Benefits and risks of antipsychotic polypharmacy: an evidence-based review of the literature

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy for the Management of Schizophrenia: Evidence and Recommendations

Schizophrenia is a debilitating illness with a lifetime prevalence estimate of 0.6% and consists of symptoms from the positive, negative, and cognitive domains. Social support, therapy, psychoeducation, and overall case management are very important aspects of the treatment of schizophrenia. However, as abnormalities in neurotransmission are one of the key findings of schizophrenia pathology, pharmacotherapies are cornerstones of the management of schizophrenia. Antipsychotics have been used as the primary pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia. These agents often have a good effect on reducing positive symptoms, but may not markedly improve negative symptoms or cognitive defects. However, at least 20% of individuals with schizophrenia do not experience a substantial response from monotherapy with antipsychotics. Further, despite evolving treatment protocols and advances in early recognition of the disorder, 70% of patients with schizophrenia require long-term, even lifetime, medication to control their symptoms and do not achieve complete recovery. To address these shortcomings, clinicians and research scientists have explored different combinations of treatments, polypharmacy, to improve the treatment of patients. Antipsychotic polypharmacy has been shown to cause more side effects than monotherapy, which is the main reason why most treatment guidelines caution against it. Antipsychotic monotherapy should be strived for and clozapine should be tried at the latest if two monotherapy trials with other antipsychotics have failed and no absolute contraindications exist. If residual symptoms exist despite trials of adequate dose and duration, other reasons that may reduce treatment effect should be ruled out. Long-acting injectables or blood concentration measurements should be considered to affirm compliance and proper serum levels. Antipsychotic polypharmacy should be considered and discussed with patients from whom the aforementioned procedures do not produce a satisfactory treatment result. In some cases, antipsychotic polypharmacy may produce better results than other forms of treatment augmentation, such as benzodiazepines. In particular, combining aripiprazole with clozapine may be effective in reducing treatment side effects or residual symptoms, and this is likely to hold true for combining other partial dopamine D₂ agonists with clozapine as well, although currently scant data exist. More research is needed, both in controlled but also real-world settings, to define optimal antipsychotic polypharmacy and/or other psychotropic treatment augmentation strategies for specific patient groups and situations.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Metabolic Syndrome in Schizophrenia: A Review of Systematic Reviews

(Reprinted with permission from BMC Psychiatry (2018) 18:275).

Frequency, reasons, and factors associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy in Schizophrenia: A retrospective chart review in a tertiary hospital in India

The practice of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia appears to be common although evidence-based guidelines do not routinely recommend it. The reasons for polypharmacy are however unclear. The objective of the study was to assess the frequency of polypharmacy, reasons for initiation and the factors associated with it. A retrospective chart review of case records of all the patients diagnosed with schizophrenia at the department of psychiatry from January 2011 to December 2018 was done. Frequency of antipsychotic polypharmacy, reasons influencing it and factors associated with polypharmacy were extracted using a proforma. Of 529 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, 232 patients (43.9 %) were receiving antipsychotic polypharmacy. Common reasons for polypharmacy included the usage of depot along with oral antipsychotic for a prolonged period (37.7 %), augmentation of response with the second antipsychotic (17.7 %) and treatment of a different symptom domain like negative symptoms (9.5 %). In comparison to monopharmacy, antipsychotic polypharmacy was more commonly associated with side effects and extrapyramidal symptoms. Patients on polypharmacy had a higher number of hospitalizations too. As the trend of antipsychotic polypharmacy is on the rise, it is important to assess for reasons influencing polypharmacy to avoid undesirable side effects. The side effect burden of polypharmacy is significantly more than those receiving single antipsychotics. Oral antipsychotics should ideally be discontinued after the depot antipsychotic reaches steady-state levels. Irrational usage of second antipsychotic to augment the response of first antipsychotic agent needs to be avoided.

Potential drug-drug interactions in the psychiatric hospital: Frequency analysis

Introduction: Drug-drug interactions are an important clinical problem in pharmacotherapy. This study is focused on different types of drugs used in a psychiatric hospital.

Materials and methods: The pharmacoepidemiological study included the analysis of medical records of 500 psychiatric inpatients. The patients were divided into 2 groups: under 65 and over 65 years of age. All the drug prescriptions were analyzed to identify the combinations of drugs that can induce drug-drug interactions and determine their clinical significance.

Results and discussion: Over 77% of hospitalized patients were administered drug combinations that could induce drug-drug interactions, most of which were of moderate clinical significance. A reliable association was found between the patient’s age, the clinical significance of drug-drug interactions, and the pharmacotherapy structure. The most common irrational drug combinations were identified.

Conclusion: Timely analysis of drug prescriptions for potential drug-drug interactions can enhance the safety of pharmacotherapy and decrease the risk of adverse drug reactions in the psychiatric inpatient setting.

Polypharmacy and Depressive Symptoms in U.S.-Born Mexican American Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Although some studies have suggested a link between polypharmacy and poor mental health, less is known about the association between polypharmacy and depressive symptomology among U.S.-born older Mexican Americans.

AIM

This study aimed to test the association between polypharmacy and depressive symptoms in U.S.-born older Latino Americans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data came from the Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging (SALSA 2008). A total of 691 U.S.-born older (age >= 65) Mexican Americans entered this analysis. Polypharmacy was the independent variable. Level of depressive symptoms was the outcome. Age, gender, socioeconomic status (education, income, and employment), retirement status, health (chronic medical conditions, self-rated health, and activities of daily living), language, acculturation, and smoking were the covariates. A linear regression model was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

We found a positive association between polypharmacy and depressive symptoms, which was above and beyond demographic factors, socioeconomic status, physical health, health behaviors, language, acculturation, and health insurance.

