Cardiometabolic risk in people under 40 years with severe mental illness: reading between the guidelines.

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have a shorter life expectancy than the rest of the population. Multimorbidity and poorer physical health contribute to this health inequality. Cardiometabolic multimorbidity confers a significant mortality risk in this population. Multimorbidity is not restricted to older people and people with SMI present with multimorbidity earlier in life. Despite this, most screening, prevention and treatment strategies target older people. People under 40 years with SMI are underserved by current guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment and reduction. Research is needed to develop and implement interventions to reduce cardiometabolic risk in this population.

The development and validation of a medicines optimisation tool to protect the physical health of people with severe mental illness (OPTIMISE).

BACKGROUND: The life expectancy of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter than those without SMI, with multimorbidity and poorer physical health contributing to health inequality. Screening tools could potentially assist the optimisation of medicines to protect the physical health of people with SMI. The aim of our research was to design and validate a medicines optimisation tool (OPTIMISE) to help clinicians to optimise physical health in people with SMI. METHODS: A review of existing published guidelines, PubMed and Medline was carried out. Literature was examined for medicines optimisation recommendations and also for reference to the management of physical illness in people with mental illness. Potential indicators were grouped according to physiological system. A multidisciplinary team with expertise in mental health and the development of screening tools agreed that 83 indicators should be included in the first draft of OPTIMISE. The Delphi consensus technique was used to develop and validate the contents. A 17-member multidisciplinary panel of experts from the UK and Ireland completed 2 rounds of Delphi consensus, rating their level of agreement to 83 prescribing indicators using a 5-point Likert scale. Indicators were accepted for inclusion in the OPTIMISE tool after achieving a median score of 1 or 2, where 1 indicated strongly agree and 2 indicated agree, and 75th centile value of ≤ 2. Interrater reliability was assessed among 4 clinicians across 20 datasets and the chance corrected level of agreement (kappa) was calculated. The kappa statistic was interpreted as poor if 0.2 or less, fair if 0.21-0.4, moderate if 0.41-0.6, substantial if 0.61-0.8, and good if 0.81-1.0. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved after 2 rounds of Delphi for 62 prescribing indicators where 53 indicators were accepted after round 1 and a further 9 indicators were accepted after round 2. Interrater reliability of OPTIMISE between physicians and pharmacists indicated a substantial level of agreement with a kappa statistic of 0.75. CONCLUSIONS: OPTIMISE is a 62 indicator medicines optimisation tool designed to assist decision making in those treating adults with SMI. It was developed using a Delphi consensus methodology and interrater reliability is substantial. OPTIMISE has the potential to improve medicines optimisation by ensuring preventative medicines are considered when clinically indicated. Further research involving the implementation of OPTIMISE is required to demonstrate its true benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This article does not report the results of a health care intervention on human participants.

Metformin in the management of antipsychotic-induced weight gain in adults with psychosis: development of the first evidence-based guideline using GRADE methodology.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive metformin is the most well-studied intervention in the pharmacological management of antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG). Although a relatively unaddressed area, among guidelines recommending consideration of metformin, prescribing information that would facilitate its applied use by clinicians, for example, provision of a dose titration schedule is absent. Moreover, recommendations differ regarding metformin's place in the hierarchy of management options. Both represent significant barriers to the applied, evidence-based use of metformin for this indication. OBJECTIVE: To produce a guideline solely dedicated to the optimised use of metformin in AIWG management, using internationally endorsed guideline methodology. METHODS: A list of guideline key health questions (KHQs) was produced. It was agreed that individual recommendations would be 'adopted or adapted' from current guidelines and/or developed de novo, in the case of unanswered questions. A systematic literature review (2008-2020) was undertaken to identify published guidelines and supporting (or more recent) research evidence. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) assessment,and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, where appropriate. Assessment of evidence certainty and recommendation development was undertaken using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. FINDINGS: We confirmed that no published guideline-of appropriate quality, solely dedicated to the use of metformin to manage AIWG was available. Recommendations located within other guidelines inadequately addressed our KHQs. CONCLUSION: All 11 recommendations and 7 supporting good practice developed here were formulated de novo. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations build on the number and quality of recommendations in this area, and facilitate the optimised use of metformin when managing AIWG.

