Comprehensive dissection of prevalence rates, sex differences, and blood level-dependencies of clozapine-associated adverse drug reactions.

Clozapine is often underused due to concerns about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) but studies into their prevalences are inconclusive. We therefore comprehensively examined prevalences of clozapine-associated ADRs in individuals with schizophrenia and demographic and clinical factors associated with their occurrence. Data from a multi-center study (n = 698 participants) were collected. The mean number of ADRs during clozapine treatment was 4.8, with 2.4 % of participants reporting no ADRs. The most common ADRs were hypersalivation (74.6 %), weight gain (69.3 %), and increased sleep necessity (65.9 %), all of which were more common in younger participants. Participants with lower BMI prior to treatment were more likely to experience significant weight gain (>10 %). Constipation occurred more frequently with higher clozapine blood levels and doses. There were no differences in ADR prevalence rates between participants receiving clozapine monotherapy and polytherapy. These findings emphasize the high prevalence of clozapine-associated ADRs and highlight several demographic and clinical factors contributing to their occurrence. By understanding these factors, clinicians can better anticipate and manage clozapine-associated ADRs, leading to improved treatment outcomes and patient well-being.

Barriers and facilitators for healthcare professionals to the implementation of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic (the MUTUAL intervention): a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning (ACP) enables patients to define and discuss their goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. However, the structural implementation of ACP interventions remains challenging. The Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention has recently been developed which takes into account existing barriers and facilitators. We aimed to evaluate the MUTUAL intervention and identify the barriers and facilitators healthcare professionals experience in the implementation of the MUTUAL intervention and also to identify suggestions for improvement. METHODS: We performed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study at five outpatient clinics of one, 300-bed, non-academic hospital. Firstly, semi-structured interviews were performed with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals. The content of these interviews was used to specify the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI). The MIDI was sent to all healthcare professionals. The interviews and questionnaires were used to clarify the results. RESULTS: Eleven healthcare professionals participated in the interviews and 37 responded to the questionnaire. Eight barriers and 20 facilitators were identified. Healthcare professionals agreed that the elements of the MUTUAL intervention are clear, correct, complete, and simple - and the intervention is relevant for patients and their proxies. The main barriers are found within the user and the organisational domain. Barriers related to the organisation include: inadequate replacement of staff, insufficient staff, and insufficient time to introduce and invite patients. Several suggestions for improvement were made. CONCLUSION: Our results show that healthcare professionals positively evaluate the MUTUAL intervention and are very receptive to implementing the MUTUAL intervention. Taking into account the suggestions for improvement may enhance further implementation.