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy is linked to depressive symptoms in U.S.-born older Mexican Americans. More research is needed to test the effects of reducing inappropriate polypharmacy on mental well-being of first and second generation older Mexican Americans. There is also a need to study the role of drug-drug interaction in explaining the observed link between polypharmacy and depressive symptoms.

Social Determinants of Polypharmacy in First Generation Mexican Immigrants in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Socioeconomic status (SES) indicators are among the main social determinants of health and illness. Less, however, is known about the role of SES in the epidemiology of polypharmacy in immigrant Latino Americans living in the United States. This research studied the association between three SES indicators, education, income, and employment, and polypharmacy in older first generation Latino American immigrant adults.

METHODS

Data was obtained from the Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging (SALSA, 1996-2008). A total of 632 older first generation Mexican-American immigrants to the U.S. entered this analysis. The independent variables were education, income, and employment. Polypharmacy was the outcome. Age, gender, physical health, smoking, and drinking were the covariates. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Employment was associated with lower odds of polypharmacy. The association between education and polypharmacy was above and beyond demographic factors, physical health, health behaviors, and health insurance. Neither education nor income were associated with polypharmacy. Other determinants of polypharmacy were poor self-rated health (SRH) and a higher number of chronic medical conditions (CMCs).

CONCLUSION

Employment appears to be the major SES determinant of polypharmacy in older foreign-born Mexican Americans. Unemployed older Mexican American immigrants with multiple chronic diseases and those who have poor SRH have the highest need for an evaluation of polypharmacy. Given the age group of this population, most of them have health insurance, which provides an opportunity for reducing their polypharmacy.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy and metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia: a review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence on the association between antipsychotic polypharmacy and metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia. We conducted a review of published systematic reviews to evaluate evidence on the association between metabolic syndrome (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia) and exposure to antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases, complemented by reference screening, to find systematic reviews that investigated the association of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia with hypertension, diabetes, or hyperlipidaemia. Selection of reviews, data extraction and review quality were conducted independently by two people and disagreements resolved by discussion. Results were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

We included 12 systematic reviews, which reported heterogeneous results, mostly with narrative syntheses and without pooled data. The evidence was rated as low quality. There was some indication of a possible protective effect of drug combinations including aripiprazole for diabetes and hyperlipidaemias, compared to other combinations and/or monotherapy. Only one review reported the association between APP and hypertension. The most frequently reported combinations of medication included clozapine, possibly representing a sample of patients with treatment resistant illness. No included review reported results separately by setting (primary or secondary care).

CONCLUSIONS

Further robust studies are needed to elucidate the possible protective effect of aripiprazole. Long-term prospective studies are required for accurate appraisal of diabetes risk, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia in patients exposed to antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Prevalence and correlates of antipsychotic polypharmacy in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) remains a common practice despite inconclusive empirical evidence of additional efficacy and potential exacerbation of side effects. Previous studies suggest APP rate is notably high in East Asia. This paper aims to investigate the prevalence and correlates of APP in Hong Kong.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional study of 728 patients with psychosis. The demographics and clinical information, including age, gender, diagnosis, hospitalization history, and medication were collected. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were used to study correlates of APP.

RESULTS

The APP rate for psychosis was 24.2% (n = 728) and that for schizophrenia was 26.0% (n = 611), both considerably lower than our previous local data and that from East Asian regions. The most widely used APP prescription fell within the atypical/atypical combination (i.e., Amisulpride/Clozapine and Paliperidone/Olanzapine), and Olanzapine was the most commonly prescribed antipsychotic. At least 75% of APP patients with psychosis took at least one type of atypical antipsychotics in their medical regimen. Typical/typical polypharmacy was associated with older age and use of antiparkinson drugs. Typical/atypical polypharmacy was associated with the use of antiparkinson drugs and anxiolytics, as well as inpatient status. Atypical/atypical polypharmacy was associated with younger age, inpatient status, and the use of mood stabilizers.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our study highlights a relatively low APP rate in Hong Kong when compared to other countries in East Asia. Age, inpatient status and use of antiparkinson drugs, anxiolytics and mood stabilizers were associated with use of APP.

Correlates and predictors of antipsychotic drug polypharmacy in real-life settings: Results from a nationwide cohort study

Reasons for using antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) in routine clinical practice, despite a potentially unfavorable risk-benefit ratio, are poorly understood. This research aimed to determine (1) if severe courses of schizophrenia were associated with APP and (2) if a schizophrenia-related acute event would predict a switch to APP in the short term. Observational prospective data (at baseline and 6months) were drawn from a French nationwide cohort ("Cohorte Générale Schizophrénie"), which included 1859 inpatients and outpatients with schizophrenia. APP was defined as the prescription of ≥2 antipsychotic drugs (there being different active substances). Early-onset schizophrenia, legal guardianship, higher lifetime maximal severity of illness and comorbid antisocial personality were used as proxies for severe courses of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia-related acute events included hospitalization and recent suicide attempts. Logistic regression models were used to determine (1) whether the use of APP at baseline (vs. monotherapy) was associated with a severe course of schizophrenia or not, independent of acute events, and (2) if a switch to APP at 6months (vs. remaining on monotherapy) was associated with acute events, independent of severe courses of schizophrenia. Increased odds of APP use at baseline were independently associated with legal guardianship (OR=1.6; 95%CI=1.3, 2.0) and higher lifetime maximum severity of illness (OR=1.3; 95%CI=1.2, 1.5). A switch to APP at 6months was predicted by a hospitalization occurring since baseline (OR=6.1; 95%CI=3.9, 9.4). In routine clinical practice, APP is more likely prescribed to patients with severe courses of illness, possibly indicating the difficulty to manage these patients.

