Research methods in drug surveillance

Dear Doctor Letters regarding citalopram and escitalopram: guidelines vs real-world data

Dear Doctor Letters (DDLs, Direct Healthcare Professional Communications) from 2011 provided guidance regarding QTc-prolonging effects with risk of torsade de pointes during treatment with citalopram and escitalopram. This study examines the DDLs' effects on prescription behavior. Data from 8842 inpatients treated with citalopram or escitalopram with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) were derived from a European pharmacovigilance study (Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie, AMSP) from 2001 to 2017. It was examined to what extent new maximum doses were adhered to and newly contraindicated combinations with QTc-prolonging drugs were avoided. In addition, the prescriptions of psychotropic drugs before and after DDLs were compared in all 43,480 inpatients with MDD in the data set. The proportion of patients dosed above the new limit decreased from 8 to 1% in patients ≤ 65 years and from 46 to 23% in patients > 65 years old for citalopram versus 14-5% and 47-31% for escitalopram. Combinations of es-/citalopram with other QTc-prolonging psychotropic drugs reduced only insignificantly (from 35.9 to 30.9%). However, the proportion of patients with doses of quetiapine > 150 mg/day substantially decreased within the combinations of quetiapine and es-/citalopram (from 53 to 35%). After the DDLs, prescription of citalopram decreased and of sertraline increased. The DDLs' recommendations were not entirely adhered to, particularly in the elderly and concerning combination treatments. This might partly be due to therapeutic requirements of the included population. Official warnings should consider clinical needs.

Pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder according to severity in psychiatric inpatients: results from the AMSP pharmacovigilance program from 2001-2017

The International Classification of Diseases (10^th Version) categorizes major depressive disorder (MDD) according to severity. Guidelines provide recommendations for the treatment of MDD according to severity. Aim of this study was to assess real-life utilization of psychotropic drugs based on severity of MDD in psychiatric inpatients. Drug utilization data from the program “Drug Safety in Psychiatry” (German: Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie, AMSP) were analyzed according to the severity of MDD. From 2001 to 2017, 43,868 psychiatric inpatients with MDD were treated in participating hospitals. Most patients were treated with ≥ 1 antidepressant drug (ADD; 85.8% of patients with moderate MDD, 89.8% of patients with severe MDD, and 87.9% of patients with psychotic MDD). More severely depressed patients were more often treated with selective serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and mirtazapine and less often with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (p < 0.001 each). Use of antipsychotic drugs (APDs), especially second-generation APDs, increased significantly with severity (37.0%, 47.9%, 84.1%; p < 0.001 each). APD + ADD was the most used combination (32.8%, 43.6%, 74.4%), followed by two ADDs (26.3%, 29.3%, 24.9%). Use of lithium was minimal (3.3%, 6.1% ,7.1%). The number of psychotropic drugs increased with severity of MDD—patients with psychotic MDD had the highest utilization of psychotropic drugs (93.4%, 96.5%, 98.7%; p < 0.001). ADD monotherapy was observed to a lesser extent, even in patients with non-severe MDD (23.2%, 17.1%, 4.4%). Findings reveal substantial discrepancies between guideline recommendations and real-life drug utilization, indicating that guidelines may insufficiently consider clinical needs within the psychiatric inpatient setting.

Atypical dyskinesias under treatment with antipsychotic drugs: Report from the AMSP multicenter drug safety project

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe atypical dyskinesias (AtypDs) occurring during treatment with antipsychotic drugs (APDs). AtypDs are dyskinesias showing either an unusual temporal relationship between onset of treatment and start of the adverse drug reaction (ADR) or an unusual presentation of clinical symptoms.

METHODS

Data on the utilisation of APDs and reports of severe APD-induced AtypDs were collected using data from the observational pharmacovigilance programme - 'Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie (English: drug safety in psychiatry)' (AMSP) - from 1993 to 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 495,615 patients were monitored, of which 333,175 were treated with APDs. Sixty-seven cases (0.020%) of severe AtypDs under treatment with APDs were registered. The diagnoses of schizophrenic disorders as well as organic mental disorders were related to significantly higher rates of AtypDs. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) showed slightly higher rates of AtypDs (0.024%) than high-potency (0.011%) or low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs; 0.006%). In 41 cases (61.2%), two or more drugs were found to cause AtypDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that AtypDs are rare ADRs. SGAs may have a higher risk for the occurrence of AtypDs than FGAs. Clinicians should be aware of this ADR and patients should be monitored and examined carefully.

Treatment of depression: Are psychotropic drugs appropriately dosed in women and in the elderly? Dosages of psychotropic drugs by sex and age in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Several researchers have shown higher concentration-dose ratios of psychotropic drugs in women and the elderly. Therefore, lower dosages of psychotropic drugs may be recommended in women and the elderly. This study describes sex- and age-related dosage of psychotropic drugs prescribed to patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in routine clinical practice.

METHOD

Influence of sex and age on dosages are analysed for the 10 most commonly prescribed drugs in our dataset consisting of 32,082 inpatients with MDD. Data stems from the European drug safety program "Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie". The observed sex and age differences in prescriptions are compared to differences described in literature on age- and gender-related pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

Among patients over 65 years, a statistically significant decrease in dosages with increasing age (between 0.65% and 2.83% for each increasing year of age) was observed, except for zopiclone. However, only slight or no influence of sex-related adjustment of dosage in prescriptions was found.

CONCLUSION

Age appears to influence adjustment of dosage in most psychotropic drugs, but to a lower extent than data on age-related pharmacokinetics suggests. Although literature also suggests that lower dosages of psychotropic drugs may be appropriate for females, this study found women are usually prescribed the same dosage as men.

Sex differences in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder: results from the AMSP pharmacovigilance program from 2001 to 2017

Data on drug prescription for outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) suggest women are more likely to be treated with psychotropic drugs, while data on sex differences regarding pharmacological treatment of psychiatric inpatients are currently not available. Drug utilization data from the program "Drug Safety in Psychiatry" (German: Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie, AMSP) of 44,418 psychiatric inpatients with MDD were analyzed for sex differences between 2001 and 2017. Sex differences were analyzed using relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Time trends were analyzed by comparing the first (2001-2003) with the last time period (2015-2017). In general, men and women were equally likely to use psychotropic drugs. Monotherapy was more common in men. Women were more likely to utilize ≥ 4 psychotropic drugs. Antidepressant drugs (ADDs) were the most prescribed drug class. Men had a higher utilization of noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.12-1.19), especially mirtazapine (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.12-1.19), but also of other ADDs such as bupropion (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.35-1.68). Males had a slightly higher utilization of second-generation antipsychotic drugs (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03-1.09) and were less often treated with low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.90). Tranquilizing (e.g., benzodiazepines; RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.86-0.92) and hypnotic drugs (e.g., Z-drugs; RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.81-0.89) were less utilized in the treatment of male patients. Not all sex differences were stable over time. More sex differences were detectable in 2015-2017 than in 2001-2003. Findings suggest that certain psychotropic drugs are preferred in the treatment of men vs. women, however, sex differences found in this study are not as large as in ambulatory settings. To make evidence-based sex-specific recommendations in the treatment of MDD, differences in drug response and tolerability need to be further researched.

Pharmacotherapy of psychiatric inpatients with adjustment disorder: current status and changes between 2000 and 2016

Adjustment disorder is a temporary change in behaviour or emotion as a reaction to a stress factor. Therapy consists of psychotherapy, and pharmacotherapy can be advised. However, data on the real-life pharmacological treatment are sparse. Prescription data for 4.235 psychiatric inpatients diagnosed with adjustment disorder in the time period 2000-2016 were analysed. The data were obtained from the Drug Safety Programme in Psychiatry (AMSP). Data were collected on two reference days per year; prescription patterns and changes over time were analysed. Of all patients, 81.2% received some type of psychotropic drug. Mostly antidepressants (59.8%), antipsychotics (35.5%), and tranquilisers (22.6%) were prescribed. Prescription rates for antidepressants decreased slightly over the years, while rates for antipsychotics increased, especially for atypical antipsychotics. It is important to note that the diagnosis "adjustment disorder" is most likely a working diagnosis that is used for patients in immediate need of psychiatric aid. Overall, pharmacotherapy for inpatients with this diagnosis is mostly symptom-oriented and focuses on depressive moods, agitation and anxiety. Therapy regimes changed over time and show an increased use of atypical antipsychotics with sedative properties. However, for most of the medication, there are neither evidence-based studies nor guidelines, and drugs might be contraindicated in some cases.

Suicidal Ideation and Suicidal Behavior as Rare Adverse Events of Antidepressant Medication: Current Report from the AMSP Multicenter Drug Safety Surveillance Project

BACKGROUND

Suicidal ideations, suicide attempts, and fatal suicides are rare adverse drug reactions to antidepressant drugs, but they essentially are clinically relevant. Drawing on a larger dataset of the European drug surveillance program, the present naturalistic study updates a previous contribution (Stübner et al., 2010).

METHODS

First an analysis of the comprehensive data collected in 81 psychiatric hospitals from 1993 to 2014 by the European drug surveillance program Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie was made. All documented single cases of suicidal ideations or behavior judged as adverse drug reactions to antidepressant drugs were carefully assessed as to their clinical features and drug prescriptions.

RESULTS

Among 219,635 adult hospitalized patients taking antidepressant drugs under surveillance, 83 cases of suicidal adverse drug reactions occurred (0.04%): 44 cases of suicidal ideation, 34 attempted suicides, and 5 committed suicides were documented. Restlessness was present in 42 patients, ego-dystonic intrusive suicidal thoughts or urges in 39 patients, impulsiveness in 22 patients, and psychosis in 7 patients. Almost all adverse drug reactions occurred shortly after beginning antidepressant drug medication or increasing the dosage. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors caused a higher incidence of suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior as adverse drug reactions than noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants or tricyclic antidepressants, as did monotherapy consisting of one antidepressant drug, compared to combination treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The study supports the view that antidepressant drug-triggered suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior (primarily with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) are rare. Special clinical features (restlessness, ego-dystonic thoughts or urges, impulsiveness) may be considered as possible warning signs. A combination therapy might be preferable to antidepressant drug monotherapy when beginning treatment.

Use and safety of antiepileptic drugs in psychiatric inpatients-data from the AMSP study

The psychiatric utilization patterns and risks of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were assessed by using data from the drug safety programme Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie over the time period 1993-2013. In a total of 432,215 patients, the main indications for AED use were acute mania, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenic and organic psychoses. Valproic acid (VPA) was the most common substance across all of those groups, reaching administration rates of up to 50% since 2005, at which time carbamazepine (CBZ) administration consistently dropped below a rate of 10%. Lamotrigine (LTG) and pregabalin (PGB) increased in relevance after 2005 and 2010, respectively (with administration rates of up to 9%), whereas oxcarbazepine (OXC) was least prevalent (<3%). The mean rates of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) ranged from 6 cases per 1000 patients treated (VPA) to 19/1000 (OXC) and were significantly lower with treatment with VPA compared to OXC and CBZ. Hyponatremia was the leading ADR during treatment with OXC; severe allergic skin reactions were most often observed during treatment with CBZ and LTG, and severe oedema was most common during treatment with PGB. Severe hyponatremia induced by OXC was observed significantly more often in female patients than in male patients.

Prevalence and clinical features associated with bipolar disorder polypharmacy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists regarding the prevalence and clinical features associated with the practice of polypharmacy in bipolar disorder (BD), warranting a systematic review on the matter.

METHODS

Three authors independently searched major electronic databases from inception till September 2015. Articles were included that reported either qualitative or quantitative data about the prevalence and clinical features associated with polypharmacy in adult cases of BD.

RESULTS

The operative definitions of polypharmacy adopted across varying studies varied, with concomitant use of two or more psychotropic medications or use of four or more psychotropic medications at once being the most common and the most reliable, respectively. Regardless of type or current mood episode polarity of BD, prevalence rates up to 85% and 36% were found using the most permissive (two or more medications at once) and the most conservative (four or more) operative definitions for polypharmacy, respectively. Point prevalence prescription rates of one or more antidepressant or antipsychotic as part of a polypharmacy regimen occurred in up to 45% or 80% of the cases, respectively, according to the most permissive definition of polypharmacy. In contrast, lithium prescription rates ranged from 13% to 33% in BD patients receiving polypharmacy according to conservative and permissive definitions, possibly suggesting a reduced need for augmentation of combination strategies for those cases of BD with a favorable lifetime lithium response and/or long-lasting treatment as well as less likelihood of lithium response over the time most severe cases possibly exposed to a more complex polypharmacy overall.

LIMITATIONS

"Apples and oranges" bias; publication bias for most recently introduced compounds.

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy is common among people with BD across varying type and mood episode phases of illness. Special population, including BD patients at high risk of familial load for suicidal behavior, solicit further research as well as the plausible "protective" role of lithium toward polypharmacy in BD. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42014015084.

Flupentixol use and adverse reactions in comparison with other common first- and second-generation antipsychotics: data from the AMSP study

This study compares the first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) flupentixol to haloperidol and common second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as to drug utilization and severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in clinical treatment of schizophrenia inpatients using data from the drug safety program Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie (AMSP). AMSP drug utilization and reported ADR data were analyzed. Type and frequency of severe ADRs attributed to flupentixol were compared with haloperidol, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and amisulpride in a total of 56,861 schizophrenia inpatients exposed to these drugs. In spite of increasing prescription of SGAs, flupentixol was consistently used in schizophrenic inpatients (about 5 %) over time. Reporting rates of severe ADR ranged from 0.38 to 1.20 % for the individual antipsychotics (drugs imputed alone); flupentixol ranked lowest. The type of ADR differed considerably; as to severe EPMS, flupentixol (0.27 %), such as risperidone (0.28 %), held an intermediate position between haloperidol/amisulpride (0.55/0.52 %) and olanzapine/quetiapine (<0.1 %). The study is a heuristic approach, not a confirmatory test. Flupentixol has a stable place in the treatment of schizophrenia in spite of the introduction of different SGAs. Comparative ADR profiles suggest an intermediate position between FGAs and SGAs for flupentixol in clinical practice.

Comparative performance of two drug interaction screening programmes analysing a cross-sectional prescription dataset of 84,625 psychiatric inpatients

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support software (CDSS) solutions can automatically identify drug interactions and thereby aim to improve drug safety. However, data on the comparative performance of different CDSS to detect and appropriately classify interactions in real-life prescription datasets is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the results from two different CDSS analysing the pharmacotherapy of a large population of psychiatric inpatients for drug interactions.

METHODS

We performed mass analyses of cross-sectional patient-level prescriptions from 84,625 psychiatric inpatients using two CDSS - MediQ and ID PHARMA CHECK(®). Interactions with the highest risk ratings and the most frequent ratings were reclassified according to the Zurich Interaction System (ZHIAS), a multidimensional classification that incorporates the OpeRational ClassificAtion of Drug Interactions (ORCA) and served as a reference standard.

RESULTS

MediQ reported 6,133 unique interacting combinations responsible for 270,617 alerts affecting 63,454 patients. ID PHARMA CHECK(®) issued 5,400 interactions and 157,489 alerts in 48,302 patients. Only 2,154 unique interactions were identified by both programmes, but overlap increased with higher risk rating. MediQ reported high-risk interactions in 2.5 % of all patients, compared with 5 % according to ID PHARMA CHECK(®). The positive predictive value for unique major alerts to be (provisionally) contraindicated according to ORCA was higher for MediQ (0.63) than for either of the two ID PHARMA CHECK(®) components (0.42 for hospINDEX and 0.30 for ID MACS). MediQ reported more interactions, and ID PHARMA CHECK(®) tended to classify interactions into a higher risk class, but overall both programmes identified a similar number of (provisionally) contraindicated interactions according to ORCA criteria. Both programmes identified arrhythmia as the most frequent specific risk associated with interactions in psychiatric patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CDSS can be used for mass-analysis of prescription data and thereby support quality management. However, in clinical practice CDSS impose an overwhelming alert burden on the prescriber, and prediction of clinical relevance remains a major challenge. Only a small subset of yet to be determined alerts appears suitable for automated display in clinical routine.

Mono- and combination drug therapies in hospitalized patients with bipolar depression. Data from the European drug surveillance program AMSP

BACKGROUND

For the pharmacological treatment of bipolar depression several guidelines exist. It is largely unknown, to what extent the prescriptions in daily clinical routine correspond to these evidence based recommendations and which combinations of psychotropic drugs are frequently used.

METHODS

The prescriptions of psychotropic drugs were investigated of all in-patients with bipolar depression (n = 2246; time period 1994-2009) from hospitals participating in the drug surveillance program AMSP. For the drug use in 2010, 221 cases were analysed additionally.

RESULTS

From 1994 to 2009, 85% of all patients received more than one class of psychotropic substances: 74% received antidepressants in combination therapy, 55% antipsychotics, 48% anticonvulsants and 33% lithium. When given in combination, lithium is the most often prescribed substance for bipolar depression (33%), followed by valproic acid (23%), mirtazapine and venlafaxine (16% each), quetiapine (15%), lamotrigine (14%) and olanzapine (13%). Both, lithium and valproic acid are often combined with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), but also with mirtazapine und venlafaxine. Combinations of more than one antidepressant occur quite often, whereby combinations with bupropion, paroxetine, fluoxetine or fluvoxamine are very rare. In 2010, quetiapine (alone and combined) was the most frequently prescribed drug (39%); aripiprazole was administered in 10%.

CONCLUSION

Combinations of antidepressants (SSRI, mirtazapine, venlafaxine) with mood stabilizers (lithium, valproic acid, lamotrigine) and / or atypical antipsychotics (quetiapine, olanzapine) are common. Of most of those combinations the efficacy has not been studied. The use of aripiprazole and the concomitant use of two or three antidepressants contrast the guidelines.

Psychotropic drug prescription in a psychiatric university hospital in Germany

A retrospective survey on drug prescription over a 5-year period (1998 to 2003) in 1,540 inpatients in a psychiatric university hospital in Germany was carried out. The aim was to establish a basis for a monitoring of prescription habits and for pharmacoeconomic considerations. It was established that there was only a slight increase in polyvalent drug use between 1998 and 2003. The results are presented in more detail in relation to the diagnosis of organic mental disorders, drug abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders and personality disorders. Newer atypical antipsychotics, SSRIs and mood stabilizers were increased across diagnoses while lithium and clozapine were prescribed less frequently. The rare occurrence of monotherapy in general might reflect a common trend in psychiatry fostering polydrug use. Studies of this type are biased by the fact that local habits of prescription do not allow generalisation of the findings. Such surveys should be carried out more frequently and simultaneously in different centers. Critical comparisons could help to optimize treatment.