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

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

Community pharmacist led medication reviews in the UK: a scoping review of the medicines use review and the new medicine service literatures

Background: Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) and the New Medicine Service (NMS) are services delivered by UK community pharmacists to improve adherence, improve patient understanding of their medicines and reduce medicines wastage. Aim: In this scoping review we aim to identify, map and critically examine the nature of existing empirical evidence in peer reviewed journals relating to MUR and NMS consultations. Method: Systematic searches identified the available MUR and NMS empirical literature. We sought data on barriers and facilitators to conducting MUR or NMS consultations, the perceptions of pharmacists and patients, the conduct of consultations, and outcomes of consultations. Searches from 2005 (when MURs were introduced) to May 2018 were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus databases. Data were extracted into Excel for examination of study characteristics, participant characteristics, type of intervention/services delivered and key study quantitative and/or qualitative findings. Results: Forty-one papers from 37 studies met the inclusion criteria: 28 papers were of MURs, 10 of NMS and 3 for both services. Studies focused on the introduction and implementation of these services, with little attention to outcomes for patients; effectiveness was not evaluated beyond in a single NMS RCT. Observational data indicated that pharmacists and patients view MURs and the NMS positively, despite challenges implementing these services and apparent lack of communication between pharmacists and GPs. Consultations were reported to be short, typically 10-12 minutes, characterised by limited engagement with patients and their health problems. The extent and nature of advice on health behaviours during consultations or other content was rarely examined. Conclusion: The research literature on MURs and the NMS has developed slowly. There is much scope for further research attention to developing more patient-centred care

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

Impact of ACE Inhibitors and ARBs-related Adverse Drug Reactions Consultations on Patients’ Clinical Outcomes: A Cohort Study in UK Primary Care

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs)related to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor(ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker(ARB) may negatively affect patients’ treatment outcomes. There is limited evidence on the impact of ADRs on patients’ outcome in real-world clinical setting. Aim: To investigate the impact of ACEI/ARB-related ADRs consultations in primary care on patients’ clinical outcomes. Design: Propensity score-matched cohort study of ACEI/ARB users during 2004-2019 using IQVIA medical research data. Methods: ACEI/ARB-related ADRs consultations were identified using standardised designated codes in primary care medical records data.Propensity scores were calculated based on comorbidities,concomitant medications,frailty index,polypharmacy,and interval between ACEI/ARB initiation and ADRs date.The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality.Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare the outcomes between ADRs and non-ADRs group. Results: Among 1,471,906 eligible ACEI/ARB users,13,652 patients(0.93%) had ACEI/ARB-related ADRs consultation in primary care. Mean follow-up duration were6.57and4.84years for the CVD primary(n=6,196) and secondary(n=14,238) prevention cohorts,respectively. ACEI/ARB-related ADRs were associated with CVD events and all-cause mortality in both primary(adjusted HR.1.22,95%CI1.05,1.43 and 1.14,95%CI1.01,1.27) and secondary prevention cohort (adjusted HR.1.13,95%CI1.05,1.21 and 1.15,95%CI1.09,1.21).Half (50.19%) patients with ADRs consultation continued to use ACEI/ARB and these patients had a reduced risk of mortality(adjusted HR.0.88,95%CI0.82,0.95) compared to those who discontinued ACEI/ARB. Conclusions: This study provides information on the burden of ADRs on patients and the health system. Patients with ACEI/ARB-related ADRs consultation had an increased risk of subsequent CVD events and mortality,indicating additional monitoring and treatment strategies by healthcare professionals for affected patients are needed to mitigate the risks of adverse clinical outcomes

Structured medication reviews : origins, implementation, evidence, and prospects

Pharmacists have been employed in UK general practice for many years. Their numbers are now expanding and their roles developing. Clinical pharmacists are expected to alleviate workload pressures on GPs. Notwithstanding the COVID-19 vaccination programme, a new Structured Medication Review (SMR) service has been introduced in Primary Care Networks (PCNs). The long term drivers are clear: addressing problematic polypharmacy in the NHS, reducing avoidable hospitalisations, and delivering better value from medicines spending. SMRs are intended to improve the quality of prescribing, delivering improvements to patient care and outcomes

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