Search

Background Opioid deaths have increased in England and Wales. Coroners' Prevention of Future Deaths reports (PFDs) provide important insights that may enable safer use and avert harms, yet reports implicating opioids have not been synthesized. We aimed to identify opioid-related PFDs and explore coroners' concerns to prevent future deaths. Methods In this systematic case series, we screened 3897 coronial PFDs dated between 01 July 2013 and 23 February 2022, obtained by web scraping the UK's Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. PFDs were included when an opioid was implicated in the death. Included PFDs were descriptively analysed, and content analysis was used to assess concerns reported by coroners. Results Opioids were involved in 219 deaths reported in PFDs (5·6% of PFDs), equating to 4418 years of life lost (median 33 years/person). Morphine (29%), methadone (23%) and diamorphine (16%) were the most common implicated opioids. Coroners most frequently raised concerns regarding systems and protocols (52%) or safety issues (15%). These concerns were most often addressed to National Health Service (NHS) organizations (51%), but response rates were low overall (47%). Conclusions Opioids could be used more safely if coroners' concerns in PFDs were addressed by national organizations such as NHS bodies, government agencies and policymakers, as well as individual prescribing clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health systems encourage switching from originators to biosimilars as biosimilars are more cost‐effective. The speed and completeness of biosimilar adoption is a measure of efficiency. We describe the approach to biosimilar adoption at a single hospital Trust and compare its efficiency against the English average. We additionally follow up patients who reverted to a previously used biologic, having switched to a biosimilar, to establish whether they benefitted from re‐establishing prior treatment. The approach we describe resulted in a faster and more complete switch to biosimilars, which saved an additional £380 000 on drug costs in 2021/2022. Of patients who reverted to their original biologic, 87% improved short‐term, and a time on treatment analysis showed the benefit was retained long term. Our approach to biosimilar adoption outperformed the English average and permits patients to revert to their original biosimilar post‐switch if appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug shortages are repeatedly in the news. The earliest drug shortages were reported during the First World War, but the numbers of shortages have increased in recent years. In the first part of this two‐part review, we discuss definitions of drug shortages and so‐called stockouts, which are localized shortages, and the harms that they can cause. Drug shortages make it difficult or impossible to meet the therapeutic needs of individual patients or populations, but we lack an adequate definition. The problems are too complicated to be encompassed in a brief intensional dictionary‐style definition, and that is reflected in the many different attempts at definition that have been proposed. We therefore propose an extensional operational definition that incorporates the processes by which products are manufactured, the causes of shortages and the contributory factors. A definition of this sort allows one to identify the main causes of a particular drug shortage and therefore the remedies that might prevent, mitigate or manage it. In the second part of the review we discuss the causes and solutions in more detail. Adverse drug reactions and medication errors attributable to shortages occur but are not often reported. Adverse reactions to substitute medicines are possible, and errors can occur because of unfamiliarity or unnecessary treatment with replacement medicines. Other harmful outcomes include withdrawal reactions, undertreatment, treatment delays and cancellations, failure of alternatives and disruption of clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug shortages make it difficult or impossible to meet the therapeutic needs of individual patients or populations. In the first part of this review we proposed an operational definition that incorporates the processes by which products are manufactured, the causes of shortages and stock‐outs (local shortages), and the contributory factors. Here we discuss causes and possible solutions. Drug shortages have complex causes, and a single cause cannot always be identified. Reasons include lack or shortage of raw materials, manufacturing difficulties, regulatory and political actions, voluntary recalls, just‐in‐time inventory systems, halts in production for financial or other business reasons, low demand (eg, orphan products, reduced usage), mergers, market shifts (eg, diversion to home markets) and unexpected increases in demand (eg, improved diagnosis, new trial information, epidemics and pandemics, inappropriate use, off‐label use). Potential solutions are as diverse as the potential causes. Prevention is hard, because shortages are not easily predicted. Everyone in the supply chain is involved in anticipating and managing shortages, with responsibilities for preventing them or at least trying to mitigate their effects. This includes manufacturers and suppliers, particularly of generic formulations, pharmacists, prescribers, patients and governments. Solutions can therefore be linked to the causes and classified according to where the responsibility for implementing them lies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to target medicines more effectively towards those who will benefit and avoid use in individuals at risk of harm. Health economies are actively considering how pharmacogenomic tests can be integrated into health care systems to improve use of medicines. However, one of the barriers to effective implementation is evaluation of the evidence including clinical usefulness, cost‐effectiveness, and operational requirements. We sought to develop a framework that could aid the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing. We take the view from the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Methods: We used a literature review using EMBASE and Medline databases to identify prospective studies of pharmacogenomic testing, focusing on clinical outcomes and implementation of pharmacogenomics. Using this search, we identified key themes relating to the implementation of pharmacogenomic tests. We used a clinical advisory group with expertise in pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, formulary evaluation, and policy implementation to review data from our literature review and the interpretation of these data. With the clinical advisory group, we prioritized themes and developed a framework to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomics tests. Results: Themes that emerged from review of the literature and subsequent discussion were distilled into a 10‐point checklist that is proposed as a tool to aid evidence‐based implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into routine clinical care within the NHS. Conclusion: Our 10‐point checklist outlines a standardized approach that could be used to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomic tests. We propose a national approach, taking the view of the NHS in England. Using this approach could centralize commissioning of appropriate pharmacogenomic tests, reduce inequity and duplication using regional approaches, and provide a robust and evidence‐based framework for adoption. Such an approach could also be applied to other health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Insulin poisoning, as opposed to hypoglycaemia induced by therapeutic doses of insulin, is rare, and guidelines on management differ. We have reviewed the evidence on treatment of insulin poisoning. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and J‐Stage with no restrictions of date or language for controlled studies on treatment of insulin poisoning, collected published cases of insulin poisoning from 1923, and used data from the UK National Poisons Information Service. Results: We identified no controlled trials of treatment in insulin poisoning and few relevant experimental studies. Case reports described 315 admissions (301 patients) with insulin poisoning between 1923 and 2022. The insulin with the longest duration of action was long‐acting in 83 cases, medium‐acting in 116, short‐acting in 36 and a rapid‐acting analogue in 16. Decontamination by surgical excision of the injection site was reported in six cases. To restore and maintain euglycaemia, almost all cases were treated with glucose, infused for a median 51 hours, interquartile range 16–96 h in 179 cases; 14 patients received glucagon and nine octreotide; adrenaline was tried occasionally. Both corticosteroids and mannitol were occasionally given to mitigate hypoglycaemic brain damage. There were 29 deaths reported, 22/156 (86% survival) up to 1999 and 7/159 (96% survival) between 2000 and 2022 (p = 0.003). Conclusions: There is no randomized controlled trial to guide treatment of insulin poisoning. Treatment with glucose infusion, sometimes supplemented with glucagon, is almost always effective in restoring euglycaemia, but optimum treatments to maintain euglycaemia and restore cerebral function remain uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The initial purposes of regulation of medicines in England, and latterly in the United Kingdom, were principally to raise government revenue, to discourage murder by poisoning and to regulate the activities of pharmacists. It was only much later that regulators sought to ensure that medicines were of good quality, reasonably safe, and at least somewhat effective, and to curtail misuse of drugs. Here we survey the history of the regulation of medicines and poisons in England from the perspective of clinicians with an interest in therapeutics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To report on a retrospective study of individual funding request (IFR) submissions from a large tertiary hospital and describe gaps in current mechanisms for funding of high‐cost medicines in England. Methods: Data on the number and outcome of IFR submissions submitted to commissioners between 2014/15 and 2018/19 was extracted from the electronic patient health record and a local high‐cost drug database. Results: In total, 230 IFRs were submitted: 112 to NHS England and 118 to a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The decline rate for IFRs was 71% for NHS England and 34% for CCGs. Lack of exceptionality was the primary reason cited for declining IFRs submitted between 2016–18 (n = 42/45; 93%). Half of the patients whose IFR was declined received treatment funded through other routes, the majority (13/23; 57%) from internal hospital budget. This was governed via a local high‐cost drug panel. Positive clinical outcomes were observed in 50% (4/8) of patients who received NHS England IFR‐funded treatment, 54% (19/35) who received CCG IFR‐funded treatment and 91% (21/23) who were funded via other routes. Conclusion: The high rate of IFR decline signals inefficient use of resource expended in the IFR process. Gaps in access to high‐cost medicines remain for patients with rare and refractory disease requiring urgent treatment, largely due to the demand for exceptionality from NHS commissioners. Local mechanisms address this unmet need but have limitations. An outcomes‐based evaluation approach to commissioning and greater transparency of previous funding decisions by commissioners may improve efficiency and equity in the IFR system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]