Polypharmacy and high-dose antipsychotics at the time of discharge from acute psychiatric wards

Aims and method

To determine the extent of prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy and high-dose antipsychotics at the time of discharge from an acute psychiatric ward. Copies of discharge summaries for patients between the ages of 18 and 65 were examined; only those that had antipsychotic medications at the time of discharge were included. Names and doses of antipsychotics and all other medications concurrently prescribed were recorded.

Results

A total of 651 discharge summaries were included in the study. Nearly a quarter of individuals were discharged on one antipsychotic as the only medication to take home; only 6.8% were discharged on a high-dose antipsychotic and of those on combinations 59.6% were on depot medications. Combining antipsychotics significantly predicted the use of high dose.

Clinical implications

Most patients were discharged on doses of antipsychotics within the British National Formulary limits; however, a small proportion is still sent home on high doses of antipsychotics. Combining antipsychotics remains the strongest predictor of high-dose antipsychotic use; clinicians need to be aware of this.

Gender differences and psychotropic polypharmacy in psychiatric patients in Brazil: a cross-sectional analysis of the PESSOAS Project

We aimed to estimate the prevalence and correlates of psychotropic polypharmacy in Brazilian psychiatric patients by gender. Sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical data were obtained through face-to-face interviews and medical charts of 2,475 patients. Psychotropic polypharmacy was defined as the use of two or more psychotropic drugs and occurred in 85.7% of men (95%CI: 83.6%-87.6%) and 84.9% of women (95%CI: 82.8%-86.8%; p > 0.05). The mean number of psychotropic drugs/patient was 2.98 ± 1.23 and most common combinations included antipsychotics. Multivariate analysis showed that for both genders, previous hospitalization, severe mental illness, multiple psychiatric diagnoses and an insufficient number of professionals in the health care unit was associated with psychotropic polypharmacy. However, other correlates such as inpatient care, use of non-psychotropic drugs, living in unstable conditions and current smoking vary among them. Psychotropic polypharmacy was a common practice in this national sample. The results highlighted the need for national guidelines to manage patients with mental illness, considering the difference among genders and disease severity, to reduce the burden of polyphamacy in this population.

Omics-Based Biomarkers: Application of Metabolomics in Neuropsychiatric Disorders

One of the major concerns of modern society is to identify putative biomarkers that serve as a valuable early diagnostic tool to identify a subset of patients with increased risk to develop neuropsychiatric disorders. Biomarker identification in neuropsychiatric disorders is proposed to offer a number of important benefits to patient well-being, including prediction of forthcoming disease, diagnostic precision, and a level of disease description that would guide treatment choice. Nowadays, the metabolomics approach has unlocked new possibilities in diagnostics of devastating disorders like neuropsychiatric disorders. Metabolomics-based technologies have the potential to map early biochemical changes in disease and hence provide an opportunity to develop predictive biomarkers that can be used as indicators of pathological abnormalities prior to development of clinical symptoms of neuropsychiatric disorders. This review highlights different -omics strategies for biomarker discovery in neuropsychiatric disorders. We also highlight initial outcomes from metabolomics studies in psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and addictive disorders. This review will also present issues and challenges regarding the implementation of the metabolomics approach as a routine diagnostic tool in the clinical laboratory in context with neuropsychiatric disorders.

Concomitant use of two or more antipsychotic drugs is common in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence of concomitant use of two or more antipsychotic drugs and other psychotropic drugs in the Swedish population.

METHODS

Data for this observational cohort study were collected from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register including all dispensed drugs to the entire Swedish population (9.4 million inhabitants). We identified all individuals with at least one dispensed prescription of antipsychotic drug during January to June 2008. After 12 months, a second exposure period was chosen. Individuals who were dispensed two or more antipsychotic drugs in both periods were considered long-time users of antipsychotic polypharmacy.

RESULTS

In 2008, 1.5% of the Swedish population was dispensed antipsychotic drugs, the majority (75%) using only one antipsychotic drug. Out of individuals who were dispensed 2 or more antipsychotic drugs during the first period, 62% also was also dispensed at least 2 antipsychotic drugs during the second period. A total of 665 different unique combinations were used in 2008. Individuals prescribed two or more antipsychotic drugs during both periods were more often dispensed anxiolytics and sedatives than those who were dispensed only one antipsychotic drug. Elderly were dispensed antipsychotic drugs much more often than younger persons.

CONCLUSIONS

In Sweden, 25% of patients dispensed antipsychotic drugs receive a combination of two or more antipsychotic drugs. Individuals who are dispensed antipsychotic polypharmacy are more often dispensed anxiolytics and sedatives than those prescribed only one antipsychotic drug. Long-term observational studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of such combinations.

Reducing psychotropic pharmacotherapy in patients with severe mental illness: a cluster-randomized controlled intervention study

BACKGROUND

Many patients with mental illness receive psychotropic medicine in high dosages and from more than one drug. One of the consequences of this practice is obesity, which is a contributing factor to increased physical morbidity and premature death.

METHODS

Our study was a cluster-randomized intervention study involving 6 facilities and 174 patients diagnosed with severe mental illnesses (73% schizophrenia). The intervention period was 12 months and consisted of teaching sessions with the staff and evaluating the patients' intake of psychotropic medication. At index, 44% met criteria for obesity and 76% met criteria for overweight. Waist circumferences were 108 cm for men and 108 cm for women. Olanzapine, clozapine and quetiapine were the most common prescribed antipsychotics. Mean values of daily doses of antipsychotic were 2.5.

