Adjunctive Medication Management and Contingency Management to enhance adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence: the ADAM trial RCT.

Background: Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design: Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting: Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants: Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions: (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results: Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to -6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to -2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations: The trial's primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions: Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work: Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate.

Impact of ACEIs and ARBs-related adverse drug reaction on patients' clinical outcomes: a cohort study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reaction (ADR) related to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may negatively affect patients' treatment outcomes. AIM: To investigate the impact of ACEIs/ARBs-related ADR consultation on cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING: Propensity score-matched cohort study of ACEIs/ARBs between 2004 and 2019 using UK IQVIA medical research data. METHOD: ADR consultations were identified using standardised designated codes. Propensity scores were calculated based on comorbidities, concomitant medications, frailty, and polypharmacy. Cox's proportional hazard regression model was used to compare the outcomes between patients in ADR and non-ADR groups. In the secondary analysis, treatment- pattern changes following the ADR were examined and the subsequent outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Among 1 471 906 eligible users of ACEIs/ARBs, 13 652 (0.93%) patients had ACEIs/ARBs- related ADR consultation in primary care. Patients with ACEIs/ARBs-related ADR consultation had an increased risk of subsequent CVD events and all- cause mortality in both primary prevention (CVD events: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.43; all-cause mortality: aHR 1.14, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.27) and secondary prevention cohorts (CVD events: aHR 1.13, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.21; all-cause mortality: aHR 1.15, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.21). Half (50.19%) of patients with ADR continued to use ACEIs/ARBs, and these patients had a reduced risk of mortality (aHR 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.95) compared with those who discontinued using ACEIs/ARBs. CONCLUSION: This study provides information on the burden of ADR on patients and the health system. The findings call for additional monitoring and treatment strategies for patients affected by ADR to mitigate the risks of adverse clinical outcomes.

Corrigendum: Concurrent use of oral anticoagulants and sulfonylureas in individuals with type 2 diabetes and risk of hypoglycemia: a UK population-based cohort study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.893080.].

Community pharmacy and general practice collaborative and integrated working: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing collaborative and integrated working between General practice (GP) and Community pharmacy (CP) is a key priority of the UK National Health Service and has been proposed as a solution to reducing health system fragmentation, improving synergies and coordination of care. However, there is limited understanding regarding how and under which circumstances collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP can be achieved in practice and how regulatory, organisational and systemic barriers can be overcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of our review is to understand how, when and why working arrangements between GP and CP can provide the conditions necessary for optimal communication, decision-making, and collaborative and integrated working. A realist review approach will be used to synthesise the evidence to make sense of the complexities inherent in the working relationships between GP and CP. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) finding existing theories; (2) searching for evidence (our main searches were conducted in April 2022); (3) article selection; (4) data extraction and (5) synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. We will synthesise evidence from grey literature, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods research. The research team will work closely with key stakeholders and include patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the review process to refine the focus of the review and the programme theory. Collectively, our refined programme theory will explain how collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP works (or not), for whom, how and under which circumstances. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this review as it draws on secondary data from published articles and grey literature. Findings will be widely disseminated through: publication in peer-reviewed journals, seminars, international conference presentations, patients' association channels, social media, symposia and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022314280.

Concurrent Use of Oral Anticoagulants and Sulfonylureas in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Risk of Hypoglycemia: A UK Population-Based Cohort Study.

Objective: To investigate the association of concurrent use of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and sulfonylureas and the risk of hypoglycemia in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Research Design and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2001 and 2017 using electronic primary healthcare data from the IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD) that incorporates data supplied by The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a propriety database of Cegedim SA. Individuals with T2DM who received OAC prescription and sulfonylureas were included. We compared the risk of hypoglycemia with sulfonylureas and OACs using propensity score matching and Cox regression. Results: 109,040 individuals using warfarin and sulfonylureas and 77,296 using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and sulfonylureas were identified and included. There were 285 hypoglycemia events in the warfarin with sulfonylureas group (incidence rate = 17.8 per 1,000 person-years), while in the sulfonylureas only, 304 hypoglycemia events were observed (incidence rate = 14.4 per 1,000 person-years). There were 14 hypoglycemic events in the DOACs with sulfonylureas group (incidence rates = 14.8 per 1,000 person-years), while in the sulfonylureas alone group, 60 hypoglycemia events were observed (incidence rate =23.7 per 1,000 person-years). Concurrent use of warfarin and sulfonylureas was associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia compared with sulfonylureas alone (HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.75). However, we found no evidence of an association between concurrent use of DOACs and sulfonylureas and risk of hypoglycemia (HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.10) when compared with sulfonylureas only. Conclusions: We provide real-world evidence of possible drug-drug interactions between warfarin and sulfonylureas. The decision to prescribe warfarin with coexistent sulfonylureas to individuals with T2DM should be carefully evaluated in the context of other risk factors of hypoglycemia, and availability of alternative medications.

