Dataset Information

Antipsychotic Prescribing to Patients Diagnosed with Dementia Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Context of National Guidance and Drug Safety Warnings: Longitudinal Study in UK General Practice.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Policy interventions to address inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to older people diagnosed with dementia are commonplace. In the UK, warnings were issued by the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2004, 2009 and 2012 and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was published in 2006. It is important to evaluate the impact of such interventions. METHODS:We analysed routinely collected primary-care data from 111,346 patients attending one of 689 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to describe the temporal changes in the prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to patients aged 65 years or over diagnosed with dementia without a concomitant psychosis diagnosis from 2001 to 2014 using an interrupted time series and a before-and-after design. Logistic regression methods were used to quantify the impact of patient and practice level variables on prescribing prevalence. RESULTS:Prescribing of first-generation antipsychotic drugs reduced from 8.9% in 2001 to 1.4% in 2014 (prevalence ratio 2014/2001 adjusted for age, sex and clustering within practices (0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.16), whereas there was little change for second-generation antipsychotic drugs (1.01, confidence interval 0.94-1.17). Between 2004 and 2012, several policy interventions coincided with a pattern of ups and downs, whereas the 2006 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was followed by a gradual longer term reduction. Since 2013, the decreasing trend in second-generation antipsychotic drug prescribing has plateaued largely driven by the increasing prescribing of risperidone. CONCLUSIONS:Increased surveillance and evaluation of drug safety warnings and guidance are needed to improve the impact of future interventions.

SUBMITTER: Stocks SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5519656 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antipsychotic Prescribing to Patients Diagnosed with Dementia Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Context of National Guidance and Drug Safety Warnings: Longitudinal Study in UK General Practice.

Stocks S Jill SJ Kontopantelis Evangelos E Webb Roger T RT Avery Anthony J AJ Burns Alistair A Ashcroft Darren M DM

Drug safety 20170801 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Policy interventions to address inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to older people diagnosed with dementia are commonplace. In the UK, warnings were issued by the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2004, 2009 and 2012 and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was published in 2006. It is important to evaluate the impact of such interventions.<h4>Methods</h4>We analysed routinely collected primary-care data from 111,346 p ...[more]

PMID: 28439716

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveGuidelines for antipsychotic use in first-episode psychosis (FEP) recommend that medication be chosen initially on the basis of side effect profile with doses at the lower end of the range. Our objective was to describe the pattern of antipsychotic use in FEP over a period of 21 years in the context of changing clinical guidelines and the development of specialist early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services.SettingA community-based mental health service in South County Dublin (population 187 000) and a large private hospital.ParticipantsParticipants included 465 patients with FEP (146 from an epidemiological study (1995-1999) and 319 from a specialist EIP service (2005-2016)). Treatment with antipsychotic medication did not exceed 30 days at study entry.Outcome measuresThis is a descriptive study of prescribing practices in the context of service development and changing guidelines.ResultsFirst-generation antipsychotics were prescribed for 65% of the early cohort compared with 4.3% of the EIP cohort. Olanzapine was initially prescribed for 79.7% of EIP patients. Initial doses of medication were frequently low (≤50% British National Formulary (BNF) maximum) in both cohorts (71% and 78.6%). The demographic and clinical factors investigated did not influence the initial choice of antipsychotic medication significantly. Univariate logistic regression analysis suggested inpatient treatment setting was associated with a higher initial dose (>50% BNF maximum) of antipsychotic medication. Increasing dose requirements over the first month of engagement with an EIP service was associated with poorer global functioning at baseline, greater positive symptoms at baseline and the inpatient treatment setting. However, these associations were not seen in the multivariable model.ConclusionsSecond-generation antipsychotic prescribing predominates, but guidelines are often overlooked when choosing olanzapine notwithstanding lower initial dosages. EIP services should include proactive support for optimising medicines in line with evidence-based guidelines.

Project description:Background: Antipsychotics are commonly prescribed to people living with dementia in nursing home settings, despite strong guideline recommendations against their use except in limited circumstances. We aimed to transparently describe the development process for a complex intervention targeting appropriate requesting and prescribing of antipsychotics to nursing home residents with dementia in Ireland, by nurses and general practitioners (GPs) respectively. Methods: We report the development process for the 'Rationalising Antipsychotic Prescribing in Dementia' (RAPID) complex intervention, in accordance with the 'Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research' (GUIDED) checklist. The UK Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions guided our overall approach, incorporating evidence and theory into the intervention development process. To unpack the intervention development process in greater detail, we followed the Behaviour Change Wheel approach. Guided by our stakeholders, we conducted three sequential studies (systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis, primary qualitative study and expert consensus study), to inform the intervention development. Results: The RAPID complex intervention was developed in collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders, including people living with dementia and family carers, between 2015 and 2017. The finalised RAPID complex intervention was comprised of the following three components; 1) Education and training sessions with nursing home staff; 2) Academic detailing with GPs; 3) Introduction of an assessment tool to the nursing home. Conclusions: This paper describes the steps used by the researchers to develop a complex intervention targeting antipsychotic prescribing to nursing home residents with dementia in Ireland, according to the GUIDED checklist. We found that the GUIDED checklist provided a useful way of reporting all elements in a cohesive manner and complemented the other tools and frameworks used. Transparency in the intervention development processes can help in the translation of evidence into practice.

