Pathway to clozapine use:a comparison between a patient cohort from New Zealand and a cohort from the United Kingdom

Background and Objective: Clozapine has been available since the early 1990s. Studies continue to demonstrate its superior efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Despite this, numerous studies show under-utilisation, delayed access and reluctance by psychiatrists to prescribe clozapine. This retrospective cross-sectional study compared the prescribing of clozapine in two adult cohorts under the care of large public mental health services in Auckland (New Zealand) and Birmingham (United Kingdom) on 31 March 2007. Method: Time from first presentation to clozapine initiation, prior antipsychotics trialled and antipsychotic co-prescribing were compared. Data included demographics, psychiatric diagnosis, co-morbid conditions, year of first presentation, admissions and pharmacological treatment (clozapine dose, start date, prior antipsychotics, co-prescribed antipsychotic). Results: Overall, 664 people were prescribed clozapine (402 Auckland; 262 Birmingham); mean daily dose of 384 mg (Auckland) and 429 mg (Birmingham). 53 % presented after 1990 and the average duration of time before starting clozapine was significantly longer in the Birmingham cohort (6.5 vs. 5.3 years) but this reduced in both cohorts to a 1-year mean in those presenting within the last 3 years. The average number of antipsychotics trialled pre-clozapine for those presenting since 1990 was significantly higher in the Birmingham cohort (4.3 vs. 3.1) but in both cohorts this similarly reduced in those presenting within the last 3 years. Antipsychotic co-prescribing was significantly higher in the Birmingham cohort (22.9 vs. 10.7 %). Conclusions: There is evidence that access to clozapine has improved over time in both cohorts, with a reduction in the duration between presentation and initiation of clozapine and number of different antipsychotics trialled pre-clozapine. These are very positive findings in terms of optimising outcomes with clozapine and are possibly due to the impact of guideline recommendations, increasing clinician, consumer and carer knowledge, and experience with clozapine and funding changes. © 2014 Springer International Publishing.

Medication review of children on long term medications:a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION: Children on long term medication may be under the care of more than one medical team including the patients GP. Children on chronic medication should be supported and their medications reviewed, especially in cases of polypharmacy. Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) were introduced into the pharmacy contract in 2005. The service was designed for community pharmacists to review patients on long term medication. The service specified that MURs were done on patients who can give consent and cannot be conducted with a parent or carer. Hence the service may be inaccessible to paediatric patients. This review aims to find studies that identify medication review services in primary care that cater for children on long term medication. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 6th June 2015 using the keywords, ("Medication" or "review" or "Medication Review" or "Medicines use review" or "Medication use review" or "New Medicine Service") AND ("community pharmacy" OR "community pharmacist" OR "primary care" OR "General practice" OR "GP" OR "community paediatrician" OR "community pediatrician" OR "community nurse"). Bibliographic databases used were AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Health Business Elite. Inclusion criteria were: paediatric specific medication review in primary care, for example by either a GP, community paediatrician, community nurse or community pharmacist. Exclusion criteria were studies of medication review in adults/unclear patient age and secondary care medication reviews. RESULTS: From the 417 articles, 6 relevant articles were found after abstract and full text review. 235 articles were excluded after title and abstract review (11 did not have full text in English); 96 were adult or non-age specified medication review/MUR/New Medicine Service studies; 63 referred to observational, evaluative studies of interventions in adults; 6 were non-paediatric specific systematic reviews and 17 were protocols, commentaries, news, and letters.The 6 relevant articles consisted of 1 literature review (published 2004), 3 research articles and 1 published protocol. The literature review[1] recommended that children's long term medication should be reviewed. The published protocol stated that the NMS minimum age for inclusion in the trial was for children aged over 13 years of age. The four studies were related to psychiatrists reviewing paediatric mental health patients in the USA, a pharmacist using Drug Related Problem to review patients in GP practices in Australia, a UK study based on an information prescription concept by providing children dispensed medications in community pharmacy with signposting them to health information and one GP practice based study observing pharmaceutical care issues in children and adults. CONCLUSION: The results show that there are currently no known studies on medication use reviews specific to children, whereas in adults, published evaluations are available. The terms of the MUR policy restrict children's access to the service and so more studies are necessary to determine whether children could benefit from such access.