Medical and pharmacy students' perspectives of remote synchronous interprofessional education sessions.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional education (IPE) at university level is an essential component of undergraduate healthcare curricula, as well as being a requirement of many associated regulatory bodies. In this study, the perception of pharmacy and medical students' of remote IPE was evaluated. METHODS: A series of IPE sessions took place via Zoom and students' feedback was collected after each session. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: 72% (23/32) of medical students strongly agreed that the sessions had helped to improve their appreciation of the role of pharmacists, whereas 37% (22/59) of pharmacy students strongly agreed, reporting a median response of 'somewhat agreeing', that their appreciation of the role of general practitioners had improved. This difference was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.0143). Amongst students who responded, 55% (53/97) identified remote teaching as their preferred mode of delivery for an IPE session. CONCLUSIONS: The survey demonstrated that the students valued the development of their prescribing skills as well as the ancillary skills gained, such as communication and teamwork. Remote IPE can be a practical means of improving medical and pharmacy students' understanding of each other's professional roles, as well as improving the skills required for prescribing.

Investigating community pharmacists' perceptions of delivering chlamydia screening to young people: a qualitative study using normalisation process theory to understand professional practice.

OBJECTIVES: Some community pharmacies in England provide free chlamydia testing to young people, yet testing activity in the setting is low. This study aims to increase understanding of why that is, by investigating community pharmacists' perceptions of barriers to delivering the service, and the reasons why some do not offer testing. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 community pharmacists in North East England between November 2018 and May 2019. The sample comprised both those who provided and did not provide chlamydia testing at the time of the interview. Data were subjected to thematic analysis, utilising the constructs of the normalisation process theory. KEY FINDINGS: Pharmacists found it challenging to sustain delivery of chlamydia testing, as very few young people either requested the test or accepted it when it was offered during consultations on other sexual health services. Pharmacists were cautious about offering the test, having concerns about making clients feel uncomfortable. They identified the value of training to enable them to communicate confidently with clients about testing. Pharmacists supported the suggestion that treatment for chlamydia be offered as part of a 'test and treat' package, as they felt that it aligned to their role in the provision of medicines advice. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies are well-placed to deliver chlamydia testing but are not operating as effectively as they might do. The provision of training on communicating with young people, integrating testing with more sexual health services, and providing 'test and treatment' for chlamydia could contribute to greater testing activity.

Statin-related adverse drug reactions in UK primary care consultations: A retrospective cohort study to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.

AIMS: To investigate the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality in patients with statin-related adverse drug reaction (ADR) consultation in primary care and examine whether different treatments following the ADR affect subsequent outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of statin users between 2004 and 2019 using IQVIA Medical Research Data (formally known as the THIN database). Patients with statin-related ADR consultation were matched by propensity score (1:1) to statin users without ADR consultation based on demographics, comorbidities and concomitant medication. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to compare the risk of subsequent CVD event and all-cause mortality, stratified by history of CVD. In the secondary analysis among patients with statin-related ADR, treatment changes within a 1-year period following the ADR were examined and the outcomes were compared between different treatment groups. RESULTS: Among 1 564 687 statin users, 19 035 (1.22%) had a statin-related ADR consultation in primary care. The mean (standard deviation) follow-up time was 6.32 (3.74) years and 5.31 (3.83) years for CVD primary and secondary prevention cohorts, respectively. Statin-related ADR consultation was associated with subsequent CVD events in both cohorts (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 1.39 [95% CI 1.23, 1.57] and 1.34 [95% CI 1.25,1.42], respectively). In the secondary analysis among patients with statin-related ADR consultation, we found that (i) continued statin prescription or combination of any statin with additional lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) and (ii) other LLT only were associated with lower risks of CVD event (adjusted HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.64, 0.78] and 0.75 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], respectively) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.42, 0.50] and 0.52 [95% CI, 0.43, 0.64], respectively), compared to discontinuation of all LLT. CONCLUSION: Statin-related ADR was associated with an increased risk of subsequent CVD event, indicating that these patients should be monitored more closely. Continued lipid-lowering medication is of importance to protect against CVD events and mortality.

The impact of an electronic alert to reduce the risk of co-prescription of low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVE: To use the electronic prescribing system to identify how prescribers have responded to the duplicate 'Anticoagulant Alert' and the extent to which the system has prevented unintentional prescription of Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWHs) to patients prescribed Direct Acting Anticoagulants (DOACs). To determine the clinical appropriateness of the actions taken by the prescriber following the alert override and the impact this has on patient safety. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective service evaluation was conducted to determine the impact of a duplicate 'Anticoagulant Alert' on the prevention of prescription of LMWHs to patients already prescribed DOACs at a 950-bed acute teaching hospital in the UK. The number of alert overrides, actions taken by the prescriber following the alert override, and the clinical appropriateness of prescribers' actions over the 15-month period 26th June 2017 - 8th October 2018 were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 894 alerts that triggered over the study period 111 were in response to attempts to prescribe a LMWH to a patient prescribed a DOAC. The alert was overridden in 65 (58.6%) cases but accepted, preventing co-prescription of duplicate anticoagulants, in 46 (41.4%) cases. Overrides were appropriate and justified in 44/65 cases. In 6 cases duplicate anticoagulants were prescribed and administered but without patient harm. CONCLUSION: The anticoagulant alert prevented duplicate anticoagulant prescribing for 46 patients reducing the risk of patient harm from duplicate-anticoagulation. The 58.6% of alerts that were overridden were appropriate and justified in the majority of cases. Where duplicate doses were administered, no harm was observed. The electronic alert has improved the safe use of anticoagulants within our organisation.

Interventions developed to reduce secondary care utilisation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe and critically appraise the quality of studies of interventions developed to reduce the rate of secondary care utilisation and investigate interventions' impact on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHOD: Using a systematic approach, five databases were searched between 01 January 1995 and 01 February 2021 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane database). Inclusion criteria were studies (published in English) in adults with T2DM offered intervention(s) involving medicines/services/educational programmes in any country or setting, with investigated outcomes including the rate of hospital admission/re-admission/accident and emergency visits. Validated tools were used to assess the quality and accuracy of reporting the interventions. A narrative synthesis was used to frame the findings. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 4670 papers were identified, which yielded a final 53 studies after screening against the inclusion criteria. Identified interventions were complex interventions (n = 21) including at least two interventions (e.g. improving medication adherence and patient education), medication management (n = 15), patient education programmes (n = 8), lifestyle interventions (n = 5) and other interventions (n = 4; e.g. dental care). After assessing for quality and effectiveness of interventions, 15 studies remained; 7 were medication management interventions (e.g. use of insulin pen) and 8 were complex interventions (e.g. pharmaceutical care and telehealth systems). Complex interventions showed significant improvement in clinical outcomes and reduction in secondary care utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: This narrative review identified potential elements of an effective complex intervention to reduce healthcare utilisation in patients with T2DM. These results could inform the development of interventions to be tested for feasibility, before piloting to assess for outcomes that improve diabetic care, reduce diabetes-related complications and minimise healthcare utilisation.

Service Users' Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?

AIMS: To understand service users' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behavioural modification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate's mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists' new role to support acamprosate adherence. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way.

The feasibility and acceptability of a brief psychological intervention for adults with long-term health conditions and subthreshold depression delivered via community pharmacies: a mixed methods evaluation-the Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST).

BACKGROUND: Adults with long-term health conditions (LTCs) are more likely to experience depressive symptoms which can worsen health outcomes and quality of life, and increase healthcare costs. Subthreshold depression may go undetected and/or untreated. The Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST) explored whether community pharmacies represent a suitable setting to offer brief psychological support to people with LTCs and comorbid subthreshold depression. METHODS: A feasibility intervention study with a nested mixed methods evaluation was employed. Adults with subthreshold depression and a minimum of one LTC were recruited from community pharmacies/local general practices and offered a brief psychological support intervention ('Enhanced Support Intervention' (ESI)), based on behavioural activation within a Collaborative Care framework. The intervention included up to six sessions supported by pharmacy staff ('ESI facilitators') trained to deliver the ESI within the community pharmacy setting. Recruitment, retention rates and engagement with the ESI were assessed. Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews with pharmacy staff and study participants, and a focus group with pharmacy staff, explored experiences and acceptability of the study and the ESI. Themes were mapped onto constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: Recruitment of ESI participants was challenging and slower than anticipated despite the varied methods of recruitment employed; although, this was useful in identifying barriers and enabling factors for participation. Engagament with the ESI was good with n=17 (71%) recruited participants commencing the ESI. The ESI was found to be acceptable to participants and ESI facilitators. Retention rate at 4 months was good n=20 (87.0%). The main barriers to identifying potential participants for pharmacy staff were lack of time, resources and limited experience in research. The ESI training and support manual were acceptable to ESI facilitators. The ESI and supporting patient workbook were acceptable to people with LTCs and subthreshold depression. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies were viewed as an acceptable setting in which to deliver preventative brief psychological support to people with LTCs at risk of depression. This feasibility study provided important data to inform the design of a pilot randomised controlled trial in this setting and highlighted important considerations for future pharmacy-based research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11290592.

Addressing complex pharmacy consultations: methods used to develop a person-centred intervention to highlight alcohol within pharmacist reviews of medications.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is challenging to discuss, and patients may be reluctant to disclose drinking partly because of concern about being judged. This report presents an overview of the development of a medications review intervention co-produced with the pharmacy profession and with patients, which breaks new ground by seeking to give appropriate attention to alcohol within these consultations. METHODS: This intervention was developed in a series of stages and refined through conceptual discussion, literature review, observational and interview studies, and consultations with advisory groups. In this study we reflect on this process, paying particular attention to the methods used, where lessons may inform innovations in other complex clinical consultations. RESULTS: Early work with patients and pharmacists infused the entire process with a heightened sense of the complexity of consultations in everyday practice, prompting careful deliberation on the implications for intervention development. This required the research team to be highly responsive to both co-production inputs and data gathered in formally conducted studies, and to be committed to working through the implications for intervention design. The intervention thus evolved significantly over time, with the greatest transformations resulting from patient and pharmacist co-design workshops in the second stage of the process, where pharmacists elaborated on the nature of the need for training in particular. The original research plans provided a helpful structure, and unanticipated issues for investigation emerged throughout the process. This underscored the need to engage dynamically with changing contexts and contents and to avoid rigid adherence to any early prescribed plan. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol interventions are complex and require careful developmental research. This can be a messy enterprise, which can nonetheless shed new insights into the challenges involved in optimising interventions, and how to meet them, if embraced with an attitude of openness to learning. We found that exposing our own research plans to scrutiny resulted in changes to the intervention design that gained the confidence of different stakeholders. Our understanding of the methods used, and their consequences, may be bounded by the person-centred nature of this particular intervention.

Young people's perceptions of accessing a community pharmacy for a chlamydia testing kit: a qualitative study based in North East England.

OBJECTIVES: Chlamydia testing among young people in community pharmacies in North East England has been low compared with other remote settings offering testing for the past few years. To understand why this may be, to maximise service provision, the perceptions of young men and women about pharmacy testing and possible chlamydia treatment were gathered and interpreted. DESIGN: Indepth, semistructured interviews. SETTING: Four youth centres in North East England. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 26 young people aged 16-23. The sample of participants comprised those with a history of chlamydia testing as well as those never tested. INTERVIEWS: Face-to-face interviews were conducted between October 2018 and May 2019. The interview schedule covered young people's perceptions of sexually transmitted infections, provision of pharmacy sexual and reproductive health and chlamydia testing, and potential chlamydia treatment. Data from the interviews were subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: The geographical accessibility and long opening times of community pharmacies in North East England were perceived benefits of the service. However, young people had concerns about being judged by pharmacy staff or overheard by customers when requesting the test. Men did not want to be seen by their peers accessing the pharmacy. These barriers were associated with a perceived stigma of chlamydia. Despite this, young people thought that pharmacist advice on the test kit would be important to ensure they complete it correctly. Those never tested favoured how the kit could be taken home to complete the urine sample. The option of including chlamydia treatment was reported to be convenient and comforting. CONCLUSION: Supporting pharmacies in North East England to offer a confidential chlamydia testing service is necessary to overcome young people's perceived barriers to testing. Delivering testing as an integrated sexual health package with other pharmacy services, together with treatment where suitable, will increase acceptance for testing and timely access to treatment.

Prevalence of adverse drug reactions in the primary care setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a major cause of iatrogenic morbidity and mortality in patient care. While a substantial body of work has been undertaken to characterise ADRs in the hospital setting, the overall burden of ADRs in the primary care remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of ADRs in the primary care setting and factors affecting the heterogeneity of the estimates. METHODS: Studies were identified through searching of Medline, Embase, CINAHL and IPA databases. We included observational studies that reported information on the prevalence of ADRs in patients receiving primary care. Disease and treatment specific studies were excluded. Quality of the included studies were assessed using Smyth ADRs adapted scale. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled estimate. Potential source of heterogeneity, including age groups, ADRs definitions, ADRs detection methods, study setting, quality of the studies, and sample size, were investigated using sub-group analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies with a total study population of 1,568,164 individuals were included. The pooled prevalence of ADRs in the primary care setting was 8.32% (95% CI, 7.82, 8.83). The percentage of preventable ADRs ranged from 12.35-37.96%, with the pooled estimate of 22.96% (95% CI, 7.82, 38.09). Cardiovascular system drugs were the most commonly implicated medication class. Methods of ADRs detection, age group, setting, and sample size contributed significantly to the heterogeneity of the estimates. CONCLUSION: ADRs constitute a significant health problem in the primary care setting. Further research should focus on examining whether ADRs affect subsequent clinical outcomes, particularly in high-risk therapeutic areas. This information may better inform strategies to reduce the burden of ADRs in the primary care setting.

Patient and public perception and experience of community pharmacy services post-discharge in the UK: a rapid review and qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the perception and experience of patients and the public (PP) about community pharmacy (CP) services and other primary care services after hospital discharge back home. DESIGN AND SETTING: A rapid review and qualitative study exploring PP perceptions of primary care, focusing on CP services in the UK. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted including a rapid review undertaken between 24 April and 8 May 2019 across four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL). Semistructured interviews were then conducted investigating for shifts in current PP perception, but also nuanced opinion pertaining to CP services. A convenience sampling technique was used through two online PP groups for recruitment. Thematic framework analysis was applied to interview transcripts. PARTICIPANTS: Any consenting adults ≥18 years old were invited regardless of their medical condition, and whether they had used post-discharge services or not. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Patients were generally supportive and satisfied with primary care services. However, some barriers to the use of these services included: resource limitations; poor communication between healthcare providers or between patient and healthcare providers; and patients' lack of awareness of available services. From the 11 interviewees, there was a lack of awareness of CP post-discharge services. Nevertheless, there was general appreciation of the benefit of CP services to patients, professionals and wider healthcare system. Potential barriers to uptake and use included: accessibility, resource availability, lack of awareness, and privacy and confidentiality issues related to information-sharing. Several participants felt the uptake of such services should be improved. CONCLUSION: There was alignment between the review and qualitative study about high patient acceptance, appreciation and satisfaction with primary care services post-discharge. Barriers to the use of CP post-discharge services identified from interviews resonated with the existing literature; this is despite developments in pharmacy practice in recent times towards clinical and public health services.

Impact of multiple cardiovascular medications on mortality after an incidence of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND: To manage the risk factors and to improve clinical outcomes, patients with stroke commonly receive multiple cardiovascular medications. However, there is a lack of evidence on the optimum combination of medication therapy in the primary care setting after ischemic stroke. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of multiple cardiovascular medications on long-term survival after an incident stroke event (ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA)). METHODS: This study consisted of 52,619 patients aged 45 and above with an incident stroke event between 2007 and 2016 in The Health Improvement Network database. We estimated the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with multiple cardiovascular medications versus monotherapy using a marginal structural model. RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 3.6 years, there were 9230 deaths (7635 in multiple cardiovascular medication groups and 1595 in the monotherapy group). Compared with patients prescribed monotherapy only, the HRs of mortality were 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) for two medications, 0.65 (0.59-0.70) for three medications, 0.61 (0.56-0.67) for four medications, 0.60 (0.54-0.66) for five medications and 0.66 (0.59-0.74) for ≥ six medications. Patients with any four classes of antiplatelet agents (APAs), lipid-regulating medications (LRMs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, diuretics and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had the lowest risk of mortality (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.46-0.57) versus any one class. The combination containing APAs, LRMs, ACEIs/ARBs and CCBs was associated with a 61% (95% CI 53-68%) lower risk of mortality compared with APAs alone. CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that combination therapy of four or five cardiovascular medications may be optimal to improve long-term survival after incident ischemic stroke or TIA. APAs, LRMs, ACEIs/ARBs and CCBs were the optimal constituents of combination therapy in the present study.