Project description:ImportanceConcerns have been raised that the use of antipsychotic medication for people living with dementia might have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo examine multinational trends in antipsychotic drug prescribing for people living with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis multinational network cohort study used electronic health records and claims data from 8 databases in 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US) for individuals aged 65 years or older between January 1, 2016, and November 30, 2021. Two databases each were included for South Korea and the US.ExposuresThe introduction of population-wide COVID-19 restrictions from April 2020 to the latest available date of each database.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were yearly and monthly incidence of dementia diagnosis and prevalence of people living with dementia who were prescribed antipsychotic drugs in each database. Interrupted time series analyses were used to quantify changes in prescribing rates before and after the introduction of population-wide COVID-19 restrictions.ResultsA total of 857 238 people with dementia aged 65 years or older (58.0% female) were identified in 2016. Reductions in the incidence of dementia were observed in 7 databases in the early phase of the pandemic (April, May, and June 2020), with the most pronounced reduction observed in 1 of the 2 US databases (rate ratio [RR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.27-0.32); reductions were also observed in the total number of people with dementia prescribed antipsychotic drugs in France, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US. Rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing for people with dementia increased in 6 databases representing all countries. Compared with the corresponding month in 2019, the most pronounced increase in 2020 was observed in May in South Korea (Kangwon National University database) (RR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.47-3.02) and June in the UK (RR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.09). The rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing in these 6 databases remained high in 2021. Interrupted time series analyses revealed immediate increases in the prescribing rate in Italy (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.58) and in the US Medicare database (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20-1.71) after the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found converging evidence that the rate of antipsychotic drug prescribing to people with dementia increased in the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 6 countries studied and did not decrease to prepandemic levels after the acute phase of the pandemic had ended. These findings suggest that the pandemic disrupted the care of people living with dementia and that the development of intervention strategies is needed to ensure the quality of care.

Project description:Objective: Determine the accuracy of nursing home self-reported antipsychotic prescribing before and after implementation of a Medicare campaign to reduce use.Methods: Quasi-experimental study comparing trends in self-reported antipsychotic prescribing relative to claims-based prescribing. Setting is a nationwide sample of 11,912 facilities, 2011-2013. Participants are long-stay nursing home residents (n = 586,281) with prescribing data in Medicare Minimum Data Set 3.0 and Medicare Part D claims database. Verified with a pharmacy dispensing database. Main outcomes are the discrepancies in quarterly prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing between nursing home self-reports and claims data and the characteristics of facilities and residents where discrepancies were identified.Results: Nursing homes underreport their antipsychotic prescribing levels, on average, by 1 percentage point per quarter relative to Medicare Part D claims (0.013, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.012-0.015; p<.001). After the Medicare campaign, the underreporting gap increased by another half a percentage point (0.004, 95% CI .003-.005; p = .012). Nursing home residents with dementia, Alzheimer's disease or bipolar disorders were at the highest risk for underreported antipsychotic prescribing before the campaign (Adjusted Odds ratio (AOR) 1.385, 95% CI: 1.330-1.444; AOR 1.234, 95% CI: 1.172-1.300; AOR 1.574, 95% CI: 1.444-1.716, respectively) and afterwards. After the launch of the Medicare campaign, underreported antipsychotic prescribing occurred most in for-profit nursing homes (AOR 1.088, 95% CI: 1.005-1.178) and facilities in the US South (AOR 1.262, 95% CI: 1.145-1.391). Agreement was high between claims and dispensing data (99.7%).Conclusion: Nursing homes did not identify up to 6,000 residents per calendar quarter as having received antipsychotics despite these prescriptions being paid by Medicare and dispensed by a pharmacy. Nursing home rates of antipsychotic prescribing from self-reported data may be biased.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have shown mixed evidence on ethnic disparities in antipsychotic prescribing among patients with psychosis in the UK, partly due to small sample sizes. This study aimed to examine the current state of antipsychotic prescription with respect to patient ethnicity among the entire population known to a large UK mental health trust with non-affective psychosis, adjusting for multiple potential risk factors.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients (N = 19,291) who were aged 18 years or over at their first diagnoses of non-affective psychosis (identified with the ICD-10 codes of F20-F29) recorded in electronic health records (EHRs) at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust until March 2021. The most recently recorded antipsychotic treatments and patient attributes were extracted from EHRs, including both structured fields and free-text fields processed using natural language processing applications. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate the odds ratios (OR) for antipsychotic prescription according to patient ethnicity, adjusted for multiple potential contributing factors, including demographic (age and gender), clinical (diagnoses, duration of illness, service use and history of cannabis use), socioeconomic factors (level of deprivation and own-group ethnic density in the area of residence) and temporal changes in clinical guidelines (date of prescription).ResultsThe cohort consisted of 43.10 % White, 8.31 % Asian, 40.80 % Black, 2.64 % Mixed, and 5.14 % of patients from Other ethnicity. Among them, 92.62 % had recorded antipsychotic receipt, where 24.05 % for depot antipsychotics and 81.72 % for second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) medications. Most ethnic minority groups were not significantly different from White patients in receiving any antipsychotic. Among those receiving antipsychotic prescribing, Black patients were more likely to be prescribed depot (adjusted OR 1.29, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.47), but less likely to receive SGA (adjusted OR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.74-0.97), olanzapine (OR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.73-0.92) and clozapine (adjusted OR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.6-0.85) than White patients. All the ethnic minority groups were less likely to be prescribed olanzapine than the White group.ConclusionsBlack patients with psychosis had a distinct pattern in antipsychotic prescription, with less use of SGA, including olanzapine and clozapine, but more use of depot antipsychotics, even when adjusting for the effects of multiple demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors. Further research is required to understand the sources of these ethnic disparities and eliminate care inequalities.

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) initiatives are increasingly used to improve the quality of care and reduce prescribing errors. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) QI initiative uses routinely collected electronic primary care data to provide bespoke practice-level reports on prescribing safety. The aim of this study was to explore how the QI reports were used, barriers and facilitators to use, long-term culture change and perceived impact on patient care and practices systems as a result of receiving the reports.MethodsA qualitative study using purposive sampling of practices contributing to the CPRD, semi-structured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. We interviewed general practitioners, pharmacists, practice managers and research nurses.ResultsWe conducted 18 interviews, and organised themes summarising the use of QI reports in practice: receiving the report, facilitators and barriers to acting upon the reports, acting upon the report, and how the reports contribute to a quality culture. Effective dissemination of reports, and a positive attitude to audit and the perceived relevance of the clinical topic facilitated use. Lack of time and failure to see or act upon the reports meant they were not used. Factors influencing use of the reports included the structure of the report, ease of identifying cases, and perceptions about coding accuracy. GPs and pharmacists used the reports to conduct case reviews and directly contact patients to discuss unsafe prescribing and patient medication preferences. Finally, the reports contributed to the development of a quality culture within practices through promoting audit activity and acting as a reminder of good prescribing behaviours, promoting future patient safety initiatives, contributing to continuing professional development and improving local networks.ConclusionsThis study found the reports facilitated individual case review leading to an enhanced sense of quality culture in practices where they were utilised. Our findings demonstrate that the reports were generally considered useful and have been used to support patient safety and clinical practice in specific cases.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite widespread availability of evidence-based guidelines to inform rational use of medicines, considerable unwarranted variation exists in prescribing. A greater understanding of key determinants of contemporary prescribing in UK general practice could inform strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing. This study explored (1) current influences on prescribing in general practice and (2) the possibility that general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) may contribute to greater engagement with evidence-based prescribing.DesignSemistructured, telephone interviews and a focus group were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken.ParticipantsGeneral practice prescribers: general practitioners (GPs), PBPs, nurses.Key informants: individuals within the National Health Service (NHS) with responsibility for influencing, monitoring and measuring general practice prescribing.SettingGeneral practices and NHS organisations in England.ResultsInterviews with 17 prescribers (GPs (n=6), PBPs (n=6), nurses (n=5)) and 6 key informants, and one focus group with five key informants were undertaken between November 2018 and April 2019. Determinants operating at individual, practice and societal levels impacted prescribing and guideline use. Prescribers' professional backgrounds, for example, nursing, pharmacy, patient populations and patient pressure were perceived as substantial influences, as well as media portrayal and public perceptions of medicines.Prescribers identified practice-level determinants of prescribing, including practice culture and shared beliefs. Key informants tended to emphasise higher-level influences, including NHS policies, availability of support and advice from secondary care and generic challenges associated with medicines use, for example, multimorbidity.Participants expressed mixed views about the potential of PBPs to promote evidence-based prescribing in general practice.ConclusionPrescribing in UK general practice is influenced by multiple intersecting factors. Strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing should target modifiable influences at practice and individual levels. Customising strategies for medical and non-medical prescribers may maximise their effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Antipsychotic Prescribing to Patients Diagnosed with Dementia Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Context of National Guidance and Drug Safety Warnings: Longitudinal Study in UK General Practice.

Publications

Antipsychotic Prescribing to Patients Diagnosed with Dementia Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Context of National Guidance and Drug Safety Warnings: Longitudinal Study in UK General Practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets