Objectives: To examine real-world patterns of antipsychotic use in Australia. Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) 10% sample data. Included data were for patients aged 16-years or older who initiated treatment for the first time with a PBS-reimbursed antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia between July 2013 and September 2017. Patterns of treatment usage were summarised descriptively. Differences in prescribing patterns by age and prescribing year were reported. Treatment persistence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, with differences explored using log-rank tests. Values of p<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: 6,740 patients, representing 8,249 non-unique patients, received prescriptions for antipsychotic medications. Patients were aged 16 years to over 85 years (54.5% were < 55 years) and two-thirds of patients were male (61%). The majority (62%, n=5139/8249) were prescribed an atypical oral antipsychotic. Typical long-acting antipsychotic therapies (LATs) were prescribed 19% of the time (n=1,608/8,249. There was a small increase in prescribing of atypical LAT and typical LAT and a small decrease in atypical oral and clozapine prescribing over the study period. Treatment persistence was greatest in patients treated with clozapine, than in those treated with atypical LATs. Conclusions: While the majority of patients receive atypical antipsychotic medications, one in five continue to user older typical LAT therapies. Patient age and time on therapy may be associated with choice of therapy. Persistence to atypical LAT therapy is better than for other treatment modalities in this real-world cohort.

Aim To undertake a scoping review of pharmacists’ activities in opioid medicines management in primary care settings, including those developed or led by pharmacists, or in which pharmacists were members of broader multi-disciplinary teams; and to collate the activities, models of care and settings, and reported outcomes. Methods The bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched. Studies with quantitative evaluation and published in English were eligible. Participants were patients with any pain category or an opioid use disorder, and healthcare providers. Studies originating in hospitals or involving supply functions were not included. Screening of literature and data charting of results were undertaken by two researchers. Results The 47 studies included in the scooping review occurred in primary care settings collated into four categories: general practice or primary care clinics; healthcare organisations; community pharmacies and outreach services. Studies were primarily of opioid use in chronic, non-cancer pain. Other indications were opioid use disorder, cancer and dental pain. Pharmacist activities targeted risk-mitigation, patient and provider education and broader, strategic approaches. Patient-related outcomes included reduced opioid load, improved functionality and symptom management, enhanced access to services and medication-assisted treatments, and engagement in risk-mitigation strategies. Behaviour change of providers was demonstrated. Conclusion The review has identified the significant contribution that pharmacists working in primary care settings can make to minimise harm from opioids. Strategies implemented in isolation have the potential to further reduce adverse clinical outcomes with greater collaboration and coordination, such as opioid stewardship.