Plus ça change? Switching lithium preparations.

AIMS AND METHOD: A supply disruption alert in 2020, now rescinded, notified UK prescribers of the planned discontinuation of Priadel® (lithium carbonate) tablets. This service evaluation explored lithium dose and plasma levels before and after the switching of lithium brands, in order to determine the interchangeability of different brands of lithium from a pharmacokinetic perspective. RESULTS: Data on the treatment of 37 patients switched from Priadel® tablets were analysed. Switching to Camcolit® controlled-release tablets at the same dose did not result in meaningful differences in plasma lithium levels. Dose adjustment and known or suspected poor medication adherence were associated with greater variability in plasma lithium levels on switching brands. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For comparable pre- and post-switch doses in adherent patients, the most common brands of lithium carbonate appear to produce similar plasma lithium levels. British National Formulary guidance relating to switching lithium brands may be unnecessarily complex.

Prescribing clozapine in the UK: Quality improvement issues identified by clinical audit.

INTRODUCTION: The Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health initiated a quality improvement (QI) programme on clozapine use in UK mental health services. METHODS: Clinical audits conducted in 2019 and 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-three participating NHS Trusts/healthcare organisations in 2019, and 61 in 2021, submitted treatment data for 6948 and 8155 patients, respectively. In both audits, high-dose and/or combined antipsychotic medications had been prescribed immediately before initiating clozapine in over a quarter of patients recently started on clozapine. In patients who were tobacco smokers and recently discharged from a smoke-free ward, the impact of the potential change in smoking status had been considered in the care plans of just under one-third in 2019 and just over a half in 2021. For community patients, their Summary Care Records (SCRs) included their clozapine prescriptions in 58% of cases in 2019 and 72% in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Three QI issues were identified. (1) Antipsychotic regimens with limited evidence for efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia were prescribed for over a quarter of cases before starting clozapine. Use of such strategies may delay clozapine treatment, potentially reducing the likelihood of a therapeutic response. (2) While anticipation of the consequences of a change in smoking status on plasma clozapine concentration following discharge from hospital showed improvement over time, even in 2021 it was not evident for nearly a half of relevant cases. (3) While inclusion of clozapine in the SCR also improved over time, even in 2021 it was missing for more than a quarter of community patients.

The physical health and side-effect monitoring of patients prescribed clozapine: data from a clinical audit conducted in UK mental health services.

BACKGROUND: In addition to mandatory haematological monitoring, treatment guidelines recommend routine monitoring of adverse effects and physical health in patients prescribed clozapine. METHODS: NHS trusts/healthcare organisations participated in a clinical audit in the context of a UK quality improvement programme addressing clozapine-prescribing practice. RESULTS: Data relating to 6948 adult patients prescribed clozapine were submitted by 63 NHS trusts/healthcare organisations. Of 481 patients treated with clozapine for up to 18 weeks, there was documented pretreatment screening of blood pressure, heart rate and ECG in at least 90%, and body weight, plasma lipids, plasma glucose/glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and physical examination in approximately 80%. During the first 2 weeks of clozapine treatment there was documented daily measurement of both heart rate and blood pressure in 82% and body temperature in 77%. In a subsample of 411 patients, of the 72% who had weekly side-effect assessments documented in the first month of treatment, a structured assessment tool had been used in 29%. Treatment monitoring up to 18 weeks included an ECG in 90%, C-reactive protein (CRP) or creatine kinase in 42%, and troponin or B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in 29%. In the 5908 patients prescribed clozapine for at least 1 year, blood pressure and body weight/body mass index were documented in at least 80%, plasma lipids in 78% and plasma glucose in 73%, with an ECG in 55%. Two-thirds were prescribed medication to manage side effects of clozapine and one third of those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were prescribed a second antipsychotic medication. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that for most patients treated with clozapine in UK mental health services, physical health screening and side-effect monitoring follow recommended practice, but there was limited use of structured side-effect assessment tools. Monitoring for clozapine-induced myocarditis during the early risk period using markers of inflammation such as CRP, and cardiac damage such as troponin and BNP, was less consistent. This may partly reflect the variation in guideline recommendations for monitoring for myocarditis and partly the selected use of such tests when prompted by cardiac symptoms. The relatively common coprescription of medications for the majority of people on longer-term clozapine treatment may well further increase side-effect burden and physical health risks, reinforcing the need for continuing systematic monitoring.

Prescribing for moderate or severe unipolar depression in patients under the long-term care of UK adult mental health services.

BACKGROUND: A quality improvement programme addressing prescribing practice for depression was initiated by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health. METHODS: A baseline clinical audit against evidence-based practice standards was conducted in UK adult mental health services. RESULTS: A total of 55 mental health services submitted data for 2082 patients, under the care of a community psychiatric team (CMHT) for at least a year, with a diagnosis of moderate or severe unipolar depression, 54% of whom had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were prescribed for 35% of the patients, other newer generation antidepressants for 60%, tricyclic antidepressants for 6% and monoamine oxidase inhibitors for <1%. The most commonly prescribed individual antidepressants were mirtazapine (33%, usually in combination with another antidepressant), venlafaxine (25%) and sertraline (21%). Patients with severe depression were more likely (p < 0.001) to be co-prescribed an antipsychotic medication, lithium, or to have received electroconvulsive therapy. There was a documented clinical review in the last year in 85%, with a symptom rating scale used in 11%. A documented comprehensive treatment history was accessible for 50% of those prescribed antidepressant medication. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate or severe depression remaining under the care of a CMHT for longer than a year are clinically complex. The failure to achieve a level of wellness allowing discharge from mental health services may be partly related to the finding that not all patients had the benefit of a systematic approach to clinical assessment and sequential testing of available evidence-based pharmacological interventions.

Physical health monitoring after rapid tranquillisation: clinical practice in UK mental health services.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the quality of physical health monitoring following rapid tranquillisation (RT) for acute behavioural disturbance in UK mental health services. METHODS: The Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health (POMH-UK) initiated an audit-based quality improvement programme addressing the pharmacological treatment of acute behavioural disturbance in mental health services in the UK. RESULTS: Data relating to a total of 2454 episodes of RT were submitted by 66 mental health services. Post-RT physical health monitoring did not reach the minimum recommended level in 1933 (79%) episodes. Patients were more likely to be monitored (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.39-2.29, p < 0.001) if there was actual or threatened self-harm, and less likely to be monitored if the episode occurred in the evening (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.0, p < 0.001) or overnight (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.75, p < 0.001). Risk factors such as recent substance use, RT resulting in the patient falling asleep, or receiving high-dose antipsychotic medication on the day of the episode, did not predict whether or not the minimum recommended level of post-RT monitoring was documented. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum recommended level of physical health monitoring was reported for only one in five RT episodes. The findings also suggest a lack of targeting of at-risk patients for post-RT monitoring. Possible explanations are that clinicians consider such monitoring too demanding to implement in routine clinical practice or not appropriate in every clinical situation. For example, physical health measures requiring direct contact with a patient may be difficult to undertake, or counter-productive, if RT has failed. These findings prompt speculation that post-RT monitoring practice would be improved by the implementation of guidance that integrated and refined the currently separate systems for undertaking and recording physical health observations post-RT, determining nursing observation schedules and detecting acute deterioration in physical health. The effectiveness and clinical utility of such an approach would be worth testing.