Cardiovascular risk screening of patients with serious mental illness or use of antipsychotics in family practice

A scoping review of cardiovascular risk factor screening rates in general or family practice attendees living with severe mental ill-health

BACKGROUND

Primary care is essential to address the unmet physical health needs of people with severe mental ill-health. Continued poor cardiovascular health demands improved screening and preventive care. No previous reviews have examined primary care cardiovascular screening rates for people living with severe mental ill-health; termed in the literature "severe mental illness".

METHODS

A scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology was conducted. Cardiovascular risk factor screening rates in adults with severe mental ill-health were examined in general or family practices (as the main delivery sites of primary care). Literature published between 2001 and 2023 was searched using electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsychINFO and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and conducted a full-text review. The term "severe mental illness" was applied as the term applied in the literature over the past decades. Study information, participant details and cardiovascular risk factor screening rates for people with 'severe mental illness' were extracted and synthesised.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. Nine studies were from the United Kingdom and one each from Canada, Spain, New Zealand and the Netherlands. The general and/or family practice cardiovascular disease screening rates varied considerably across studies, ranging from 0 % to 75 % for people grouped within the term "severe mental illness". Lipids and blood pressure were the most screened risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular disease screening rates in primary care settings for adults living with severe mental ill-health varied considerably. Tailored and targeted cardiovascular risk screening will enable more comprehensive preventive care to improve heart health outcomes and address this urgent health inequity.

Guideline adherence for cardiometabolic monitoring of patients prescribed antipsychotic medications in primary care: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Despite their known effectiveness, antipsychotics possess significant cardiometabolic adverse event profiles. Guidelines emphasise routine monitoring, however, practices are known to be suboptimal.

AIM

To investigate the level of cardiometabolic monitoring among people prescribed antipsychotic therapy in primary care, and patient-related factors that may influence monitoring patterns.

METHOD

Data were collected for patients with mental disorders and prescribed antipsychotics at two general practices in England (February 2016-February 2021). The main outcome measures were the proportion of patients with evidence of monitoring for cardiometabolic parameters (body composition, anthropometrics, lipids, glucose outcomes). Regression analysis was used to explore factors predicting monitoring practices.

RESULTS

Data from 497 patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving cardiometabolic monitoring at least once yearly varied across different parameters. Patients were mostly monitored for BP (92.0%), body weight (BMI > 85.0%) and HDL (72.0%), but to a lesser extent for other lipid parameters (non-HDL < 2.0%) and blood glucose (< 2.0%). Ageing (OR:2.0-7.0, p < 0.001) and chronic conditions (e.g., CVD and Type 2 DM, p < 0.05) were associated with frequent cardiometabolic monitoring. Conversely, antipsychotics with high metabolic risks (olanzapine), patients prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy (≥ 2 antipsychotics) and cardiometabolic dysregulations (e.g., dyslipidaemias) did not improve monitoring frequencies.

CONCLUSION

Cardiometabolic health monitoring was generally infrequent, irregular, and did not change in response to abnormal test results or antipsychotic treatment with high cardiometabolic risks, suggesting more efforts need to be made to ensure the guidelines for cardiometabolic monitoring are followed. Future studies should investigate practices by using a large UK primary care database.

Cardiovascular risk management in patients with severe mental illness or taking antipsychotics: A qualitative study on barriers and facilitators among dutch general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) or receiving treatment with antipsychotics (APs) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) increasingly depends on general practitioners (GPs) because of the shift of mental healthcare from secondary to primary care and the surge of off-label AP prescriptions. Nevertheless, the uptake of patients with SMI/APs in CVRM programmes in Dutch primary care is low.

OBJECTIVES

To explore which barriers and facilitators GPs foresee when including and treating patients with SMI or using APs in an existing CVRM programme.

METHODS

In 2019, we conducted a qualitative study among 13 Dutch GPs. During individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews a computer-generated list of eligible patients who lacked annual cardiovascular risk (CVR) screening guided the interview. Data was analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The main barriers identified were: (i) underestimation of patient CVR and ambivalence to apply risk-lowering strategies such as smoking cessation, (ii) disproportionate burden on GPs in deprived areas, (iii) poor information exchange between GPs and psychiatrists, and (iv) scepticism about patient compliance, especially those with more complex conditions. The main facilitators included: (i) support of GPs through a computer-generated list of eligible patients and (ii) involvement of family or carers.

CONCLUSION

This study displays a range of barriers and facilitators anticipated by GPs. These indicate the preconditions required to remove barriers and facilitate GPs, namely adequate recommendations in practice guidelines, improved consultation opportunities with psychiatrists, practical advice to support patient adherence and incentives for practices in deprived areas.

Stewardship applied to antipsychotics: Development of an antipsychotic stewardship program in inpatient settings for monitoring and optimizing outcomes

Antipsychotic (AP) medications are prescribed for various psychiatric diagnoses that require routine monitoring to ensure optimal use, effectiveness, adherence, and for potentially severe adverse effects. There is currently no comprehensive protocol for institutional supervision of prescribing and monitoring AP. Antibiotics (ABX) are commonly associated with stewardship programs aimed at optimizing use and mitigating harm. These programs have proven to result in positive outcomes in both safety and efficacy parameters for numerous institutions. Given that AP are also associated with significant adverse effects and often misused, the concept of stewardship can be applied to this class of agents to optimize their use and improve overall patient outcomes. The objective of this paper is to provide guidance for the implementation of antipsychotic stewardship programs (APSP) in the inpatient setting. The development of this APSP was designed based on ABX stewardship programs and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines on the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. In conclusion, APSPs have the potential to enhance and standardize institutional supervision of prescribing and monitoring practices of AP, leading to improved clinical outcomes and the reduction of adverse effects. APSP teams should be multidisciplinary, consisting of clinicians and administrators, working in conjunction with patients and patient advocates to design individualized recovery plans that consider the individual patient's history and desired outcomes. Monitoring, stewardship interventions, and outcomes should be documented on both an individual and deidentified institutional basis, analyzed, and summarized periodically as measures for quality improvement.