. Therefore, this study aimed to assess clozapine use trends on an international scale, using standardised criteria for data analysis. METHOD: A repeated cross-sectional design was applied to data extracts (2005-2014) from 17 countries worldwide. RESULTS: In 2014, overall clozapine use prevalence was greatest in Finland (189.2/100 000 persons) and in New Zealand (116.3/100 000), and lowest in the Japanese cohort (0.6/100 000), and in the privately insured US cohort (14.0/100 000). From 2005 to 2014, clozapine use increased in almost all studied countries (relative increase: 7.8-197.2%). In most countries, clozapine use was highest in 40-59-year-olds (range: 0.6/100 000 (Japan) to 344.8/100 000 (Finland)). In youths (10-19 years), clozapine use was highest in Finland (24.7/100 000) and in the publicly insured US cohort (15.5/100 000). CONCLUSION: While clozapine use has increased in most studied countries over recent years, clozapine is still underutilised in many countries, with clozapine utilisation patterns differing significantly between countries. Future research should address the implementation of interventions designed to facilitate increased clozapine utilisation.

Long-term use of benzodiazepines: Definitions, prevalence and usage patterns - a systematic review of register-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Numerous treatment guidelines recommend that long-term use of benzodiazepines (BZD) should be avoided primarily due to development of tolerance and a risk for BZD dependence. Despite this, long-term BZD use remains a controversial subject in clinical patient care with "for and against" debates. However, there is no explicit understanding of what is meant by long-term BZD use in real world. The aim of this study was to assess different definitions, usage patterns, prevalence and other characteristics of long-term BZD use based on published register-based studies. Synthesis of these characteristics is essential to derive a meaningful definition of long-term BZD. METHODS: Systematic review of register-based studies on long-term BZD use published in 1994-2014. RESULTS: Fourty-one studies met our predetermined inclusion criteria. The length of BZD use defined as "long-term" varied in these studies ranging from one month to several years. The most common definition was six months or longer during a year. The prevalence of long-term BZD use in the general population was estimated to be about 3%. The relative proportion of long-term BZD users (all definitions) in adult BZD users ranged from 6% to 76% (mean 24%; 95% CL 13-36%). The estimates were higher in studies only on the elderly (47%; 95% CL 31-64%). Long-term use involved typically steady treatment with low BZD doses. However, in elderly patients long-term BZD use and exceeding recommended doses was relatively common. Several characteristics associated with long-term use were found. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term BZD use is common and a clinical reality. Uniform definitions for "long-term", which is in line with population-based evidence, is needed to have more comparable results between studies. Our systematic review suggests that duration of BZD treatment over six months, the most common definition for long-term BZD use in the included studies. As also recommended previously, it is a useful starting point for further analyses on disadvantages but also potential advantages associated with long-term BZD use.

An intervention to develop repeat prescribing in community pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Lack of review of patients' medications in repeat prescribing is common. This and other problems in repeat prescribing need to be addressed. Community pharmacists could be more proactive in the review of chronic medications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and effects of pharmacists' interventions in repeat prescribing. METHODS: The normal repeat prescribing process used at Kuopio University Pharmacy and in Kuopio Health Services was developed by an intervention which included a pharmacist's interview and the annual medication data of the patient that were both transferred to the prescribing physician. RESULTS: Physicians in the intervention group identified and solved patients' drug-related problems better than was the case in the comparison group with normal repeat prescribing. Over half the patients receiving repeat prescriptions had at least one drug-related problem. The physicians used more information sources to support repeat prescribing in the intervention system. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists are able to improve the quality of physician's repeat prescribing by providing vital information.