RESULTS

The intervention showed no significant differences between the intervention and control group regarding psychotropic treatment. At follow up, independent of intervention, patients receiving antipsychotic polypharmacy had a larger waist circumference compared with patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy of 9.8 cm (1.5-18.1) (p = 0.028).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We found both a high prevalence of obesity and that the patients received treatment with antipsychotic polypharmaceutics in high dosages. Active awareness did not change practice and we must think of other ways to restrict treatment with psychotropics in this group of patients.

History, background, concepts and current use of comedication and polypharmacy in psychiatry

Based on a careful literature search a review is presented of the history, background, concepts and current use of comedication and polypharmacy in psychiatry. The pros and cons of comedication and polypharmacy are presented, as well as their apparent increase in recent times. Possible reasons for the increase of comedication/polypharmacy are described. Both the potential advantages as well as the potential risks are discussed. The one sided view that all comedication/polypharmacy is nothing but problematic is questioned. Comedication/polypharmacy seems to be, among others, the current answer to the well-known limited efficacy and effectiveness of current monotherapy treatment strategies.

Validation of a claims-based antipsychotic polypharmacy measure

Purpose Given the metabolic and neurologic side effects of antipsychotics and concerns about the increased risks associated with concomitant use, antipsychotic polypharmacy is a quality concern. This study assessed the operating characteristics of a Medicaid claims-based measure of antipsychotic polypharmacy. Methods A random sample from 10 public mental health clinics and 312 patients met criteria for this study. Medical record extractors were blind to measure status. We examined the prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) in Medicaid claims, testing nine different definitions of antipsychotic polypharmacy, including >14, >60, or >90 days concurrent use of ≥2 antipsychotic agents, each with allowable gaps of up to 0, 14, or 32 days in days' supply of antipsychotic medications. Results All Medicaid claims measure definitions tested had excellent specificity and PPV (>91%). Good to excellent sensitivity was dependent upon use of a 32-day gap allowance, particularly as duration of concurrent antipsychotic use increased. The proposed claims-based measure (90-day concurrent use of ≥2 or more antipsychotics, allowing for a 32-day gap) had excellent specificity (99.1%, 95%CI: 98.2-99.6) and PPV (90.9%, 95%CI: 83.1-95.7) with good sensitivity (79.4%, 95%CI: 70.4-86.6). The overall level of concordance between claims and medical record-based categorization of antipsychotic polypharmacy was high (96.4%, n = 301/312 clients, Cohen's K = 84.7, 95%CI: 75.9-93.5). Discrepant cases were reviewed, and implications are discussed. Conclusions Administrative claims data can be used to construct valid measures of antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Real-world effectiveness of antipsychotic monotherapy vs. polypharmacy in schizophrenia: to switch or to combine? A nationwide study in Hungary

BACKGROUND

Leading guidelines recommend antipsychotic (AP) monotherapy for schizophrenia, nonetheless the combination of antipsychotics (polypharmacy) is common practice worldwide. We conducted a nationwide population-based study to investigate the comparative effectiveness of monotherapy versus polypharmacy in schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

METHODS

Data was collected from the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund's database and a non-interventional retrospective-prospective parallel arm study was designed with a monotherapy arm (MA, switch to a new antipsychotic after >60 days of monotherapy, N=5480) and a polypharmacy arm with two APs (PA, addition of a second antipsychotic after >60 days of monotherapy, N=7901). The analyses focused on therapy changers, who started a new monotherapy or added a new AP to the existing one. Polypharmacy combinations with more than two APs were not investigated. Fourteen APs were investigated representing the majority of marketed antipsychotics of Hungary in the period of 1/2007-12/2009. The principal endpoint was the time to all-cause treatment discontinuation during a one-year observation period. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards model were applied with propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS

The principal outcome measure time to all-cause discontinuation indicated superiority for monotherapy over polypharmacy for the majority of (oral and depot) second generation APs (SGAs). For first generation APs (FGAs), oral formulations did not show a difference between monotherapy and polypharmacy, while depot formulations exhibited polypharmacy advantage. For the four most frequently used oral SGAs, the median times to all-cause discontinuation for monotherapy and polypharmacy, respectively, were 192 and 100 days for aripiprazole; 222 and 86 days for olanzapine; 176 and 91 days for quetiapine; and 157 and 93 days for risperidone. For mortality and hospitalization, a significant overall advantage of polypharmacy was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides evidence for the superiority of monotherapy over polypharmacy for SGAs in terms of all-cause treatment discontinuation in schizophrenia. Polypharmacy, however, was associated with a lower likelihood of mortality and hospitalizations. The finding that MA is superior to PA for long-term sustained treatment whereas polypharmacy has advantage in mortality and psychiatric hospitalizations suggests that combination treatments may be more efficacious during exacerbation of psychotic symptoms.

Medication use among Australian adults with intellectual disability in primary healthcare settings: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There is concern about widespread medication use by people with intellectual disability (ID), especially psychotropic and anticonvulsant agents. However, there is sparse information on prescribing patterns in Australia.

METHOD

This cross-sectional study was conducted between 2000 and 2002 among adults with ID who live in the community in Brisbane, Australia. Medication data were extracted from a health screening tool. Demographic and medical data were collected from telephone interviews and medical records.

RESULTS

Of 117 participants, 35% were prescribed psychotropic medications, most commonly antipsychotics, and 26% anticonvulsants. Complementary medications (vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fish oil, and herbal products) were used by 29% of participants. After adjusting for potentially confounding variables, psychotropic medication use was significantly associated with having a psychiatric illness (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% CI [1.0, 20.6]) and challenging behaviours (4.4, [1.1, 17.3]).

CONCLUSIONS

People with ID use a broad range of medications. Psychotropic medications continue to be the most predominant agents prescribed for this population. Psychotropic medication use is positively associated with having a psychiatric illness and challenging behaviours.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in psychotic disorders: a critical review of neurobiology, efficacy, tolerability and cost effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to review the scientific evidence for neurobiological rationale, efficacy, tolerability and cost effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Ovid and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until April 2012 was carried out.

RESULTS

Theories behind APP have only modest pre-clinical and clinical evidence. We found limited statistical evidence supporting modest efficacy of APP in patients with psychotic symptoms refractory to clozapine. APP is associated with increased mortality, metabolic syndrome, decreased cognitive functioning, high dose prescription and non-adherence. It brings up extra costs, lacking evidence for cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-clinical studies underpinning neurobiological hypotheses in APP are lacking. Evidence supporting efficacy of APP is limited with modest beneficial clinical relevance. APP is associated with several serious adverse effects and increased health costs. In the absence of more convincing pre-clinical support and clinical evidence we advise adherence to existing guidelines and limiting combinations of antipsychotics (in consideration with other pharmacotherapeutic, somatic and psychotherapeutic options) to patients with clozapine-refractory psychosis in well-evaluated individual trials that might need 10 weeks or more.

Polypharmacy and the role of physical medicine and rehabilitation

Polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing practices lead to higher rates of mortality and morbidity, particularly in vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and those with complex medical conditions. Physical medicine and physiatrists face particular challenges given the array of symptoms treated across a spectrum of conditions. This clinical review focuses on polypharmacy and the associated issue of potentially inappropriate prescribing. The article begins with a review of polypharmacy along with relevant aspects of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the elderly. The adverse effects and potential hazards of selected medications commonly initiated and managed by rehabilitation specialists are then discussed with specific attention to pain medications, neurostimulants, antipsychotics, antidepressants, antispasmodics, sleep medications, and antiepileptics. Of particular concern is the notion that an adverse effect of one medication can mimic an indication for another and lead to a prescribing cascade and further adverse medication events. Appropriate prescribing practices mandate an accurate, current medication list, yet errors and inaccuracies often plague such lists. The evidence to support explicit (medications to avoid) and implicit (how to evaluate) criteria is presented along with the role of physicians and patients in prescribing medications. A brief discussion of "medication debridement" or de-prescribing strategies follows. In the last section, we draw on the essence of physiatry as a team-based endeavor to discuss the potential benefits of collaboration. In working to optimize medication prescribing, efforts should be made to collaborate not only with pharmacists and other medical specialties but with members of inpatient rehabilitation teams as well.

Association of antipsychotic polypharmacy with health service cost: a register-based cost analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia with cost of primary and secondary health service use.

METHOD

Comparative analysis of health service cost for patients prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy versus antipsychotic monotherapy. Resource utilisation and costs were described using central Danish registers for a 2 year period (2007-2008). We included patients attached to one of two Danish psychiatric referral centres in 1 January 2008 and/or 1 January 2009. Their prescribed treatment with either antipsychotic polypharmacy or monotherapy at the two cross-sectional dates was recorded and used as proxy of polypharmacy exposure during the preceding year. A multivariate generalised linear model was fitted with total costs of primary and secondary health service use as dependent variable, and antipsychotic polypharmacy, diagnosis, age, gender, disease duration, psychiatric inpatient admissions, and treatment site as covariates.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 736 outpatients with a diagnosis in the schizophrenia spectrum. Antipsychotic polypharmacy was associated with significantly higher total health service costs compared with monotherapy (2007: 25% higher costs; 2008: 17% higher costs) when adjusting for potential confounders and risk factors. A subgroup analysis suggested that the excessive costs associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy were partly accounted for by the functional level of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that antipsychotic co-prescribing is associated with increased use of health care services, even though no causal relations can be inferred from an observational study.

Prevalence and correlates of antipsychotic polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-regression of global and regional trends from the 1970s to 2009

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and correlates of antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) across decades and regions.

METHODS

Electronic PubMed/Google Scholar search for studies reporting on APP, published from 1970 to 05/2009. Median rates and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated and compared using non-parametric tests. Demographic and clinical variables were tested as correlates of APP in bivariate and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Across 147 studies (1,418,163 participants, 82.9% diagnosed with schizophrenia [IQR=42-100%]), the median APP rate was 19.6% (IQR=12.9-35.0%). Most common combinations included first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs)+second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) (42.4%, IQR=0.0-71.4%) followed by FGAs+FGAs (19.6%, IQR=0.0-100%) and SGAs+SGAs (1.8%, IQR=0.0-28%). APP rates were not different between decades (1970-1979:28.8%, IQR=7.5-44%; 1980-1989:17.6%, IQR=10.8-38.2; 1990-1999:22.0%, IQR=11-40; 2000-2009:19.2% IQR=14.4-29.9, p=0.78), but between regions, being higher in Asia and Europe than North America, and in Asia than Oceania (p<0.001). APP increased numerically by 34% in North America from the 1980s 12.7%) to 2000s (17.0%) (p=0.94) and decreased significantly by 65% from 1980 (55.5%) to 2000 (19.2%) in Asia (p=0.03), with non-significant changes in Europe. APP was associated with inpatient status (p<0.001), use of FGAs (p<0.0001) and anticholinergics (<0.001), schizophrenia (p=0.01), less antidepressant use (p=0.02), greater LAIs use (p=0.04), shorter follow-up (p=0.001) and cross-sectional vs. longitudinal study design (p=0.03). In a meta-regression, inpatient status (p<0.0001), FGA use (0.046), and schizophrenia diagnosis (p=0.004) independently predicted APP (N=66, R(2)=0.44, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

APP is common with different rates and time trends by region over the last four decades. APP is associated with greater anticholinergic requirement, shorter observation time, greater illness severity and lower antidepressant use.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in a regional health service: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

To analyse the extent and profile of outpatient regular dispensation of antipsychotics, both in combination and monotherapy, in the Barcelona Health Region (Spain), focusing on the use of clozapine and long-acting injections (LAI).

METHODS

Antipsychotic drugs dispensed for people older than 18 and processed by the Catalan Health Service during 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. First and second generation antipsychotic drugs (FGA and SGA) from the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification (ATC) code N05A (except lithium) were included. A patient selection algorithm was designed to identify prescriptions regularly dispensed. Variables included were age, gender, antipsychotic type, route of administration and number of packages dispensed.

RESULTS

A total of 117,811 patients were given any antipsychotic, of whom 71,004 regularly received such drugs. Among the latter, 9,855 (13.9%) corresponded to an antipsychotic combination, 47,386 (66.7%) to monotherapy and 13,763 (19.4%) to unspecified combinations. Of the patients given antipsychotics in association, 58% were men. Olanzapine (37.1%) and oral risperidone (36.4%) were the most common dispensations. Analysis of the patients dispensed two antipsychotics (57.8%) revealed 198 different combinations, the most frequent being the association of FGA and SGA (62.0%). Clozapine was dispensed to 2.3% of patients. Of those who were receiving antipsychotics in combination, 6.6% were given clozapine, being clozapine plus amisulpride the most frequent association (22.8%). A total of 3.800 patients (5.4%) were given LAI antipsychotics, and 2.662 of these (70.1%) were in combination. Risperidone was the most widely used LAI.

CONCLUSIONS

The scant evidence available regarding the efficacy of combining different antipsychotics contrasts with the high number and variety of combinations prescribed to outpatients, as well as with the limited use of clozapine.

Interactions and monitoring of antipsychotic drugs

As a consequence of individualized antipsychotic pharmacotherapy, many patients need more than a single drug, since they do not respond sufficiently to monotherapy. Other patients suffer from comorbid diseases and therefore require additional drugs from other pharmacological classes. Drug combinations, however, can give rise to pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions. Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interactions with antipsychotic drugs must consider substrate, inhibitor, and inducer properties for the cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes of all combined drugs. For consideration of pharmacodynamic interactions, special attention must be given to effects on dopamine D(2), histamine H(1), and acetylcholine M(1) receptors and on cardiac potassium channels. Additive pharmacological actions of combined drugs on these target structures can induce adverse reactions such as extrapyramidal symptoms, drowsiness, metabolic disturbances leading to weight gain and cardiac problems, cognitive impairment, delirium, or ventricular arrhythmia. Measuring plasma concentrations, i.e., therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), is valuable to adjust antipsychotic medication when drug combinations contain inhibitors or inducers that alter plasma concentrations of the antipsychotic drugs. Amalgamating the broad knowledge on drug-drug interactions and using appropriately the option to monitor plasma concentrations in blood will help to apply complex combination therapies with antipsychotic drugs with maximal efficiency and safety.

Prescription profiles for pharmacological treatment of Japanese inpatients with schizophrenia: comparison between 2007 and 2009

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pharmacological treatment of schizophrenic patients in Japan is characterized by polypharmacy with high doses of antipsychotics. In this study, we examined the profiles of antipsychotic drug therapy in 2007 and 2009 to determine if there have been any recent shifts in treatment strategy.

METHOD

The subjects were schizophrenic inpatients (ICD-10-F20) admitted to 100 hospitals in 2007 and 152 hospitals in 2009. Information on the psychotropic agents prescribed on specified days in November 2007 and 2009 was acquired for each patient.

RESULTS

Although no changes were observed in the rate of antipsychotic medications being prescribed, the rate of antipsychotic monotherapy in 2009 increased significantly. In 2007, among 15,761 patients, 4977 (31.6%) received antipsychotic monotherapy (i.e., administration of a single antipsychotic medication). In 2009, among 22,911 patients, 7741 (33.8%) received antipsychotic monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The rate of use of antipsychotic monotherapy has gradually increased, although the total dose has not changed significantly. The increase in the concomitant use of two or more second-generation antipsychotics is a recent trend in Japan, despite the lack of information on the efficacy and safety of this treatment strategy.

Herbal medicine for depression, anxiety and insomnia: a review of psychopharmacology and clinical evidence

Research in the area of herbal psychopharmacology has increased markedly over the past decades. To date however, a comprehensive review of herbal antidepressant, anxiolytic and hypnotic psychopharmacology and applications in depression, anxiety and insomnia has been absent. A search of MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted (up to February 21st 2011) on commonly used psychotropic herbal medicines. A review of the literature was conducted to ascertain mechanisms of action of these botanicals, in addition to a systematic review of controlled clinical trials for treatment of mood, anxiety and sleep disorders, which are common comorbid psychiatric disorders. Specific emphasis was given to emerging phytomedicines. Analysis of evidence levels was conducted, as were effect sizes (Cohen's d) where data were available. Results provided evidence of a range of neurochemical, endocrinological, and epigenetic effects for 21 individual phytomedicines, which are detailed in this paper. Sixty six controlled studies were located involving eleven phytomedicines. Several of these provide a high level of evidence, such as Hypericum perforatum for major depression, and Piper methysticum for anxiety disorders. Several human clinical trials provide preliminary positive evidence of antidepressant effects (Echium amoenum, Crocus sativus, and Rhodiola rosea) and anxiolytic activity (Matricaria recutita, Ginkgo biloba, Passiflora incanata, E. amoenum, and Scutellaria lateriflora). Caution should however be taken when interpreting the results as many studies have not been replicated. Several herbal medicines with in vitro and in vivo evidence are currently unexplored in human studies, and along with use of emerging genetic technologies "herbomics", are areas of potential future research.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy: a survey study of prescriber attitudes, knowledge and behavior

OBJECTIVE

Although common in psychiatric practice, reasons for antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) have remained unclear.

METHODS

Single-site, semi-structured interview study of prescribers at a psychiatric teaching hospital inquiring about APP attitudes and behaviors, including frequency, preferred combinations, rationale and concerns.

RESULTS

Forty-four prescribers reported using APP in 17.0 ± 10.0% of antipsychotic-treated patients. Although clinicians themselves initiated APP in only 23.3 ± 27.0% of cases, they did not attempt conversion to antipsychotic monotherapy in 40.9 ± 37.7%, despite reported successful conversion in 28.0 ± 30.8% of cases. The following reasons justified most APP (0-10): cross-titration (9.2 ± 1.4), failed clozapine trial (8.2 ± 2.2), randomized controlled evidence (8.0 ± 2.0), and clozapine intolerance (7.7 ± 2.6). Prescribers felt "moderately" (5.0 ± 1.9) concerned about APP (0-10), mostly due to chronic side effects (7.6 ± 2.0), lack of evidence (7.1 ± 2.2), non-adherence risk (6.7 ± 2.3) and mortality risk (6.7 ± 3.2), while increased cost (4.9 ± 2.5) and higher total antipsychotic dose (4.2 ± 2.9) ranked lowest. Comparing high with low APP prescribers (>10% vs. ≤ 10% of patients; mean: 36.1 ± 19.8 vs. 3.4 ± 3.4, p<0.0001), no differences emerged on 25/26 ratings regarding APP justification and 9/9 ratings regarding concerns. In a multivariate analyses, only attending status (OR=10.3, p=0.0043) and endorsing a specific APP preference (OR=21.4, p=0.011) predicted APP use >10% (r(2):0.35, p<0.0001), yet no uniformly preferred APP strategy emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

High APP prescribers had more clinical experience, less concerns about APP and more likely a preferred APP choice, although no overall preferred strategy emerged. Otherwise, high and low APP prescribers shared attitudes toward APP. Both had inherited most of their APP cases and were reluctant to convert patients to antipsychotic monotherapy.

Previous hospital admissions and disease severity predict the use of antipsychotic combination treatment in patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Although not recommended in treatment guidelines, previous studies have shown a frequent use of more than one antipsychotic agent among patients with schizophrenia. The main aims of the present study were to explore the antipsychotic treatment regimen among patients with schizophrenia in a catchment area-based sample and to investigate clinical characteristics associated with antipsychotic combination treatment.

METHODS

The study included 329 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia using antipsychotic medication. Patients were recruited from all psychiatric hospitals in Oslo. Diagnoses were obtained by use of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders (SCID-I). Additionally, Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and number of hospitalisations and pharmacological treatment were assessed.

RESULTS

Multiple hospital admissions, low GAF scores and high PANSS scores, were significantly associated with the prescription of combination treatment with two or more antipsychotics. The use of combination treatment increased significantly from the second hospital admission. Combination therapy was not significantly associated with age or gender. Regression models confirmed that an increasing number of hospital admission was the strongest predictor of the use of two or more antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous hospital admissions and disease severity measured by high PANSS scores and low GAF scores, predict the use of antipsychotic combination treatment in patients with schizophrenia. Future studies should further explore the use of antipsychotic drug treatment in clinical practice and partly based on such data establish more robust treatment guidelines for patients with persistently high symptom load.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia: benefits and risks

Antipsychotic polypharmacy refers to the co-prescription of more than one antipsychotic drug for an individual patient. Surveys of prescribing in psychiatric services internationally have identified the relatively frequent and consistent use of combined antipsychotics, usually for people with established schizophrenia, with a prevalence of up to 50% in some clinical settings. A common reason for prescribing more than one antipsychotic is to gain a greater or more rapid therapeutic response than has been achieved with antipsychotic monotherapy. However, the evidence on the risks and benefits for such a strategy is equivocal, and not generally considered adequate to warrant a recommendation for its use in routine clinical practice in psychiatry. Combined antipsychotics are a major contributor to high-dose prescribing, associated with an increased adverse effect burden, and of limited value in helping to establish the optimum maintenance regimen for a patient. The relatively widespread use of antipsychotic polypharmacy identified in cross-sectional surveys reflects not only the addition of a second antipsychotic to boost therapeutic response, but also the use of as-required antipsychotic medication (mainly to treat disturbed behaviour), gradual cross-titration while switching from one antipsychotic to another, and augmentation of clozapine with a second antipsychotic where the illness has failed to respond adequately to an optimized trial of clozapine. This review addresses the clinical trial data and other evidence for each of these pharmacological approaches. Also reviewed are examples of systematic, practice-based interventions designed to reduce the prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, most of which have met with only modest success. Guidelines generally agree that if combined antipsychotics are prescribed to treat refractory psychotic illness, this should be after other, evidence-based, pharmacological treatments such as clozapine have been exhausted. Further, their prescription for each patient should be in the context of an individual trial, with monitoring of the clinical response and adverse effects, and appropriate physical health monitoring.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

These guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from the participants and interested parties, and cover the pharmacological management and treatment of schizophrenia across the various stages of the illness, including first-episode, relapse prevention, and illness that has proved refractory to standard treatment. The practice recommendations presented are based on the available evidence to date, and seek to clarify which interventions are of proven benefit. It is hoped that the recommendations will help to inform clinical decision making for practitioners, and perhaps also serve as a source of information for patients and carers. They are accompanied by a more detailed qualitative review of the available evidence. The strength of supporting evidence for each recommendation is rated.

