Dataset Information

Clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-led versus conventionally delivered antiviral treatment for hepatitis C in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy: a study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection affects 0.7% of the general population, and up to 40% of people prescribed opioid substitution therapy (OST) in Scotland. In conventional care, less than 10% of OST users are tested for HCV and less than 25% of these initiate treatment. Community pharmacists see this group frequently to provide OST supervision. This study examines whether a pharmacist-led 'test & treat' pathway increases cure rates for HCV. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This protocol describes a cluster-randomised trial where 60 community pharmacies provide either conventional or pharmacy-led care. All pharmacies offer dried blood spot testing (DBST) for HCV. Participants have attended the pharmacy for OST for 3 months; are positive for HCV genotype 1 or 3; are not co-infected with HIV and/or hepatitis B; have no decompensated liver disease; are not pregnant. For conventional care, pharmacists refer HCV-positive participants to a local centre for assessment. In the pharmacy-led arm, pharmacists assess participants themselves in the pharmacy. Drug prescribing is by nurse prescribers (conventional arm) or pharmacist prescribers (pharmacy-led arm). Treatment in both arms is delivered as daily modified directly observed therapy in a pharmacy. Primary trial outcome is number of sustained virological responses at 12 weeks after treatment completion. Secondary trial outcomes are number of tests taken; treatment uptake; completion; adherence; re-infection. An economic evaluation will assess potential cost-effectiveness. Qualitative research interviews with clients and health professionals assess acceptability of a pharmacist-led pathway. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol has been ethically approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 2 (15/ES/0086) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and principles of Good Clinical Practice. Caldicott guardian approval was given on 16 December 2016 to allow NHS Tayside to pass information to the cluster community pharmacies about the HCV test status of patients that they are seeing to provide OST supervision. NHS R&D approvals have been obtained from each health board taking part in the study. Informed consent is obtained before study enrolment and only anonymised data are stored in a secured database, enabling an audit trail. Results will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02706223; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Radley A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303565 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-led versus conventionally delivered antiviral treatment for hepatitis C in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy: a study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

Radley Andrew A de Bruin Marijn M Inglis Sarah K SK Donnan Peter T PT Dillon John F JF

BMJ open 20181214 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection affects 0.7% of the general population, and up to 40% of people prescribed opioid substitution therapy (OST) in Scotland. In conventional care, less than 10% of OST users are tested for HCV and less than 25% of these initiate treatment. Community pharmacists see this group frequently to provide OST supervision. This study examines whether a pharmacist-led 'test & treat' pathway increases cure rates for HCV.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>This p ...[more]

PMID: 30552244

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeMedication expertise and close patient contact position community pharmacists to make significant contributions to combatting the opioid epidemic. This position facilitated the development and initial implementation of the Brief Intervention Medication Therapy Management (BIMTM) model to detect and address patient opioid misuse. BIMTM is an intervention consisting of 9 sessions. One medication management session is delivered by a pharmacist in a community pharmacy setting, and the remaining sessions are delivered telephonically by a patient navigator to follow up with goals established with the pharmacist and address concomitant health concerns that increase risk for misuse.MethodsWe employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to summarize and present key findings from 4 distinct studies. CFIR domains addressed were (1) intervention characteristics, (2) outer setting, (3) inner setting, (4) process, and (5) characteristics of individuals. The study results show sequential development of evidence for BIMTM.ResultsA multistate cross-sectional pharmacist survey (n = 739) demonstrated limited pharmacist training and/or resources to address misuse, suggesting the need for external intervention development. Our multistakeholder intervention planning project showed limitations of current evidence-based models of care and of intervention implementation, which resulted in construction of the BIMTM. A multisite cross-sectional screening survey of patients (n = 333) established an electronic misuse screening protocol within 4 community pharmacies and identified opioid misuse in 15% of screened patients; among those patients, 98% had concomitant health conditions that contribute to the risk of opioid misuse. Presentation of study results to pharmacy leaders produced commitment for intervention implementation and a partnership to develop a grant proposal supporting this action. Our small-scale randomized trial evinced success in recruitment and retention and BIMTM patient benefit. The small-scale randomized trial likewise showed high levels of satisfaction with BIMTM.ConclusionThe establishment of BIMTM supports community pharmacist identification and intervention with patients engaged in misuse. Continued use of this research-based strategy may further empower pharmacists to address the opioid epidemic.

Project description:BackgroundHepatitis C virus infection is highly prevalent among people who inject drugs. Opioid substitution therapy, the standard treatment for opioid dependence, provides an excellent opportunity for the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection due to the close and regular contact between patients and clinicians. However, there is little research on the impact of opioid substitution therapy on the prevalence of the hepatitis C virus at a national level. This paper describes the protocol for the Epidemiology of Hepatitis C Virus Infection among People Receiving Opioid Substitution Therapy (ECHO) study. The aim of this study is to estimate the national prevalence and incidence of hepatitis C virus infection among people receiving opioid substitution therapy in Germany and to describe factors associated with hepatitis C treatment uptake and seroconversion.Methods/designAn observational, longitudinal, multicentre study is being conducted between 2014 and 2016 in a representative sample of approximately 2500 people receiving opioid substitution therapy from about 100 clinicians providing opioid substitution therapy in Germany. Data will be collected during routine patient care and by means of patient and clinician questionnaires at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Stratified sampling will be performed to obtain a representative sample of clinicians providing opioid substitution therapy. The strata will be constructed based on the distribution of the total sample of clinicians providing opioid substitution therapy in Germany according to German Federal State and the number of patients per clinician.DiscussionOpioid substitution therapy may be an important strategy to prevent the spread of hepatitis C virus in opioid dependent populations, but its effectiveness may be diminished by our limited understanding of factors associated with treatment uptake and seroconversion. The present study will provide important information for developing strategies to address hepatitis C virus-related disease burden in people receiving opioid substitution therapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02395198.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:With the rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Australia, screening and earlier diagnosis is needed to provide opportunities to intervene with evidence-based lifestyle and treatment options to reduce the individual, social and economic impact of the disease. The objectives of the Pharmacy Diabetes Screening Trial are to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three screening models for type 2 diabetes in a previously undiagnosed population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Pharmacy Diabetes Screening Trial is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to be conducted in 363 community pharmacies across metropolitan, regional and remote areas of Australia, randomly allocated by geographical clusters to one of three groups, each with 121 pharmacies and 10 304 screening participants. The three groups are: group A: risk assessment using a validated tool (AUSDRISK); group B: AUSDRISK assessment followed by point-of-care glycated haemoglobin testing; and group C: AUSDRISK assessment followed by point-of-care blood glucose testing. The primary clinical outcome measure is the proportion of newly diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes. Primary outcome comparisons will be conducted using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to account for clustering. The secondary clinical outcomes measures are the proportion of those who (1) are referred to the general practitioner (GP), (2) take up referral to the GP, (3) are diagnosed with pre-diabetes, that is, impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose and (4) are newly diagnosed with either diabetes or pre-diabetes. The economic outcome measure is the average cost (direct and indirect) per confirmed new case of diagnosed type 2 diabetes based on the incremental net trial-based costs of service delivery and the associated incremental longer term health benefits from a health funder perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees at University of Sydney and Deakin University. Results will be available on the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement website and will be published in peer reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12616001240437; Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionOlder patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric hotline for general practitioners (GPs) and CGA by trained nurses or GPs.Methods and analysisThe Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing study is an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups and one control group. Patients must be 70 years or older with a long-term illness or with unscheduled hospitalisation in the past 3 months (750 patients planned). This study involves volunteering GPs practising in French primary care centres, with randomisation at the practice level. The multifaceted interventions for interventional arms comprise an educational interactive multiprofessional seminar for GPs and nurses, a geriatric hotline dedicated to GPs in case of difficulties and the performance of a CGA updated to primary care. The CGA is systematically performed by a nurse in arm 1 but is GP-led on a case-by-case basis in arm 2. The primary endpoint is a composite criterion comprising overall death, unscheduled hospitalisations, emergency admissions and institutionalisation within 12 months after inclusion. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, with adjustment for potential confounders.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by an appropriate ethics committee (CPP Ile-de-France IV, Paris, France, approval April 2015;15 664). This study is conducted according to principles of good clinical practice in the context of current care and will provide useful knowledge on the clinical benefits achievable by CGA in primary care.Trial registration numberNCT02664454; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with dementia are susceptible to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). However, they are not always closely monitored for potential problems relating to their medicines: structured nurse-led ADR Profiles have the potential to address this care gap. We aimed to assess the number and nature of clinical problems identified and addressed and changes in prescribing following introduction of nurse-led medicines' monitoring.DesignPragmatic cohort stepped-wedge cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of structured nurse-led medicines' monitoring versus usual care.SettingFive UK private sector care homes.Participants41 service users, taking at least one antipsychotic, antidepressant or anti-epileptic medicine.InterventionNurses completed the West Wales ADR (WWADR) Profile for Mental Health Medicines with each participant according to trial step.OutcomesProblems addressed and changes in medicines prescribed.Data collection and analysisInformation was collected from participants' notes before randomisation and after each of five monthly trial steps. The impact of the Profile on problems found, actions taken and reduction in mental health medicines was explored in multivariate analyses, accounting for data collection step and site.ResultsFive of 10 sites and 43 of 49 service users approached participated. Profile administration increased the number of problems addressed from a mean of 6.02 [SD 2.92] to 9.86 [4.48], effect size 3.84, 95% CI 2.57-4.11, P <0.001. For example, pain was more likely to be treated (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 3.84, 1.78-8.30), and more patients attended dentists and opticians (aOR 52.76 [11.80-235.90] and 5.12 [1.45-18.03] respectively). Profile use was associated with reduction in mental health medicines (aOR 4.45, 1.15-17.22).ConclusionThe WWADR Profile for Mental Health Medicines can improve the quality and safety of care, and warrants further investigation as a strategy to mitigate the known adverse effects of prescribed medicines.Trial registrationISRCTN 48133332.

Project description:BackgroundMost people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here.MethodsPROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization.DiscussionThe PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.

Dataset Information

Clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-led versus conventionally delivered antiviral treatment for hepatitis C in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy: a study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

Publications

Clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-led versus conventionally delivered antiviral treatment for hepatitis C in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy: a study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets