Medicines optimisation for young people with juvenile arthritis and other long-term conditions:system-level barriers to engagement

To explore the views of pharmacy and rheumatology stakeholders about system-related barriers to medicines optimisation activities with young people with long-term conditions. A three-phase consensus-building study comprising (1) focus groups with community and hospital pharmacists; (2) semi-structured telephone interviews with lay and professional adolescent rheumatology stakeholders and pharmacy policymakers, and (3) multidisciplinary discussion groups with community and hospital pharmacists and rheumatology staff. Qualitative verbatim transcripts from phases 1 and 2 were subjected to framework analysis. Themes from phase 1 underpinned a briefing for phase 2 interviewees. Themes from phases 1 and 2 generated elements of good pharmacy practice and current/future pharmacy roles for ranking in phase 3. Results from phase 3 prioritisation and ranking exercises were captured on self-completion data collection forms, entered into an Excel spreadsheet and subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. Institutional ethical approval was given by Aston University Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee. Four focus groups were conducted with 18 pharmacists across England, Scotland and Wales (7 hospital, 10 community and 1 community/public health). Fifteen stakeholders took part in telephone interviews (3 pharmacist commissioners; 2 pharmacist policymakers; 2 pharmacy staff members (1 community and 1 hospital); 4 rheumatologists; 1 specialist nurse, and 3 lay juvenile arthritis advocates). Twenty-five participants took part in three discussion groups in adolescent rheumatology centres across England and Scotland (9 community pharmacists; 4 hospital pharmacists; 6 rheumatologists; 5 specialist nurses, and 1 physiotherapist). In all phases of the study, system-level issues were acknowledged as barriers to more engagement with young people and families. Community pharmacists in the focus groups reported that opportunities for engaging with young people were low if parents collected prescriptions alone, which was agreed by other stakeholders. Moreover, institutional/company prescription collection policies – an activity largely disallowed for a young person under 16 without an accompanying parent - were identified by hospital and community pharmacists as barriers to open discussion and engagement. Few community pharmacists reported using Medicines Use Review (England/Wales) or Chronic Medication Service (Scotland) as a medicines optimisation activity with young people; many were unsure about consent procedures. Despite these limitations, rheumatology stakeholders ranked highly the potential of pharmacists empowering young people with general health care skills, such as repeat prescription ordering. The pharmacy profession lacks vision for its role in the care of young people with long-term conditions. Pharmacists and rheumatology stakeholders identified system-level barriers to more engagement with young people who take medicines regularly. We acknowledge that the modest number of participants may have had a specific interest and thus bias for the topic, but this underscores their frank admission of the challenges. Professional guidance and policy, practice frameworks and institutional/company policies must promote flexibility for pharmacy staff to recognise and empower young people who are able to give consent and take responsibility for medicines activities. This will increase mutual confidence and trust, and foster pharmacy’s role in teaching general health care skills. In this way, pharmacists will be able to build long-term relationships with young people and families.

Examining factors associated with excess mortality in older people (age ≥ 70 years) with diabetes - a 10-year cohort study of older people with and without diabetes

Aims: To compare all-cause mortality in older people with or without diabetes and consider the associated risk of comorbidity and polypharmacy. Methods: A 10-year cohort study using data from the Health Innovation Network database (2003-2013) comparing mortality in people aged ≥ 70 years with diabetes (DM cohort) (n = 35 717) and without diabetes (No DM cohort) (n = 307 918). Results: The mean age of the DM cohort was 78.1 ± 5.8 years vs. 79.0 ± 6.3 years in the No DM cohort. Mean diabetes duration was 8.2 ± 8.1 years, and 30% had diabetes for > 10 years. The DM cohort had a greater comorbidity load and people in this cohort were prescribed more therapies than the No DM cohort. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were lower in the DM cohort at 64% and 39%, respectively, compared with 72% and 50% in the No DM cohort. The excess mortality in the DM cohort was greatest in those aged <75 years with longer duration diabetes, the relative hazard for mortality was higher in females. Although comorbidity and polypharmacy were associated with increased mortality risk in the DM cohort, this risk was lower compared with the No DM cohort. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for comorbidities > 4 and medicines ≥ 7 were 1.29 (1.19 to 1.41) and 1.34 (1.25 to 1.43) in the DM cohort and 1.63 (1.57 to 1.70) and 1.48 (1.40 to 1.56) in the No DM cohort, respectively. Conclusions: There is significant excess mortality in older people with diabetes, which is unexplained by comorbidity or polypharmacy. This excess is greatest in the younger old with longer disease duration, suggesting that it may be related to the effect of diabetes exposure.

Natural history of retinopathy in children and young people with type 1 diabetes

Purpose: To describe the prevalence and natural history of retinopathy in a cohort of children and young people with type 1 diabetes attending a tertiary hospital diabetes clinic. Methods: We analysed retinopathy screening data from 2008 to 2010 on all eligible children using the 'Twinkle' diabetes database and the regional retinal screening database. Results: A total of 88% (149/169) of eligible children were screened in 2008, median age 14 years, 52% male. The prevalence of retinopathy was 19.5% (30/149). All children had background retinopathy grade R1. There was significant difference in median (range) duration of diabetes, 7.7 years (0.6–13.7) vs 5 years (0.2–12.5) (P<0.001) and median (range) HbA1C, 9.1% (7.2–14) vs 8.6% (5.6–13.1) (P=0.02), between the groups with and without retinopathy. At 2- years follow-up, 12/30 (40%) had unchanged retinopathy grade R1, 10/30 (33.3%) showed resolution of changes (R0), 1/30 progressed to maculopathy, and 7/30 had no follow-up data. Median (range) HbA1C in 2008 and 2010 for the groups with stable vs resolved changes was similar, 9.1% (7.2–14.0) and 9.2% (7–14.0) vs 9.5% (7.8–14.0) and 9.2% (8.7–14.0). Of the 119 without retinopathy in 2008, 27 (22.5%) had developed retinopathy within 2 years, including 1 with pre-proliferative retinopathy and 1 with maculopathy. There was no significant difference in HbA1c between those who progressed to retinopathy (8.7% (7.1–13.1)) (8.7% (7.1–13.1)), and those who did not (8.6% (6.3–12.2)). Conclusions: Prevalence of background retinopathy in our cohort was comparable to the previously published reports, with higher HbA1c and longer duration of diabetes being significant risk factors. On short-term follow-up, Grade 1 retinopathy is likely to resolve in a third of patients and remain unchanged in just over a third.