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

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

A pilot cluster randomised trial of the medicines and alcohol consultation (MAC): an intervention to discuss alcohol use in community pharmacy medicine review services.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol interventions are important to the developing public health role of community pharmacies. The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC) is a new intervention, co-produced with community pharmacists (CPs) and patients, which involves a CP practice development programme designed to integrate discussion of alcohol within existing NHS medicine review services. We conducted a pilot trial of the MAC and its delivery to investigate all study procedures to inform progression to a definitive trial. METHODS: This cluster pilot RCT was conducted in 10 community pharmacies in Yorkshire, UK, with a CP from each who regularly conducted Medicine Use Review (MUR) and New Medicine Service (NMS) consultations. Randomisation was conducted using a secure remote randomisation service. Intervention CPs (n = 5) were trained to deliver the MAC in MUR/NMS consultations. Control CPs (n = 5) provided these services as usual. Consecutive MUR/NMS patients were asked by CPs to participate, screened for eligibility (consumption of alcohol at least twice per week), and baseline data collected for those eligible. A two-month follow-up telephone interview was conducted. Blinding of CPs was not possible, but patients were blinded to the alcohol focus of the trial. Primary outcomes were total weekly UK units (8 g of ethanol per unit) of alcohol consumption in the week prior to follow-up, and confidence in medications management. Trial procedures were assessed by recruitment, attrition, and follow-up rates. RESULTS: 260 patients were approached by CPs to take part in the trial, 68% (n = 178) were assessed for eligibility and 30% (n = 54) of these patients were eligible. Almost all eligible patients (n = 51; 94%) consented to participate, of whom 92% (n = 47) were followed-up at 2 months; alcohol consumption was lower in the intervention arm and confidence in medication management reduced slightly for both groups. Exploration of recall issues at follow-up showed a high level of agreement between a two-item quantity/frequency measure and 7-day guided recall of alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot trial demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the MAC in community pharmacy and trial recruitment and data collection procedures. However, decommissioning of MURs means that it is not possible to conduct a definitive trial of the intervention in this service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN57447996

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