It's not what you do it's the way that it's measured: quality assessment of minor ailment management in community pharmacies:Quality assessment of minor ailment management in community pharmacies

Background: Effective management of minor ailments in community pharmacies could reduce the burden on alternative high-cost services (general practices, Emergency Departments). Evidence is needed regarding the appropriateness of management of these conditions in community pharmacies. Objective: To explore the appropriateness of minor ailment management in community pharmacies. Setting: Prospective, observational study of simulated patient (SP) visits to community pharmacies in Grampian (Scotland) and East Anglia (England). Method: Eighteen pharmacies (nine per centre) were recruited within a 25-mile radius of Aberdeen or Norwich. Consultations for four minor ailments were evaluated: back pain; vomiting/diarrhoea; sore throat; and eye discomfort. Each pharmacy received one SP visit per ailment (four visits/pharmacy; 72 visits total). Visits were audio-recorded and SPs completed a data collection form immediately after each visit. Primary Outcome Measure: Each SP consultation was assessed for appropriateness against product licence, practice guidelines and study-specific consensus standards developed by a multi-disciplinary consensus panel. Results: Evaluable data were available for 68/72 (94.4%) visits. Most (96%) visits resulted in the sale of a product; advice alone was the outcome of three visits. All product sales complied with the product licence, 52 (76%) visits complied with practice guidelines and seven visits achieved a ‘basic’ standard according to the consensus standard. Conclusion: Appropriateness of care varied according to the standard used. Pharmacy-specific quality standards are needed which are realistic and relevant to the pharmacy context and which reflect legal and clinical guidelines to promote the safe and effective management of minor ailments in this setting

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project: An open-label pragmatic randomised control trial comparing the efficacy of differing therapeutic agents for primary care detoxification from either street heroin or methadone [ISRCTN07752728]

BACKGROUND: Heroin is a synthetic opioid with an extensive illicit market leading to large numbers of people becoming addicted. Heroin users often present to community treatment services requesting detoxification and in the UK various agents are used to control symptoms of withdrawal. Dissatisfaction with methadone detoxification [8] has lead to the use of clonidine, lofexidine, buprenorphine and dihydrocodeine; however, there remains limited evaluative research. In Leeds, a city of 700,000 people in the North of England, dihydrocodeine is the detoxification agent of choice. Sublingual buprenorphine, however, is being introduced. The comparative value of these two drugs for helping people successfully and comfortably withdraw from heroin has never been compared in a randomised trial. Additionally, there is a paucity of research evaluating interventions among drug users in the primary care setting. This study seeks to address this by randomising drug users presenting in primary care to receive either dihydrocodeine or buprenorphine. METHODS/DESIGN: The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project is a pragmatic randomised trial which will compare the open use of buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for illicit opiate detoxification, in the UK primary care setting. The LEEDS project will involve consenting adults and will be run in specialist general practice surgeries throughout Leeds. The primary outcome will be the results of a urine opiate screening at the end of the detoxification regimen. Adverse effects and limited data to three and six months will be acquired

Learning to prescribe - pharmacists' experiences of supplementary prescribing training in England

Background: The introduction of non-medical prescribing for professions such as pharmacy and nursing in recent years offers additional responsibilities and opportunities but attendant training issues. In the UK and in contrast to some international models, becoming a non-medical prescriber involves the completion of an accredited training course offered by many higher education institutions, where the skills and knowledge necessary for prescribing are learnt. Aims: to explore pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of learning to prescribe on supplementary prescribing (SP) courses, particularly in relation to inter-professional learning, course content and subsequent use of prescribing in practice. Methods: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to all 808 SP registered pharmacists in England in April 2007, exploring demographic, training, prescribing, safety culture and general perceptions of SP. Results: After one follow-up, 411 (51%) of pharmacists responded. 82% agreed SP training was useful, 58% agreed courses provided appropriate knowledge and 62% agreed that the necessary prescribing skills were gained. Clinical examination, consultation skills training and practical experience with doctors were valued highly; pharmacology training and some aspects of course delivery were criticised. Mixed views on inter-professional learning were reported – insights into other professions being valued but knowledge and skills differences considered problematic. 67% believed SP and recent independent prescribing (IP) should be taught together, with more diagnostic training wanted; few pharmacists trained in IP, but many were training or intending to train. There was no association between pharmacists' attitudes towards prescribing training and when they undertook training between 2004 and 2007 but earlier cohorts were more likely to be using supplementary prescribing in practice. Conclusion: Pharmacists appeared to value their SP training and suggested improvements that could inform future courses. The benefits of inter-professional learning, however, may conflict with providing professionspecific training. SP training may be perceived to be an instrumental 'stepping stone' in pharmacists' professional project of gaining full IP status

P3MC: A double blind parallel group randomised placebo controlled trial of Propranolol and Pizotifen in preventing migraine in children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A recent Cochrane Review demonstrated the remarkable lack of reliable clinical trials of migraine treatments for children, especially for the two most prescribed preventative treatments in the UK, <it>Propranolol </it>and <it>Pizotifen</it>.</p> <p>Migraine trials in both children and adults have high placebo responder rates, e.g. of 23%, but for a trial's results to be generalisable "placebo responders" should not be excluded and for a drug to be worthwhile it should be clearly superior, both clinically and statistically, to placebo.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Two multicentre, two arm double blind parallel group randomised controlled trials, with allocation ratio of 2:1 for each comparison, Propranolol versus placebo and Pizotifen versus placebo. The trial is designed to test whether Propranolol is superior to placebo and whether Pizotifen is superior to placebo for the prevention of migraine attacks in children aged 5 - 16 years referred to secondary care out-patient settings with frequent migraine (2-6/4 weeks). The primary outcome measure is the number of migraine attacks during trial weeks 11 to 14.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>A strength of this trial is the participation of clinically well defined migraine patients who will also be approached to help with future longer-term follow-up studies.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ISRCTN97360154</p

Current practices in managing acutely disturbed patients at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro-Brazil: a prevalence study

BACKGROUND: The medical management of aggressive and violent behaviour is a critical situation for which there is little evidence. In order to prepare for a randomised trial, due to start in the psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio de Janeiro in 2001, a survey of current practice was necessary. METHODS: A seven day survey of pharmacological management of aggressive people with psychosis in the emergency rooms of all four public psychiatric hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. RESULTS: In one hospital data were not available. Of the 764 people with psychosis attending these ERs, 74 were given IM medication for rapid tranquillisation (9.7%, 2.1/week/100,000). A haloperidol-promethazine mix (with or without other drugs) was used for the majority of patients (83%). CONCLUSION: The haloperidol-promethazine mix, given intramuscularly for rapid tranquilization, is prevalent in Rio, where it is considered both safe and efficient. However, scientific evaluation of all pharmacological approaches to rapid tranquilization of psychotic people is inadequate or incomplete and a randomized trial of IM haloperidol-promethazine is overdue

Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for treatment of uterine fibroids

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy for symptomatic uterine fibroids, which starts with Magnetic Resonance-guided Focused Ultrasound Surgery (MRgFUS) as compared with current practice comprising uterine artery embolisation, myomectomy and hysterectomy. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England and Wales. POPULATION: Women for whom surgical treatment for uterine fibroids is being considered. METHODS: The parameters of the Markov model of the treatment of uterine fibroids are drawn from a series of clinical studies of MRgFUS, and from the clinical effectiveness literature. Health-related quality of life is measured using the 6D. Costs are estimated from the perspective of the NHS. The impact of uncertainty is examined using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The base-case results imply a cost saving and a small QALY gain per woman as a result of an MRgFUS treatment strategy. The cost per QALY gained is sensitive to cost of MRgFUS relative to other treatments, the age of the woman and the nonperfused volume relative to the total fibroids volume. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment strategy for symptomatic uterine fibroids starting with MRgFUS is likely to be cost-effective

PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Recent trends in the incidence of anxiety and prescription of anxiolytics and hypnotics in children and young people: An e-cohort study

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known regarding the recognition of anxiety in children and young people (CYP) in primary care. This study examined trends in the presentation, recognition and recording of anxiety and of anxiolytic and hypnotic prescriptions for CYP in primary care.MethodA population-based retrospective electronic cohort of individuals aged 6–18 years between 2003 and 2011 within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank primary care database was created. Incidence rates were calculated using person years at risk (PYAR) as a denominator accounting for deprivation, age and gender.ResultsWe identified a cohort of 311,343 registered individuals providing a total of 1,546,489 person years of follow up. The incidence of anxiety symptoms more than tripled over the study period (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)=3.55, 95% CI 2.65–4.77) whilst that of diagnosis has remained stable. Anxiolytic/hypnotic prescriptions for the cohort as a whole did not change significantly over time; however there was a significant increase in anxiolytic prescriptions for the 15–18 year age group (IRR 1.62, 95% CI 1.30–2.02).LimitationsThere was a lack of reliable information regarding other interventions available or received at a primary, secondary or tertiary level such as psychological treatments.ConclusionsThere appears to be a preference over time for the recording of general symptoms over diagnosis for anxiety in CYP. The increase in anxiolytic prescriptions for 15–18 year olds is discrepant with current prescribing guidelines. Specific guidance is required for the assessment and management of CYP presenting with anxiety to primary care, particularly older adolescents

Medicines information and adherence in HIV/AIDS patients

Background: Providing written medicines information is being legislated in an increasing number of countries worldwide, with the patient information leaflet (PIL) being the most widely used method for conveying health information. The impact of providing such information on adherence to therapy is reportedly unpredictable. Therapy for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and related opportunistic infections usually involves polytherapy and complex regimens, both of which are risk factors for non-adherence. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of medicines information on adherence to chronic co-trimoxazole therapy in low-literate HIV/AIDS patients. Methods: Two different PILs were designed for co-trimoxazole tablets and were available in both English and isiXhosa. Participants were randomly allocated to a control group (receiving no PIL), group A (receiving a 'complex PIL') and group B (receiving a 'simple PIL' incorporating pictograms). At the first interview, demographic data were collected and the time, date and day that the participant would take his/her first tablet of the month's course was also documented. In a follow-up interview adherence to therapy was assessed using two methods; self-report and tablet count. Results: The medicines information materials incorporating simple text and pictograms resulted in significantly improved adherence to therapy in the short term, whereas a non-significant increase in adherence was associated with the availability of the more complex information. This was shown by both the self-reported assessment as well as the tablet count. Conclusion: This research suggests that appropriately designed written material can have a positive impact in improving adherence and, together with verbal consultation, are essential for enabling patients to make appropriate decisions about their medicine taking

Folate Augmentation of Treatment – Evaluation for Depression (FolATED): protocol of a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical depression is common, debilitating and treatable; one in four people experience it during their lives. The majority of sufferers are treated in primary care and only half respond well to active treatment. Evidence suggests that folate may be a useful adjunct to antidepressant treatment: 1) patients with depression often have a functional folate deficiency; 2) the severity of such deficiency, indicated by elevated homocysteine, correlates with depression severity, 3) low folate is associated with poor antidepressant response, and 4) folate is required for the synthesis of neurotransmitters implicated in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The primary objective of this trial is to estimate the effect of folate augmentation in new or continuing treatment of depressive disorder in primary and secondary care. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of folate augmentation of antidepressant treatment, investigate how the response to antidepressant treatment depends on genetic polymorphisms relevant to folate metabolism and antidepressant response, and explore whether baseline folate status can predict response to antidepressant treatment.</p> <p>Seven hundred and thirty patients will be recruited from North East Wales, North West Wales and Swansea. Patients with moderate to severe depression will be referred to the trial by their GP or Psychiatrist. If patients consent they will be assessed for eligibility and baseline measures will be undertaken.</p> <p>Blood samples will be taken to exclude patients with folate and B12 deficiency. Some of the blood taken will be used to measure homocysteine levels and for genetic analysis (with additional consent). Eligible participants will be randomised to receive 5 mg of folic acid or placebo. Patients with B12 deficiency or folate deficiency will be given appropriate treatment and will be monitored in the 'comprehensive cohort study'. Assessments will be at screening, randomisation and 3 subsequent follow-ups.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If folic acid is shown to improve the efficacy of antidepressants, then it will provide a safe, simple and cheap way of improving the treatment of depression in primary and secondary care.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current controlled trials ISRCTN37558856</p