A retrospective study of psychotropic drug use among individuals with mental illness issued a community treatment order

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and High-Dose Antipsychotic Regimens in the Residential Italian Forensic Psychiatric Population (REMS)

Few data exist regarding treatment with antipsychotics in forensic psychiatric patient populations with high social dangerousness. We performed a secondary analysis of 681 patients treated with at least one antipsychotic, extracted from a 1-year observational retrospective study, conducted on 730 patients treated in the Italian Residencies for Execution of Security Measures (REMS) (96.4% of the REMS population). We aimed at investigating antipsychotic polypharmacy (prescription of two or more concomitant antipsychotics) and high dose/very high-dose antipsychotics, as well as the possible factors associated with such therapeutic regimens. High dose/very high-dose antipsychotics were defined as a prescribed daily dose to WHO-defined daily dose ratio greater than 1.5 or 3.0, respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis was used in three models to test possible predictors of antipsychotic polypharmacy, high-dose antipsychotics, and very high-dose antipsychotic prescription. Antipsychotic polypharmacy resulted in n = 308 (45.2%) of the patients, n = 346 (50.8%) received high-dose antipsychotics, and n = 96 (14.1%) very high-dose antipsychotics. The multivariate analysis disclosed an association between antipsychotic polypharmacy and male gender (odds ratio (OR): 2.75 and 95% CI: 1.34–5.65), long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic prescription (OR: 2.62 and 95% CI: 1.84–3.74), and aggressive behavior in REMS (OR: 1.63 and 95% CI: 1.13–2.36). High-dose antipsychotics were also associated with male gender (OR: 2.01 and 95% CI: 1.02–3.95), LAI antipsychotic prescription (OR: 2.78 and 95% CI: 1.95–3.97), and aggressive behavior in REMS (OR: 1.63 and 95% CI: 1.12–2.36). The use of antipsychotic polypharmacy and high-dose antipsychotics is frequent in the REMS population. These results might depend on regulatory and organizational aspects of the REMS system, including variability in structures, lack of a common model of care, and lack of stratified therapeutic security.

Comparing re-hospitalisation rates in a real-world naturalistic 24-month follow-up of psychotic patients with different treatment strategies: Oral versus LAI antipsychotics

AIM & BACKGROUND

Non-adherence to antipsychotic treatment is a major issue in the management of severe psychiatric disorders, because it is usually related to future relapses and re-hospitalisations. Long-Acting-Injection (LAI) antipsychotics can be useful to increase treatment adherence in these patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the re-hospitalisation rates of psychotic patients discharged from a psychiatric ward and then, divided into three groups upon the treatment received: LAI antipsychotic, oral antipsychotic at home or oral antipsychotic administered daily by psychiatric nurse staff as patients lived in a long-term care facility.

METHODS

Data on all inpatients consecutively admitted to the Psychiatric Unit of the Nuovo Ospedale Apuano (Massa, Italy), between January 2017 and December 2018, were obtained by the registration record system. Information about eventual re-hospitalisations of these patients, occurred within a 24-month timeframe since discharge, were collected from the same database.

RESULTS

In a Kaplan-Meyer analysis, patients treated with LAI antipsychotics showed significantly lower re-hospitalisation rates in the first 24 months after discharge than those treated with oral ones.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the impact of LAI antipsychotics in preventing re-hospitalisation in severe psychotic patients at high risk in a naturalistic setting. The benefits appear relevant also with respect to a controlled long-term oral antipsychotic treatment, however, further studies are needed to develop more tailored intervention strategies in such complex psychiatric population.

Risk of withdrawal of consent for treatment with long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the clinical importance of antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) in the treatment of schizophrenia, their use may be limited by patients' reluctance to accept the injections. No studies to date have investigated whether patients are more likely to withdraw their consent to treatment with LAIs than to treatment with oral antipsychotics (OAPs). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the risk of withdrawal of consent between the 2 routes of administration.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were systematically searched. RCTs with open-label or rater-masked design that compared LAIs with OAPs were selected. Data on study discontinuation due to withdrawal of consent and/or loss to follow-up were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (4815 patients) that met the study eligibility criteria were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the LAI and OAP groups in the risk of cessation of treatment because of withdrawal of consent. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the risk of study discontinuation because of withdrawal of consent plus loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings were unexpected and suggest that patients may not be more hesitant to continue LAIs than OAPs after consenting to or receiving treatment. Nevertheless, patients should be provided detailed explanations about the use of LAIs and a support system that encourages them to continue treatment.

