Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Many people now take multiple medications on a long-term basis to manage health conditions. Optimising the benefit of such polypharmacy requires tailoring of medicines use to the needs and circumstances of individuals. However, professionals report barriers to achieving this in practice. In this study, we examined health professionals' perceptions of enablers and barriers to delivering individually tailored prescribing. METHODS: Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed an on-line survey of health professionals' views of enablers and barriers to implementation of Individually Tailored Prescribing (ITP) of medicines. Links to the survey were sent out through known professional networks using a convenience/snowball sampling approach. Survey questions sought to identify perceptions of supports/barriers for ITP within the four domains of work described by NPT: sense making, engagement, action and monitoring. Analysis followed the framework approach developed in our previous work. RESULTS: Four hundred and nineteen responses were included in the final analysis (67.3% female, 32.7% male; 52.7% nurse prescribers, 19.8% pharmacists and 21.8% GPs). Almost half (44.9%) were experienced practitioners (16+ years in practice); around one third reported already routinely offering ITP to their patients. GPs were the group least likely to recognise this as consistent usual practice. Findings revealed general support for the principles of ITP but significant variation and inconsistency in understanding and implementation in practice. Our findings reveal four key implications for practice: the need to raise understanding of ITP as a legitimate part of professional practice; to prioritise the work of ITP within the range of individual professional activity; to improve the consistency of training and support for interpretive practice; and to review the impact of formal and informal monitoring processes on practice. CONCLUSION: The findings will inform the ongoing development of our new complex intervention (PRIME Prescribing) to support the individual tailoring of medicines needed to address problematic polypharmacy

Evaluation of the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction: rationale for and design of the EMPEROR-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: The principal biological processes that characterize heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are systemic inflammation, epicardial adipose tissue accumulation, coronary microcirculatory rarefaction, myocardial fibrosis and vascular stiffness; the resulting impairment of left ventricular and aortic distensibility (especially when accompanied by impaired glomerular function and sodium retention) causes increases in cardiac filling pressures and exertional dyspnoea despite the relative preservation of left ventricular ejection fraction. Independently of their actions on blood glucose, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors exert a broad range of biological effects (including actions to inhibit cardiac inflammation and fibrosis, antagonize sodium retention and improve glomerular function) that can ameliorate the pathophysiological derangements in HFpEF. Such SGLT2 inhibitors exert favourable effects in experimental models of HFpEF and have been found in large-scale trials to reduce the risk for serious heart failure events in patients with type 2 diabetes, many of whom were retrospectively identified as having HFpEF. STUDY DESIGN: The EMPEROR-Preserved Trial is enrolling ≈5750 patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction >40%), with and without type 2 diabetes, who are randomized to receive placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg/day, which is added to all appropriate treatments for HFpEF and co-morbidities. STUDY AIMS: The primary endpoint is the time-to-first-event analysis of the combined risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. The trial will also evaluate the effects of empagliflozin on renal function, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality and recurrent hospitalization events, and will assess a wide range of biomarkers that reflect important pathophysiological mechanisms that may drive the evolution of HFpEF. The EMPEROR-Preserved Trial is well positioned to determine if empagliflozin can have a meaningful impact on the course of HFpEF, a disorder for which there are currently few therapeutic options

Evaluation of the effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin on morbidity and mortality of patients with chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: rationale for and design of the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

Drugs that inhibit the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. In populations that largely did not have heart failure at the time of enrolment, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin decreased the risk of serious new-onset heart failure events by ≈30%. In addition, in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin reduced the risk of both pump failure and sudden deaths, the two most common modes of death among patients with heart failure. In none of the three trials could the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure be explained by the actions of these drugs as diuretics or anti-hyperglycaemic agents. These observations raise the possibility that SGLT2 inhibitors could reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with established heart failure, including those without diabetes. The EMPEROR-Reduced trial is enrolling ≈3600 patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤ 40%), half of whom are expected not to have diabetes. Patients are being randomized to placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg daily, which is added to all appropriate treatment with inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system and neprilysin, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The primary endpoint is the time-to-first event analysis of the combined risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial will also evaluate the effects of empagliflozin on renal function, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and recurrent hospitalization events. By adjusting eligibility based on natriuretic peptide levels to the baseline ejection fraction, the trial will preferentially enrol high-risk patients. A large proportion of the participants is expected to have an ejection fraction < 30%, and the estimated annual event rate is expected to be at least 15%. The EMPEROR-Reduced trial is well-positioned to determine if the addition of empagliflozin can add meaningfully to current approaches that have established benefits in the treatment of chronic heart failure with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Evaluation of the effects of sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction: rationale for and design of the EMPEROR‐Preserved Trial

