Aims and method A series of eleven patients prescribed intramuscular clozapine at five UK sites is presented. Using routinely collected clinical data, we describe the use, efficacy and safety of this treatment modality. Results We administered 188 doses of intramuscular clozapine to eight patients. The remaining three patients accepted oral medication. With the exception of minor injection site pain and nodules, side-effects were as expected with oral clozapine, and there were no serious untoward events. Nine patients were successfully established on oral clozapine with significant improvement in their clinical presentations. Clinical implications Although a novel formulation in the UK, we have shown that intramuscular clozapine can be used safely and effectively when the oral route is initially refused.

Objectives The second‐generation antipsychotic quetiapine has been demonstrated to undergo gestation‐related changes in pharmacokinetics. This study applied pharmacokinetic modelling principles to investigate the mechanism of these changes and to propose new dosing strategies to counteract these changes. Methods A pharmacokinetic modelling approach was implemented using virtual population groups. Changes in quetiapine trough plasma concentration during gestation were quantified across all trimesters, and dose adjustment strategies were applied to counteract these changes by targeting a therapeutic range of 50–500 ng/ml throughout gestation. Key findings The application of the model during gestation predicted a decrease in trough concentration. A maximum decrease of 58% was predicted during trimester 2, and being associated with a statistically significant decrease in oral clearance at gestation week 25, 204 l/h ± 100.8 l/h compared with non‐pregnant subjects, 121.9 l/h ± 51.8 l/h. A dosing optimisation strategy identified that dose increases to 500–700 mg twice daily would result in 32–55% of subjects possessing trough concentration in excess of 50 ng/ml. Conclusions Quetiapine doses in pregnancy should be increased to 500–700 mg twice daily to counteract a concomitant increase in metabolic clearance, increase in volume of distribution and decrease in plasma protein binding.

Objective Paroxetine has been demonstrated to undergo gestation-related reductions in plasma concentrations, to an extent which is dictated by the polymorphic state of CYP 2D6. However, knowledge of appropriate dose titrations is lacking. Methods A pharmacokinetic modelling approach was applied to examine gestational changes in trough plasma concentrations for CYP 2D6 phenotypes, followed by necessary dose adjustment strategies to maintain paroxetine levels within a therapeutic range of 20–60 ng/ml. Key findings A decrease in trough plasma concentrations was simulated throughout gestation for all phenotypes. A significant number of ultrarapid (UM) phenotype subjects possessed trough levels below 20 ng/ml (73–76%) compared to extensive metabolisers (EM) (51–53%). Conclusions For all phenotypes studied, there was a requirement for daily doses in excess of the standard 20 mg dose throughout gestation. For EM, a dose of 30 mg daily in trimester 1 followed by 40 mg daily in trimesters 2 and 3 is suggested to be optimal. For poor metabolisers (PM), a 20 mg daily dose in trimester 1 followed by 30 mg daily in trimesters 2 and 3 is suggested to be optimal. For UM, a 40 mg daily dose throughout gestation is suggested to be optimal.

Background One in four people experience a mental health problem every year and improving mental health care is an international priority. In the course of their work, pharmacists frequently encounter people with mental health problems. The experience of mental health teaching, including Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training, in undergraduate pharmacy (MPharm) students in the UK and Ireland is not well documented. Students’ viewpoints, contextualised with curricular overviews provided by staff, were analysed to understand their experience. Methods An anonymous, online questionnaire was distributed to MPharm students and staff in the UK and Ireland. Students were asked closed questions regarding their course and exposure to MHFA, which were analysed using descriptive statistics. Open questions were included to enable explanations and these data were used to contextualise the quantitative findings. One member of staff from each university was invited to answer a modified staff version of the questionnaire, to provide a curriculum overview and staff perspective. Results 232 students and 13 staff, from 22 universities, responded. Three-quarters of students did not agree with the statement that ‘mental health was embedded throughout the MPharm’. Most students (80.6%) stated that they were taught neuropharmacology whilst 44.8% stated that their course included communicating with people about their mental health. One-third (33.2%) of students stated that their degree ‘adequately prepared them to help people with their mental health’. Twenty-six students (11.6%) had completed MHFA training of which 89% would endorse inclusion of this within the MPharm. Of those who had not completed the training, 81% expressed a desire to do so. Those who completed MHFA training self-reported greater preparedness than those who did not, but student numbers were small. Conclusions Mental health teaching for pharmacy undergraduates is more focussed on theoretical aspects rather than applied skills. MHFA was viewed by students as one way to enhance skill application. The association of the increased self-reported preparedness of those who completed MHFA could be confounded by a positive environmental cultural. MPharm programmes need sufficient focus on real-world skills such as communication and crisis response, to complement the fundamental science.