Is higher psychotropic medication burden associated with involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act? A four-year Australian cohort study

BACKGROUND

Involuntary treatment for individuals who lack sufficient capacity to make informed decisions regarding treatment has been associated with increased rates of injectable antipsychotics, antipsychotic polytherapy, and/or high doses. However, little is known about non-antipsychotic psychotropic prescription, or psychotropic medication burden as a more encompassing approach for people treated involuntarily. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between Mental Health Act (MHA) status and psychotropic polypharmacy and/or high-dose medication prescribing practices in an Australian inpatient mental health unit.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 800 adults discharged from a large metropolitan Queensland mental health unit was undertaken. Data was collected for 200 individuals, discharged on at least one psychotropic medicine, at four time periods; Cohort 1 (on or before 31st January 2014), Cohort 2 (2015), Cohort 3 (2016) and Cohort 4 (2017). The number of prescribed medicines and total daily doses were recorded and reviewed for alignment with current clinical guidelines. Participant demographics and clinical characteristics were compared by individual MHA status using chi-square test for categorical variables and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Associations between MHA status and prescribing practices (psychotropic polypharmacy and/or high-dose prescribing) were assessed using bivariate and multivariate binomial logistic regression models. Age, gender, birth country, year of admission, admissions in previous 12 months, primary diagnosis, ECT/clozapine treatment, and other psychotropic medications were adjusted as covariates.

RESULTS

Regression analysis found that compared to their voluntary counterparts, individuals treated involuntarily were 2.7 times more likely to be prescribed an antipsychotic at discharge, 8.8 times more likely to be prescribed more than one antipsychotic at discharge and 1.65 times more likely to be prescribed high-dose antipsychotic treatment at discharge. The adjusted model also found that they were half as likely to be prescribed an antidepressant at discharge.

CONCLUSION

Implicit review of justifications for increased psychotropic medication burden (antipsychotic polypharmacy and high-doses) in those treated involuntarily is required to ensure clinical outcomes and overall quality of life are improved in this vulnerable group. Clearly documented medication histories, reconciliation at discharge and directions for medication management after discharge are necessary to ensure quality use of medicines.

Prevalence of multiple antipsychotic use and associated adverse effects in Australians with mental illness

AIM

This article analyzes the prevalence of use of concurrent multiple antipsychotics and high dosage treatment in people with mental illness, to assess the burden of antipsychotic drug-related side-effects associated with multiple use, and to identify strategies shown to reduce antipsychotic polypharmacy.

METHODS

Literature reviewed was sourced from MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, InformIT, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library database and Joanna Briggs Institute databases to identify Australian studies published between January 2000 and February 2015. Studies that reported prevalence of multiple antipsychotic use or addressed the issue of antipsychotic drug-related side-effects were included. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and observational pre-post studies of Australian and international interventions aiming to reduce multiple antipsychotic use in mental health settings were also identified.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies reporting prevalence of multiple antipsychotic use were identified. The proportion of patients taking more than one antipsychotic ranged from 5 to 61%. Of the studies assessing dosages used, between one-third and one-half of all patients taking multiple antipsychotics received doses higher than recommended. Data from one national study reported that people taking multiple antipsychotics were more likely to experience at least one side-effect in comparison to consumers taking a single antipsychotic (90 verses 80%).International evidence of direct trials of conversion from treatment regimens involving multiple antipsychotics to those based on monotherapy show that between 50 and 75% of people with serious mental illness could be successfully converted to single-agent treatment, with up to 25% obtaining an improvement in health and the remaining 50% staying well managed.

CONCLUSION

Use of multiple antipsychotics is common among Australian people with mental illness, despite guidelines recommending that only one antipsychotic should be used in most cases. People taking more than one antipsychotic at a time are more likely to experience side-effects, and to receive higher than recommended antipsychotic doses. Direct trials that aimed to reduce multiple antipsychotic use suggest it is possible to effectively reduce therapy in the majority of people without worsening outcomes. Simple educational programmes targeting health professionals have not been found to be effective; however, complex multifaceted programmes and quality improvement programmes have demonstrated effect.

Antipsychotic prescribing for vulnerable populations: a clinical audit at an acute Australian mental health unit at two-time points

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotics are recognised as a critical intervention for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Guidelines globally endorse the routine practice of antipsychotic monotherapy, at the minimum effective dose. Even in treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine use is endorsed before combining antipsychotics. This aim of this study was to review antipsychotic polytherapy alone, high-dose therapy alone, polytherapy and high-dose prescribing patterns in adults discharged from an inpatient mental health unit at two time-points, and the alignment of this prescribing with clinical guideline recommendations. Additionally, associations with polytherapy and high-dose antipsychotic prescribing, including patient and clinical characteristics, were explored.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical audit of 400 adults (200 patients at two different time-points) discharged with at least one antipsychotic. Preliminary findings and education sessions were provided to physicians between Cohorts. Outcomes (polytherapy alone, high-dose therapy alone, polytherapy and high-dose therapy) were compared between study Cohorts using chi-squared and rank-sum tests. Associations between outcomes and covariates were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most patients (62.5%) were discharged on a single antipsychotic within the recommended dose range. There was a clear preference for prescribing second generation antipsychotics, and in this respect, prescribing is aligned with current evidence-based guidelines. However, sub-optimal prescribing practices were identified for both Cohorts in relation to polytherapy and high-dose antipsychotic rates. Involuntary treatment, frequent hospitalisations and previous clozapine use significantly increased the risk of all three prescribing outcomes at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

In a significant minority, antipsychotic prescribing did not align with clinical guidelines despite increased training, indicating that the education program alone was ineffective at positively influencing antipsychotic prescribing practices. Further consideration should be given when prescribing antipsychotics for involuntary patients, people with frequent hospitalisations, and those who have previously trialled clozapine.

Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders: The International Evidence

OBJECTIVE

Community treatment orders (CTOs) exist in more than 75 jurisdictions worldwide. This review outlines findings from the international literature on CTO effectiveness.

METHOD

The article draws on 2 comprehensive systematic reviews of the literature published before 2013, then uses the same search terms to identify studies published between 2013 and 2015. The focus is on what the literature as a whole tells us about CTO effectiveness, with particular emphasis on the strength and weaknesses of different methodologies.

RESULTS

The results from more than 50 nonrandomized studies show mixed results. Some show benefits from CTOs while others show none on the most frequently reported outcomes of readmission, time in hospital, and community service use. Results from the 3 existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show no effect of CTOs on a wider range of outcome measures except that patients on CTOs are less likely than controls to be a victim of crime. Patients on CTOs are, however, likely to have their liberty restricted for significantly longer periods of time. Meta-analyses pooling patient data from RCTs and high quality nonrandomized studies also find no evidence of patient benefit, and systematic reviews come to the same conclusion.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence of patient benefit from current CTO outcome studies. This casts doubt over the usefulness and ethics of CTOs. To remove uncertainty, future research must be designed as RCTs.

New roles for pharmacists in community mental health care: a narrative review

Medicines are a major treatment modality for many mental illnesses, and with the growing burden of mental disorders worldwide pharmacists are ideally positioned to play a greater role in supporting people with a mental illness. This narrative review aims to describe the evidence for pharmacist-delivered services in mental health care and address the barriers and facilitators to increasing the uptake of pharmacist services as part of the broader mental health care team. This narrative review is divided into three main sections: (1) the role of the pharmacist in mental health care in multidisciplinary teams and in supporting early detection of mental illness; (2) the pharmacists' role in supporting quality use of medicines in medication review, strategies to improve medication adherence and antipsychotic polypharmacy, and shared decision making; and (3) barriers and facilitators to the implementation of mental health pharmacy services with a focus on organizational culture and mental health stigma. In the first section, the review presents new roles for pharmacists within multidisciplinary teams, such as in case conferencing or collaborative drug therapy management; and new roles that would benefit from increased pharmacist involvement, such as the early detection of mental health conditions, development of care plans and follow up of people with mental health problems. The second section describes the impact of medication review services and other pharmacist-led interventions designed to reduce inappropriate use of psychotropic medicines and improve medication adherence. Other new potential roles discussed include the management of antipsychotic polypharmacy and involvement in patient-centered care. Finally, barriers related to pharmacists' attitudes, stigma and skills in the care of patients with mental health problems and barriers affecting pharmacist-physician collaboration are described, along with strategies to reduce mental health stigma.