International trends in antipsychotic use: A study in 16 countries, 2005–2014

The objective of this study was to assess international trends in antipsychotic use, using a standardised methodology. A repeated cross-sectional design was applied to data extracts from the years 2005 to 2014 from 16 countries worldwide. During the study period, the overall prevalence of antipsychotic use increased in 10 of the 16 studied countries. In 2014, the overall prevalence of antipsychotic use was highest in Taiwan (78.2/1000 persons), and lowest in Colombia (3.2/1000). In children and adolescents (0–19 years), antipsychotic use ranged from 0.5/1000 (Lithuania) to 30.8/1000 (Taiwan). In adults (20–64 years), the range was 2.8/1000 (Colombia) to 78.9/1000 (publicly insured US population), and in older adults (65+ years), antipsychotic use ranged from 19.0/1000 (Colombia) to 149.0/1000 (Taiwan). Atypical antipsychotic use increased in all populations (range of atypical/typical ratio: 0.7 (Taiwan) to 6.1 (New Zealand, Australia)). Quetiapine, risperidone, and olanzapine were most frequently prescribed. Prevalence and patterns of antipsychotic use varied markedly between countries. In the majority of populations, antipsychotic utilisation and especially the use of atypical antipsychotics increased over time. The high rates of antipsychotic prescriptions in older adults and in youths in some countries merit further investigation and systematic pharmacoepidemiologic monitoring

Medication review plus person-centred care:a feasibility study of a pharmacy-health psychology dual intervention to improve care for people living with dementia

BACKGROUND: "Behaviour that Challenges" is common in people living with dementia, resident in care homes and historically has been treated with anti-psychotics. However, such usage is associated with 1800 potentially avoidable deaths annually in the UK. This study investigated the feasibility of a full clinical trial of a specialist dementia care pharmacist medication review combined with a health psychology intervention for care staff to limit the use of psychotropics. This paper focuses on feasibility; including recruitment and retention, implementation of medication change recommendations and the experiences and expectations of care staff. METHODS: West Midlands care homes and individuals meeting the inclusion criteria (dementia diagnosis; medication for behaviour that challenges), or their personal consultee, were approached for consent. A specialist pharmacist reviewed medication. Care home staff received an educational behaviour change intervention in a three-hour session promoting person-centred care. Primary healthcare staff received a modified version of the training. The primary outcome measure was the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version at 3 months. Other outcomes included quality of life, cognition, health economics and prescribed medication. A qualitative evaluation explored expectations and experiences of care staff. RESULTS: Five care homes and 34 of 108 eligible residents (31.5%) were recruited, against an original target of 45 residents across 6 care homes. Medication reviews were conducted for 29 study participants (85.3%) and the pharmacist recommended stopping or reviewing medication in 21 cases (72.4%). Of the recommendations made, 57.1% (12 of 21) were implemented, and implementation (discontinuation) took a mean of 98.4 days. In total, 164 care staff received training and 21 were interviewed. Care staff reported a positive experience of the intervention and post intervention adopting a more holistic patient-centred approach. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention contained two elements; staff training and medication review. It was feasible to implement the staff training, and the training appeared to increase the ability and confidence of care staff to manage behaviour that challenges without the need for medication. The medication review would require significant modification for full trial partly related to the relatively limited uptake of the recommendations made, and delay in implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58330068 . Registered 15 October 2017. Retrospectively registered

Anticholinergic drug burden tools/scales and adverse outcomes in different clinical settings: a systematic review of reviews

Background: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure (anticholinergic burden) has been linked to a number of adverse outcomes. To conduct research in this area, an agreed approach to describing anticholinergic burden is needed. Objective: This review set out to identify anticholinergic burden scales, to describe their rationale, the settings in which they have been used and the outcomes associated with them. Methods: A search was performed using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to October 2016 to identify systematic reviews describing anticholinergic burden scales or tools. Abstracts and titles were reviewed to determine eligibility for review with eligible articles read in full. The final selection of reviews was critically appraised using the ROBIS tool and pre-defined data were extracted; the primary data of interest were the anticholinergic burden scales or tools used. Results: Five reviews were identified for analysis containing a total of 62 original articles. Eighteen anticholinergic burden scales or tools were identified with variation in their derivation, content and how they quantified the anticholinergic activity of medications. The Drug Burden Index was the most commonly used scale or tool in community and database studies, while the Anticholinergic Risk Scale was used more frequently in care homes and hospital settings. The association between anticholinergic burden and clinical outcomes varied by index and study. Falls and hospitalisation were consistently found to be associated with anticholinergic burden. Mortality, delirium, physical function and cognition were not consistently associated. Conclusions: Anticholinergic burden scales vary in their rationale, use and association with outcomes. This review showed that the concept of anticholinergic burden has been variably defined and inconsistently described using a number of indices with different content and scoring. The association between adverse outcomes and anticholinergic burden varies between scores and has not been conclusively established