Background: The principal biological processes that characterize heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are systemic inflammation, epicardial adipose tissue accumulation, coronary microcirculatory rarefaction, myocardial fibrosis and vascular stiffness; the resulting impairment of left ventricular and aortic distensibility (especially when accompanied by impaired glomerular function and sodium retention) causes increases in cardiac filling pressures and exertional dyspnoea despite the relative preservation of left ventricular ejection fraction. Independently of their actions on blood glucose, sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors exert a broad range of biological effects (including actions to inhibit cardiac inflammation and fibrosis, antagonize sodium retention and improve glomerular function) that can ameliorate the pathophysiological derangements in HFpEF. Such SGLT2 inhibitors exert favourable effects in experimental models of HFpEF and have been found in large‐scale trials to reduce the risk for serious heart failure events in patients with type 2 diabetes, many of whom were retrospectively identified as having HFpEF. Study design: The EMPEROR‐Preserved Trial is enrolling ≈5750 patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction &gt;40%), with and without type 2 diabetes, who are randomized to receive placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg/day, which is added to all appropriate treatments for HFpEF and co‐morbidities. Study aims: The primary endpoint is the time‐to‐first‐event analysis of the combined risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. The trial will also evaluate the effects of empagliflozin on renal function, cardiovascular death, all‐cause mortality and recurrent hospitalization events, and will assess a wide range of biomarkers that reflect important pathophysiological mechanisms that may drive the evolution of HFpEF. The EMPEROR‐Preserved Trial is well positioned to determine if empagliflozin can have a meaningful impact on the course of HFpEF, a disorder for which there are currently few therapeutic options

Evaluation of the effect of sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin on morbidity and mortality of patients with chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: rationale for and design of the EMPEROR‐Reduced trial

Drugs that inhibit the sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. In populations that largely did not have heart failure at the time of enrolment, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin decreased the risk of serious new‐onset heart failure events by ≈30%. In addition, in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin reduced the risk of both pump failure and sudden deaths, the two most common modes of death among patients with heart failure. In none of the three trials could the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure be explained by the actions of these drugs as diuretics or anti‐hyperglycaemic agents. These observations raise the possibility that SGLT2 inhibitors could reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with established heart failure, including those without diabetes. The EMPEROR‐Reduced trial is enrolling ≈3600 patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤ 40%), half of whom are expected not to have diabetes. Patients are being randomized to placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg daily, which is added to all appropriate treatment with inhibitors of the renin–angiotensin system and neprilysin, beta‐blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The primary endpoint is the time‐to‐first event analysis of the combined risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial will also evaluate the effects of empagliflozin on renal function, cardiovascular death, all‐cause mortality, and recurrent hospitalization events. By adjusting eligibility based on natriuretic peptide levels to the baseline ejection fraction, the trial will preferentially enrol high‐risk patients. A large proportion of the participants is expected to have an ejection fraction &lt; 30%, and the estimated annual event rate is expected to be at least 15%. The EMPEROR‐Reduced trial is well‐positioned to determine if the addition of empagliflozin can add meaningfully to current approaches that have established benefits in the treatment of chronic heart failure with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council

Vitamin D insufficiency in COVID-19 and influenza A, and critical illness survivors: a cross-sectional study

Objectives: The steroid hormone vitamin D has roles in immunomodulation and bone health. Insufficiency is associated with susceptibility to respiratory infections. We report 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) measurements in hospitalised people with COVID-19 and influenza A and in survivors of critical illness to test the hypotheses that vitamin D insufficiency scales with illness severity and persists in survivors. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants: Plasma was obtained from 295 hospitalised people with COVID-19 (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)/WHO Clinical Characterization Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections UK study), 93 with influenza A (Mechanisms of Severe Acute Influenza Consortium (MOSAIC) study, during the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic) and 139 survivors of non-selected critical illness (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). Total 25(OH)D was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Free 25(OH)D was measured by ELISA in COVID-19 samples. Outcome measures: Receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital mortality. Results: Vitamin D insufficiency (total 25(OH)D 25–50 nmol/L) and deficiency (<25 nmol/L) were prevalent in COVID-19 (29.3% and 44.4%, respectively), influenza A (47.3% and 37.6%) and critical illness survivors (30.2% and 56.8%). In COVID-19 and influenza A, total 25(OH)D measured early in illness was lower in patients who received IMV (19.6 vs 31.9 nmol/L (p<0.0001) and 22.9 vs 31.1 nmol/L (p=0.0009), respectively). In COVID-19, biologically active free 25(OH)D correlated with total 25(OH)D and was lower in patients who received IMV, but was not associated with selected circulating inflammatory mediators. Conclusions: Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency was present in majority of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 or influenza A and correlated with severity and persisted in critical illness survivors at concentrations expected to disrupt bone metabolism. These findings support early supplementation trials to determine if insufficiency is causal in progression to severe disease, and investigation of longer-term bone health outcomes

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study.

Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease. Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations. Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84–1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87–1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80–1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96–1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89–1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92–1·26; p=0·33). Interpretation: NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity. Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations