Movement Disorders in Adults With Intellectual Disability and Behavioral Problems Associated With Use of Antipsychotics

Use of psychotropic medications in adults with intellectual disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study presents the proportion of adults with intellectual disability using psychotropic medications including antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics and sedatives, and psychostimulants.

METHODS

A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus up to 31 December 2021. Articles were included if they reported the proportion of adults with intellectual disability using psychotropic medications. Frequency of use was estimated using a random effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was used to assess the association between study-level characteristics and variability in estimates, when heterogeneity was considerable.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included in pooled analysis. The pooled prevalence of psychotropic medications was 41% (95% confidence interval: 35-46%). Pooled prevalences of subclasses were as follows: antipsychotics 31% (27-35%), antidepressants 14% (9-19%), anxiolytics 9% (4-15%), hypnotics/sedatives 5% (2-8%), and psychostimulants 1% (1-2%). Heterogeneity was considerable between studies, except for psychostimulants. There was no significant association between assessed characteristics and variability in prevalence estimates.

CONCLUSION

Two-fifths of adults with intellectual disability were prescribed psychotropic medications. Antipsychotics and antidepressants were used by one-third and one-seventh of adults, respectively. There was considerable variability between studies, and further investigation is required to determine the source of variability. More studies are needed to better characterise prescribed psychotropic medications, including effectiveness and adverse effects, to ensure appropriate use of these drugs.

Parkinsonism in Genetic Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review

Background

With advances in clinical genetic testing, associations between genetic neurodevelopmental disorders and parkinsonism are increasingly recognized. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of reports on parkinsonism in genetic neurodevelopmental disorders and summarize findings related to genetic diagnosis, clinical features and proposed disease mechanisms.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed and Embase on June 15, 2021. Search terms for parkinsonism and genetic neurodevelopmental disorders, using generic terms and the Human Phenotype Ontology, were combined. Study characteristics and descriptive data were extracted from the articles using a modified version of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020191035).

Results

The literature search yielded 208 reports for data-extraction, describing 69 genetic disorders in 422 patients. The five most reported from most to least frequent were: 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, beta-propeller protein-associated neurodegeneration, Down syndrome, cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis, and Rett syndrome. Notable findings were an almost equal male to female ratio, an early median age of motor onset (26 years old) and rigidity being more common than rest tremor. Results of dopaminergic imaging and response to antiparkinsonian medication often supported the neurodegenerative nature of parkinsonism. Moreover, neuropathology results showed neuronal loss in the majority of cases. Proposed disease mechanisms included aberrant mitochondrial function and disruptions in neurotransmitter metabolism, endosomal trafficking, and the autophagic-lysosomal and ubiquitin-proteasome system.

Conclusion

Parkinsonism has been reported in many GNDs. Findings from this study may provide clues for further research and improve management of patients with GNDs and/or parkinsonism.

Psychotropic drugs intake in people aging with intellectual disability: Prevalence and predictors

Background

Psychotropic medication is frequently administered to people with intellectual disability with mental health and/or behavioural problems, instead of other non‐pharmacological interventions. This study describes the mental health and behavioural problems of people aging with intellectual disability, their psychotropic medication intake, and the factors contributing to a greater medication intake.

Method

The sample consisted of 991 people with intellectual disability over 45 years. Descriptive statistics and multinominal logistic regression were carried out.

Results

Antipsychotics were the most used psychotropic drug. Older people with mild intellectual disability living in institutions and affected by mental health and behavioural problems were more likely to take larger amounts of psychotropic medication.

Conclusions

Antipsychotics continue to be widely used by people with intellectual disability and mental and behavioural health problems, especially those in institutionalised settings. Future research should consider if medication intake could be reduced providing better supports in the community and non‐pharmacological interventions.

Antipsychotics withdrawal in adults with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour: study protocol for a multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In people with intellectual disability (ID) and challenging behaviour, antipsychotics (AP) are often used off-label and for a long period. Despite a lack of evidence for efficacy for challenging behaviour and concerns about common and clinically relevant side effects, complete withdrawal often fails. We postulate three possible hypotheses for withdrawal failure: 1. Influence of subjective interpretation of behavioural symptoms by caregivers and family; 2. Beneficial effects from AP treatment on undiagnosed psychiatric illness, through improvement in sleep or a direct effect on behaviour; and 3. Misinterpretation of withdrawal symptoms as a recurrence of challenging behaviour.

METHODS

To investigate our hypotheses, we have designed a multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in which AP (pipamperone or risperidone) are withdrawn. In the withdrawal group, the AP dose is reduced by 25% every 4 weeks and in the control group the dose remains unaltered. Behaviour, sleep, psychiatric disorders, withdrawal symptoms and side effects will be measured and compared between the two groups. If drop-out from the protocol is similar in both groups (non-inferiority), the first hypothesis will be supported. If drop-out is higher in the withdrawal group and an increase is seen in psychiatric disorders, sleep problems and/or behavioural problems compared to the control group, this suggests effectiveness of AP, and indications for AP use should be reconsidered. If drop-out is higher in the withdrawal group and withdrawal symptoms and side effects are more common in the withdrawal group compared to the control group, this supports the hypothesis that withdrawal symptoms contribute to withdrawal failure.

DISCUSSION

In order to develop AP withdrawal guidelines for people with ID, we need to understand why withdrawal of AP is not successful in the majority of people with ID and challenging behaviour. With this study, we will bridge the gap between the lack of available evidence on AP use and withdrawal on the one hand and the international policy drive to reduce prescription of AP in people with ID and challenging behaviour on the other hand.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 7232) on October 6, 2018 ( www.trialregister.nl ).

Psychotropic Use Among Youths With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined the prevalence and correlates of psychotropic medication prescribing among outpatient youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

METHODS

The authors reviewed cross-sectional data on medications for 1,333 youths (ages 5-21 years) with intellectual and developmental disabilities who were referred to a community-based mental health crisis service. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to describe the study group and to identify correlates of psychotropic polypharmacy, antipsychotic use, and anticonvulsant use in the absence of a seizure disorder.

RESULTS

Most youths were taking psychotropic medications (N=1,139, 86%), often three or more medications (N=733, 55%) from two or more drug classes (N=919, 69%). Most youths received antipsychotics (N=863, 65%), and a third (N=432, 32%) were taking anticonvulsants in the absence of a seizure disorder. Greater severity (number of psychiatric diagnoses and recent psychiatric hospitalization), older age, and living in a group home were significantly correlated with these practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy, antipsychotic use, and anticonvulsant use in the absence of seizure disorders were common among youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities referred to the crisis service. Older age, number of psychiatric diagnoses, living in a group home, and psychiatric hospitalization correlate with these prescribing practices. These elevated prescribing rates in a very vulnerable population warrant further study.

Adverse drug event-related hospitalisation in persons with neurodevelopmental disorders: a state-wide retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adverse drug events (ADEs) in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe and compare the demographic details of people with and without NDD hospitalised due to ADEs.

METHODS

The all-inclusive New South Wales Admitted Patient Data Collection from 2001 to 2014 was employed to identify ADE-related hospitalisations in patients with NDD using the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision Australian modification codes. We derived case sets specific to different clinical groups and patient characteristics and compared proportional differences between patients with and without intellectual disability using chi squared tests.

RESULTS

A total of 2173 patients with NDD were admitted for acute care of ADEs, accounting for 0.7% of all ADE-related hospitalisations. Hospitalised ADEs among patients with NDD increased by twofold over the 14-year study period. Psychotropic medications and opioid analgesic medications were leading causes of ADE-related hospitalisations in patients with NDD. Compared with their counterparts, patients with NDD were younger, experienced more socio-economic disadvantage and less private insurance coverage, suffered with less severe but different co-morbid clinical conditions and incurred more challenges in the acute hospital care setting.

CONCLUSION

Although the pattern of ADE-related hospitalisations in patients with NDD differed from that in patients without NDD, there is a lack of targeted healthcare programmes to meet their special needs. This study suggests the need for countermeasures in primary healthcare settings to reduce the burden of ADEs in this vulnerable group.

Fall-risk-increasing drugs and falls requiring health care among older people with intellectual disability in comparison with the general population: A register study

Background

Falls are the most common cause of injury for older people in the general population as well as among those with intellectual disability. There are many risk factors for falls, including a range of drugs which are considered to be fall-risk-increasing (FRIDs). The aim of the present study was to describe prescription patterns of FRIDs in itself as well as in relation to falls requiring health care among older people with intellectual disability and their age-peers in the general population. Moreover, to investigate possible differences between the two groups.

Methods

A cohort of people with intellectual disability and a referent cohort, one-to-one-matched by sex and year of birth, were established. Each cohort comprised 7936 people aged 55+ years at the end of 2012. Register data were collected for 2006–2012 on prescription of antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics and sedatives, opioids, and antipsychotics, as well as for fall-related health care contacts. Analyses were performed on yearly data, using repeated measures models.

Results

People with intellectual disability were more likely to be prescribed at least one FRID (Relative Risk [RR] 2.31). The increase was highest for antipsychotics (RR 25.0), followed by anxiolytics (RR 4.18), antidepressants (RR 2.72), and hypnotics and sedatives (RR 1.42). For opioids, however, a lower prevalence (RR 0.74) was found. In both cohorts, those with prescription of at least one FRID were more likely to have a fall-related injury that required health care. The increased risk was higher in the referent cohort (RR 3.98) than among people with intellectual disability (RR 2.27), although people with intellectual disability and prescription still had a higher risk of falls than those with prescription in the referent cohort (RR 1.27). A similar pattern was found for all drug groups, except for opioids, where prescription carried the same risk of having a fall-related injury that required health care in both cohorts.

Conclusions

With or without prescription of FRIDs, older people with ID have a higher risk of falls requiring health care than their age-peers in the general population. It is important to be aware of this when prescribing drugs that further increase the risk of falls.

Antipsychotic Prescribing to Patients Diagnosed with Dementia Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Context of National Guidance and Drug Safety Warnings: Longitudinal Study in UK General Practice

Introduction

Policy interventions to address inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to older people diagnosed with dementia are commonplace. In the UK, warnings were issued by the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2004, 2009 and 2012 and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was published in 2006. It is important to evaluate the impact of such interventions.

Methods

We analysed routinely collected primary-care data from 111,346 patients attending one of 689 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to describe the temporal changes in the prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to patients aged 65 years or over diagnosed with dementia without a concomitant psychosis diagnosis from 2001 to 2014 using an interrupted time series and a before-and-after design. Logistic regression methods were used to quantify the impact of patient and practice level variables on prescribing prevalence.

Results

Prescribing of first-generation antipsychotic drugs reduced from 8.9% in 2001 to 1.4% in 2014 (prevalence ratio 2014/2001 adjusted for age, sex and clustering within practices (0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.12–0.16), whereas there was little change for second-generation antipsychotic drugs (1.01, confidence interval 0.94–1.17). Between 2004 and 2012, several policy interventions coincided with a pattern of ups and downs, whereas the 2006 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was followed by a gradual longer term reduction. Since 2013, the decreasing trend in second-generation antipsychotic drug prescribing has plateaued largely driven by the increasing prescribing of risperidone.

Conclusions

Increased surveillance and evaluation of drug safety warnings and guidance are needed to improve the impact of future interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0538-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Movement side effects of antipsychotic drugs in adults with and without intellectual disability: UK population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To measure the incidence of movement side effects of antipsychotic drugs in adults with intellectual disability and compare rates with adults without intellectual disability.

DESIGN

Cohort study using data from The Health Improvement Network.

SETTING

UK primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with intellectual disability prescribed antipsychotic drugs matched to a control group of adults without intellectual disability prescribed antipsychotic drugs.

OUTCOME MEASURES

New records of movement side effect including acute dystonias, akathisia, parkinsonism, tardive dyskinaesia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

RESULTS

9013 adults with intellectual disability and a control cohort of 34 242 adults without intellectual disability together contributed 148 709 person-years data. The overall incidence of recorded movement side effects was 275 per 10 000 person-years (95% CI 256 to 296) in the intellectual disability group and 248 per 10 000 person-years (95% CI 237 to 260) in the control group. The incidence of any recorded movement side effect was significantly greater in people with intellectual disability compared with those without (incidence rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.42, p<0.001, after adjustment for potential confounders), with parkinsonism and akathisia showing the greatest difference between the groups. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, although occurring infrequently, was three times more common in people with intellectual disability-prescribed antipsychotic drugs (incidence rate ratio 3.03, 95% CI 1.26 to 7.30, p=0.013). Differences in rates of movement side effects between the groups were not due to differences in the proportions prescribed first and second-generation antipsychotic drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence to substantiate the long-held assumption that people with intellectual disability are more susceptible to movement side effects of antipsychotic drugs. Assessment for movement side effects should be integral to antipsychotic drug monitoring in people with intellectual disability. Regular medication review is essential to ensure optimal prescribing in this group.