Check the effects: systematic assessment of antipsychotic side-effects in an inpatient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotics are associated with a range of side-effects that can influence patients' subjective well-being negatively resulting in poor adherence. In order to limit the negative consequences of side-effects, they should be regularly systematically assessed. The aim of this study was to systematically assess antipsychotic side-effects in an inpatient cohort using validated rating scales. METHODS: Eligible individuals prescribed an antipsychotic for at least 2 weeks were invited to have their side-effects assessed systematically. RESULTS: A total of 208 individuals were assessed systematically for antipsychotic side-effects; 71.5% (n = 138) stated that they had not reported side-effects to their clinician prior to the assessment. The most commonly reported side-effects were daytime drowsiness (75%), dry mouth (58.2%) and weight gain (50.0%), while the most distressing side-effects reported were erectile dysfunction (35.0%), sexual dysfunction (26.3%) and amenorrhoea (26.3%). There was no evidence of an association between side-effect severity/number of side-effects reported/distress caused by those taking high dose/combination antipsychotics versus standard dose monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Side-effects must be regularly and systematically assessed using a validated rating scale. As distress caused by side-effects plays a major role in non-adherence, assessment should examine distress and data on distressing side-effects should be available to those choosing an antipsychotic. Given the lack of correlation between high dose/combination antipsychotics and side-effects, treatment should be tailored to the individual based on response/tolerance and dose reduction/avoidance of polypharmacy should not be recommended to minimise side-effects.

Patients and Caregivers Helping to Shape the Undergraduate Pharmacy Mental Health Curriculum.

Objective. To develop a model system for involving patients and caregivers in curriculum development of mental health education in an undergraduate pharmacy program. Methods. Purposive recruitment was used to convene a focus group of nine people with experience in using mental health services from either the patient or caregiver perspective. Group members were asked about their experience with using pharmacy services and their suggestions for enhancement of the undergraduate curriculum. Thematic analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. Results. Patients and caregivers believed that pharmacists could contribute to the care of people who experience mental health conditions by supporting shared decision making, providing information, actively managing side effects of psychotropic medication, and conducting regular medication review. Subjects suggested that the pharmacy undergraduate curriculum should introduce mental health from the beginning, include self-care for students, integrate mental and physical health education, and enhance students' communication skills. The curriculum should include broader issues relevant to mental health beyond the use of medication, such as stigma, the recovery approach, and interprofessional cooperation. These changes could support graduates in engaging proactively with people experiencing mental health difficulties. Conclusion. Involving patients and caregivers in the design of an undergraduate pharmacy curriculum in mental health resulted in a more person-centered and student-centered approach to mental health education at our university. Ultimately, the changes made to the undergraduate curriculum will improve the ability of pharmacy graduates to better meet the needs of patients.

Pharmacy Students' Reflections on an Experiential Learning Visit to a Psychiatric Hospital.

Objective. To create a brief, experiential educational intervention for undergraduate pharmacy students aimed at developing appropriate attitudes, knowledge, and skills for the delivery of recovery-focused pharmacy services to people with mental illness, and to elicit student perceptions of the value and impact of the intervention. Methods. A brief intervention was developed in which a cohort of 44 fourth-year pharmacy students attended a psychiatric teaching hospital in groups of 10 to12. The intervention was integrated into the therapeutics module, and was based on Fink's taxonomy of learning. Delivery of the intervention included input from a multidisciplinary team of mental health professionals and the use of active-learning strategies to give students an insight into the holistic approach to care and the patient journey. Students participated in an exercise in reflective practice following the visit. Content analysis was performed on the reflective writings of consenting students to identify themes and insights gained. Results. Thirty-eight of the 44 students gave their consent for their reflective writings to be analyzed for the purpose of this research. Students expressed some apprehension before their visit to the hospital, but later gained an appreciation of the patient experience of care in the psychiatric setting. Students also described having a greater appreciation of the role of the pharmacist in caring for psychiatric patients as well as an insight into the role of other health care professionals and interventions supporting recovery. Conclusion. A brief experiential intervention helped students integrate their learning and appreciate the value of their expertise in supporting those experiencing mental illness.

Clozapine Use in a Cohort of First-Episode Psychosis.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: For approximately one third of individuals treated for psychosis or schizophrenia, antipsychotic medications will have little or no therapeutic benefit. Clozapine remains the sole medication approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and studies have demonstrated its superior efficacy in reducing psychotic symptoms. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Data were collected from the medical records of people who originally presented with a first-episode psychosis between 1995 and 1999 (N = 171). Data were obtained from first presentation up to December 31, 2013 or until the patient was discharged or transferred. Information on service use and physical health was gathered using a data collection template designed specifically for this audit. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Twenty-eight (16.3%) of the cohort were prescribed clozapine. Data were available for 24 individuals. Of this clozapine subsample, the mean age at baseline was 23.11 (SD = 4.58); 82.14% (n = 23) were male; and 82.14% (n = 23) had a baseline diagnosis of schizophrenia. The mean time to first trial of clozapine was 6.7 years. The mean number of antipsychotics prescribed before clozapine trial was 4.85. After the initiation of clozapine, the mean number of hospital admissions reduced from 6.04 per year to 0.88 per year. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 5 of the original cohort was considered to have a suboptimal response to trials of antipsychotic medication. The use of clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia is underutilized, and better understanding of the barriers to prescribing clozapine is necessary given the implications for patient's quality of life and hospital admission rates. Physical health data further emphasizes the importance of physical health monitoring in this vulnerable population.

Pharmacological guidelines for schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparison of recommendations for the first episode.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) support the translation of research evidence into clinical practice. Key health questions in CPGs ensure that recommendations will be applicable to the clinical context in which the guideline is used. The objectives of this study were to identify CPGs for the pharmacological treatment of first-episode schizophrenia; assess the quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument; and compare recommendations in relation to the key health questions that are relevant to the pharmacological treatment of first-episode schizophrenia. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group identified key health questions that are relevant to the pharmacological treatment of first-episode schizophrenia. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, websites of professional organisations and international guideline repositories, were searched for CPGs that met the inclusion criteria. The AGREE II instrument was applied by three raters and data were extracted from the guidelines in relation to the key health questions. RESULTS: In total, 3299 records were screened. 10 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. 3 guidelines scored well across all domains. Recommendations varied in specificity. Side effect concerns, rather than comparative efficacy benefits, were a key consideration in antipsychotic choice. Antipsychotic medication is recommended for maintenance of remission following a first episode of schizophrenia but there is a paucity of evidence to guide duration of treatment. Clozapine is universally regarded as the medication of choice for treatment resistance. There is less evidence to guide care for those who do not respond to clozapine. CONCLUSIONS: An individual's experience of using antipsychotic medication for the initial treatment of first-episode schizophrenia may have implications for future engagement, adherence and outcome. While guidelines of good quality exist to assist in medicines optimisation, the evidence base required to answer key health questions relevant to the pharmacological treatment of first-episode schizophrenia is limited.

Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effects Scale for Clozapine - Development and validation of a clozapine-specific side-effects scale.

OBJECTIVE: The authors developed and validated a clozapine-specific side-effects scale capable of eliciting the subjectively unpleasant side-effects of clozapine. METHODS: Questions from the original Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effects Scale (GASS) were compared to a list of the most commonly reported clozapine side-effects and those with a significant subjective burden were included in the GASS for Clozapine (GASS-C). The original authors of the GASS and a group of mental health professionals from the UK and Ireland were enlisted to comment on the questions in the GASS-C based on their clinical experience. 110 clozapine outpatients from two sites completed the GASS-C, the original GASS and a repeat GASS-C. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 19. RESULTS: The GASS-C was shown to have construct validity, in that Spearman's correlation coefficient was 0.816 (p<0.001) with the original GASS, whilst Cohen's kappa coefficient was >0.77 (p<0.001) for one question and >0.81 (p<0.001) for remaining relevant questions. GASS-C was also shown to have strong test-retest reliability, in that Cronbach's alpha coefficient was >0.907 (p<0.001), whilst Cohen's kappa coefficient was >0.81 (p<0.001) for 12 questions and >0.61 (p<0.001) for the remaining four questions. CONCLUSION: The GASS-C is a valid and reliable clinical tool to enable a systematic assessment of the subjectively unpleasant side-effects of clozapine. Future research should focus on how the scale can be utilised as a clinical tool to improve real-world outcomes such as adherence to clozapine therapy and quality of life.