How do psychiatrists choose among different antipsychotics?

Barriers to and Facilitators of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychiatry Core Trainees in Northwest England

OBJECTIVE

Barriers and facilitators of evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychiatrists in training have only been researched with reference to prescribing decisions. We sought to quantitatively describe general EBP barriers and facilitators perceived by psychiatry core trainees (CTs) in England.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of CTs from a single English region in their 1st to 3rd year of specialist training (CT1-3) uses the EBP inventory, a 26-item questionnaire subdivided into the domains of attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioral control (PBC), decision-making preferences, and intention and behavior. This was analyzed using a multiple indicators multiple causes model.

RESULTS

The response rate was 42.9% (72/168 CTs). In all, domain's responses overall tended to be positive toward EBP. The most commonly reported barriers were rarely discussing research literature, feeling incapable of staying up to date, aversion to statistics, a preference for intuition or experience, and a perception that EBP disregards the individual differences between patients. Attitudes, norms, and behavior all loaded onto their intended factors. The decision-making factor was not present and PBC subdivided into 2 factors: clinical and knowledge self-efficacy. Regression coefficients for predicting behavior from the other factors were attitudes - 0.16 (p = 0.34), norms 0.34 (p = 0.24), clinical PBC - 0.28 (p = 0.10), and knowledge PBC 0.613 (p = 0.01). Additionally, question 5 (EBP respects individual patients) and question 13 (discusses research literature with colleagues) independently predicted behavior (β = 0.388; p = 0.05 and β = 0.433; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EBP intention and behavior were associated with perceiving EBP as relevant to individual patients, discussion about research with colleagues, and knowledge self-efficacy.

Psychiatrist and Psychiatric Pharmacists Beliefs and Preferences for Atypical Antipsychotic Treatments in Patients With Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorders

BACKGROUND

Selection of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder treatments is complicated by treatment-effect heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed how clinicians' beliefs and health system/ insurace policies impact choice of atypical antipsychotic agent in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of members of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and College of Psychiatric & Neurologic Pharmacists. Beliefs regarding atypical antipsychotic effectiveness and safety, impact of comorbidity on drug selection, and factors influencing atypical antipsychotic therapy selection were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four psychiatric pharmacists and 18 psychiatrists participated. Mean age was 39.6 years, 57.1% were female. Most clinicians (64.3%) believed medication effectiveness and safety equally important, while 26.2% believed safety and 9.4% believed effectiveness more important. The most important medication properties for schizophrenia were reducing positive symptoms (92.7%) and hospitalizations (87.8%) and for bipolar disorder were reducing manic episodes (87.8%), episode relapse (53.7%), and hospitalizations (53.7%). Agranulocytosis (78.1%), arrhythmias (70.7%), and extrapyramidal side effects (68.3%) were most concerning. Restrictions affected antipsychotic choice at 80.5% of sites and were believed to affect medication adherence (55.0%) and outcomes (53.4%).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy and safety were considered equally important when choosing atypical antipsychotics. Formulary restrictions were perceived as impacting treatment choice and outcomes.

Use of Academic Detailing With Audit and Feedback to Improve Antipsychotic Pharmacotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Second-generation antipsychotics vary in their propensity to cause serious cardiometabolic side effects. In addition, use of two or more antipsychotics (polypharmacy) may lead to additive side effects and has not been shown to be consistently more effective than monotherapy. This study examined the use of academic detailing with audit and feedback to improve antipsychotic prescribing practices, including antipsychotic polypharmacy and utilization of medication with high or low risk of cardiometabolic side effects ("high risk" or "low risk," respectively).

METHODS

Four intervention sessions were provided over two years to psychiatric care providers at community mental health centers. Segmented regression within the general estimating equation model framework used Medicaid pharmacy claims to examine prescribing patterns before and after the intervention among all beneficiaries (67,721 person-months) over a five-year period.

RESULTS

After the intervention, 10.9% of beneficiaries with antipsychotic claims were on polypharmacy, compared with 13.1% before the invention. Use of high-risk and low-risk antipsychotics did not change. The final adjusted polypharmacy model showed that antipsychotic polypharmacy decreased among young adults and adults ages 40 or older compared with beneficiaries ages 30-39 (β=-.02, p=.04, and β=-.02, p=.007, respectively). The raw proportion of beneficiaries on high- and low-risk agents did not change, although final adjusted models demonstrated changes in use of high- and low-risk agents by diagnosis and risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy decreased among young and older adults after academic detailing with audit and feedback. Although further research is needed, this low-intensity intervention may help mental health systems reduce antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Psychotropic Drug-Related Fall Incidents in Nursing Home Residents Living in the Eastern Part of The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Older people are more susceptible to falls than younger people. Therefore, as the Dutch population ages, the total number of falls and costs associated with them will rise. The use of psychotropic drugs is associated with an increased risk of falling. To create tailored fall-prevention programmes, information on the magnitude of the association between fall incidents and specific psychotropic drugs or drug classes is needed.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to delineate the associations between fall incidents and specific psychotropic drugs or drug classes.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, electronic patient records, medication records and fall incident reports were collected for 1415 residents receiving somatic or psychogeriatric care in 22 nursing homes in the eastern part of the Netherlands from May 2012 until March 2015. Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we analysed the magnitude of the association between psychotropic drugs and the risk of falling for users and non-users of the psychotropic drugs or drug classes.

RESULTS

Antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.00) and hypnotics and sedatives (aHR 1.51; 95% CI 1.13-2.02) increase the risk of falling. There was no difference between the risk incurred by typical and atypical antipsychotics. However, within these groups, there were differences between the most commonly prescribed drugs: haloperidol and quetiapine were seen to have an association with falls, whereas pipamperone and risperidone were not.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest falls may be associated with individual drugs rather than drug classes. Within the drug classes, clear differences are evident between individual drugs. Future fall-prevention programmes should highlight the differential risks involved with the use of specific psychotropic drugs, and doctors should take the fall risk into account when choosing specific drugs.

How antipsychotics impact the different dimensions of Schizophrenia: a test of competing hypotheses

The clinical expression of schizophrenia is generally reported to be expressed by three to five different factors (i.e. positive, negative, disorganization, excitability, anxiety-depression symptoms). It is often claimed that antipsychotic medications are particularly helpful for positive symptoms, but not for the others, suggesting a differential efficacy for different aspects of the disorder. We formally tested this claim. Using Structural Equation Modeling in two large [1884 patients] clinical trials in schizophrenia, we compared the model of a common general effect of antipsychotics to models whereby the antipsychotics have multiple and differential effects on the different factors of the illness. We validated the generalizability of the model in further trials involving antipsychotics in chronic [1460 patients] and first-episode patients [1053 patients]. Across different populations, different trials and different antipsychotics - the best-fitting model suggests that symptom response in schizophrenia is underpinned by a single general effect with secondary and minor lower-order effects on specific symptom domains. This single-factor model explained nearly 80% of the variance, was superior to the assumption of unique efficacy for specific domains; and replicated across antipsychotics and illness stages. Despite theoretical and pharmacological claims the differential efficacy of antipsychotics on the various dimensions of schizophrenia is not supported in the prevailing data. The implication of this finding for the measurement of treatment response and our understanding of the neurobiology of antipsychotic action, for clinical practice and for future drug development are discussed.

Psychiatrists' attitude to antipsychotic depot treatment in patients with first-episode schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Despite good clinical evidence, depot antipsychotics are only seldom prescribed to patients with first episode schizophrenia. The present study aims at investigating psychiatrists' reasons for this reservation.

METHOD

We surveyed 198 psychiatrists on their attitude toward offering depot treatment to first episode patients (FEP). Participants scored the extent of influence of individual factors on their decision on a seven-point-scale, additional data on their prescription practice and estimation of the relapse risk of FEP were collected.

RESULTS

Psychiatrists reported that only three out of 12 factors were of influence. These were the limited availability of different second generation antipsychotic depot drugs, the frequent rejection of the depot offer by the patients and the patients' skepticism based on the lack in experience of a relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

There is actually little specific reason for not prescribing depot to FEP according to the current survey. For those factors being reported to be of influence, psychoeducation, including profound information on depot treatment, the development of additional SGA depot drugs and the standard offer of depot treatment to all FEP in a shared-decision-making may be considered.

Factors influencing the choice of new generation antipsychotic medication in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, naturalistic study investigated the factors influencing physicians' choice of antipsychotic drug therapy in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

108 in- and outpatients treated at the Department of Psychiatry of the Medical University Innsbruck who started treatment with a new generation antipsychotic (except clozapine) were included. The following factors were investigated: sociodemographic and illness-related variables, pretreatment, the reasons for change of treatment (lack of efficacy, side effects, non-compliance), side effects of pretreatment and body-mass-index (BMI).

RESULTS

Sociodemographic and most illness-related variables did not have an influence on the physicians' choice of medication. Risperidone was more frequently prescribed in patients with severe positive symptoms than amisulpride or quetiapine. Rigidity, orthostatic dizziness and gynecomastia during pretreatment were frequently associated with starting patients on ziprasidone. In patients with diminished sexual desire ziprasidone was preferred over olanzapine. Amisulpride was used more commonly than olanzapine if patients had experienced weight gain during pretreatment. Moreover, patients who were prescribed amisulpride had a significantly higher BMI in comparison to patients who were prescribed olanzapine. The reasons for current change of treatment, as well as the drug history (total number of antipsychotic drugs prescribed during the course of the illness) did not have an influence on the physicians' choice of antipsychotic.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the data suggest that side effects have a larger influence on the choice of antipsychotic than demographic or illness-related variables, except the severity of positive symptoms.

Identifying the profile of optimal candidates for antipsychotic depot therapy A cluster analysis

OBJECTIVE

The prescription rate of antipsychotic depots for patients suffering from schizophrenia is currently low. Among these patients the assumable acceptance rate of depot as treatment of choice is markedly higher, but psychiatrists do report that patients frequently reject the offer of depot treatment. In a first step to highlight this contradiction we aimed at identifying attributes of patients that indicate their qualification for depot treatment in the eyes of the psychiatrists.

METHOD

We surveyed 201 psychiatrists about their evaluation of patients' attributes potentially influencing their qualification for depot treatment. Multidimensional and cluster analyses were applied to detect associated attributes. A second sample of further 248 psychiatrists was asked about their proposal of depot treatment to patients depending on the number of relapses in the past.

RESULTS

Two clusters of attributes were identified characterizing patients' qualification for depot treatment. In cluster I episodes of non-compliance and relapses in the past were considered as favoring the qualification. cluster II included a high level of insight, openness to drug treatment and profound knowledge about the disease representing attributes that increase patients' qualification. Patients were significantly more likely to be offered depot treatment after their fourth reexacerbation compared to their first relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Attributes comprised in cluster I highly qualify a patient for depot treatment which is in line with the current prescription stereotype. This conservative notion of depot use is supplemented by an alternative cluster II patient profile. Patients fitting this cluster also potentially qualify for depot treatment according to the surveyed psychiatrists and should be offered depot in clinical routine considering the advantages of this form of administration.

The prescribing pattern of a new antipsychotic: a descriptive study of aripiprazole for psychiatric in-patients

In June 2004, aripiprazole was marketed as a second-generation antipsychotic with an entire new mechanism of action. The objective of this descriptive study is to examine the day-to-day prescriptions of aripiprazole to an unselected population of psychiatric in-patients. From 1 February to 1 May 2006, present and former in-patients treated with aripiprazole were identified. Prescriptions of aripiprazole and psychoactive comedication were collected retrospectively from the patient records. Seventy-one patients, mainly schizophrenic, received aripiprazole 2.5 to 55 mg/day for median 350 days. The median average exposure was 18.9 mg/day (range 2.5-45 mg/day) and exceeded 15 and 30 mg/day in 63% and 4.2% of the patients, respectively. Generally, aripiprazole was either added to the existing antipsychotic treatment or replaced other antipsychotics; only 17% of the patients were treatment-naïve. In 25% aripiprazole, monotherapy was commenced whereas aripiprazole-antipsychotic combinations were initially prescribed in 75%. Overall, 85% of the patients received periods of antipsychotic polypharmacy and aripiprazole was combined with 17 different antipsychotics. Each patient received median three (range 0-8) psychoactive drugs parallel with aripiprazole. This study demonstrates reality in psychopharmacology and quote aripiprazole as example. In day-to-day practice, aripiprazole is used as part of highly individualized regimens comprising polypharmacy and excessive dosing. Although theoretically appropriate for some patients, this approach also implies conducting unblinded and uncontrolled mini-experiments. Sparse evidence supports this practice and effectiveness studies of aripiprazole that takes into account the true complexity of clinical prescribing are urgently needed.

EPS profiles: the atypical antipsychotics are not all the same

Within the first few years after chlorpromazine began to be used to treat psychosis, it was observed that it could cause many kinds of neurologic reactions that resembled those seen in idiopathic Parkinson's disease. These reactions were termed "extrapyramidal side effects" (EPS) because of their resemblance to the signs of Parkinson's disease, which were associated with degeneration of the dopamine nerve tracks located in the extrapyramidal region of the central nervous system. Eventually this association of dopamine loss, antipsychotics, and parkinsonism became a central part of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. Unfortunately, this association was also used to support the hypothesis that EPS were absolutely necessary for antipsychotic efficacy--hence the term "neuroleptic" rather than "antipsychotic." This theory, now discredited, was used to justify the practice of inducing EPS as a means to gauge whether an antipsychotic would be effective. The demonstration that clozapine, an antipsychotic virtually devoid of EPS, has better efficacy for psychosis than any other "neuroleptic" disproved the theory that EPS were fundamentally linked to efficacy. Because the idea of a relationship between EPS and efficacy was so ingrained in clinical practice, clozapine was called "atypical." Our understanding of the relationship between EPS and antipsychotic response has come full circle. With the introduction of clozapine and other newer antipsychotics, it has become clear that EPS are harmful and serve no beneficial purpose. The availability of newer antipsychotics with a lower EPS burden means that, at least in theory, it is now possible to treat psychosis without EPS in the vast majority of patients. In practice, however, EPS remain a significant problem even in the era of atypical or second generation antipsychotics (SGAs). One limitation is that the concept of "atypicality," when used to denote antipsychotic efficacy without EPS, is a relative not an absolute concept. Because all of the post-clozapine SGAs still affect the dopamine D2 receptor, it may be more accurate to say these medications have lower EPS liabilities that the earlier "neuroleptic" antipsychotics; i.e., relatively fewer patients will get EPS at therapeutic doses of one of the newer medications and, when EPS do occur, they tend to be less severe. Nonetheless, reduced EPS are not the same as no EPS, and most of the newer antipsychotics can still cause EPS in some patients. The incidence of EPS differs among the SGAs, with risperidone associated with the most and clozapine and quetiapine with the fewest EPS. The likelihood of developing EPS with a first-line SGA depends not only on the specific agent, but also on the rapidity of dose escalation, the target dose, and the patient's intrinsic vulnerability to EPS. Even with the SGAs, clinicians should not be lulled into believing EPS cannot happen, but need to be able to recognize and manage both overt and subtle manifestations of EPS. This review discusses differences among the SGAs in EPS liability, relationships between dosing and type of EPS, and situations in which differences in EPS liability among the SGAs are clinically relevant.