Trends in adult antipsychotic polypharmacy: progress and challenges in Florida's Medicaid program

We studied trends in antipsychotic polypharmacy over a 4 year period in order to see if a change occurred when a statewide quality improvement program aimed at reducing the practice was implemented. Antipsychotic polypharmacy prevalence rates were calculated for eight 6-month periods for enrollees with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder and for those with all other diagnoses. Prevalence increased from 1/2003 to 12/2004 and then declined for 4 successive 6 month periods beginning in the 1/2005-6/05 period when the program began. Piecewise linear regression results for both diagnostic groups confirmed that the change in the likelihood of antipsychotic polypharmacy during the four 6 month periods before program implementation were significantly different than during the four 6 month periods following implementation. While it is impossible to control for the effects of all variables in evaluating the impact of any system wide intervention the data suggest that the program did help to reduce the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to limit excessive antipsychotic co-prescribing in schizophrenia out-patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a multifaceted educational intervention on the frequency of antipsychotic co-prescribing in adult schizophrenia out-patients.

METHOD

Controlled quasi-experimental study performed in two Danish municipalities matched for baseline prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, socioeconomic status and functional level of patients. The intervention was aimed at psychiatric healthcare providers and consisted of 1 day of didactic lectures, six 3-h educational outreach visits and an electronic reminder during drug prescribing.

RESULTS

Between-group use of antipsychotic polypharmacy was compared at baseline (intervention group, N = 232/control group, N = 351) and after 1 year of intervention (intervention group, N = 216/control group, N = 386). The prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy at follow-up was not significantly different between treatment settings when adjusting for differences in case-mix (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

This multifaceted educational intervention failed to reduce the frequency of antipsychotic co-prescribing, but it suggested that future efforts to improve prescribing practice should address organizational barriers to implementation.

An expert panel assessment of comprehensive medication reviews for clients of community mental health teams

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated strategies to identify and resolve drug-related problems among clients of community mental health teams (CMHTs).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact and appropriateness of comprehensive medication reviews for clients of CMHTs.

METHODS

Trained pharmacists conducted interviews (30-45 min each) with clients of CMHTs to identify actual and potential drug-related problems. The pharmacists prepared medication review reports that detailed their findings and recommendations to optimize drug therapy. An expert panel comprising a psychiatrist, general medical practitioner, mental health pharmacist and medication review pharmacist evaluated reviews for 48 clients of 5 CMHTs. Panelists independently assessed review findings, review recommendations, likelihood of recommendation implementation and the overall expected clinical impact.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine medication review findings and 208 medication review recommendations were evaluated. Panelists agreed with 76% of findings and considered that 81% of recommendations were appropriate. Collectively, 69% of recommendations were considered likely to be implemented. Thirty-seven (77%) reviews were deemed potentially to have a positive clinical impact. The agreement between panelists was statistically significant (P < 0.01) for the assessment of the findings, recommendations and likelihood of recommendation implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists' findings and recommendations to optimize drug therapy were considered appropriate and likely to result in improved clinical outcomes. Comprehensive medication reviews may be a valuable strategy to identify and resolve drug-related problems among clients of CMHTs.

A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy-report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group

OBJECTIVE

Although regulatory authorities evaluate the risks and benefits of any new drug therapy during the new drug-approval process, quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) is not typically performed, nor is it presented in a consistent and integrated framework when it is used. Our purpose is to identify and describe published quantitative RBA methods for pharmaceuticals.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE and other Internet-based search engines, a systematic literature review was performed to identify quantitative methodologies for RBA. These distinct RBA approaches were summarized to highlight the implications of their differences for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies.

RESULTS

Theoretical models, parameters, and key features were reviewed and compared for the 12 quantitative RBA methods identified in the literature, including the Quantitative Framework for Risk and Benefit Assessment, benefit-less-risk analysis, the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm and their relative-value-adjusted versions, minimum clinical efficacy, incremental net health benefit, the risk-benefit plane (RBP), the probabilistic simulation method, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), the risk-benefit contour (RBC), and the stated preference method (SPM). Whereas some approaches (e.g., NNT) rely on subjective weighting schemes or nonstatistical assessments, other methods (e.g., RBP, MCDA, RBC, and SPM) assess joint distributions of benefit and risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Several quantitative RBA methods are available that could be used to help lessen concern over subjective drug assessments and to help guide authorities toward more objective and transparent decision-making. When evaluating a new drug therapy, we recommend the use of multiple RBA approaches across different therapeutic indications and treatment populations in order to bound the risk-benefit profile.

Determinants of antipsychotic medication use among older people living in aged care homes in Australia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate determinants of antipsychotic medication use among older people living in aged care homes in Australia.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of a random sample of de-identified medication reports using cross-sectional data gathered between 1 January 2008 and 30 June 2008 in Australia.

SUBJECTS

The mean (SD) age of the residents was 84.0 (9.0) years. Seventy-five per cent were females.

MEASURES

Resident demographics, clinical characteristics, medical diagnoses and prescribed medication were systematically recorded. Logistic regression (LR) models were used to determine predictors for any antipsychotic, atypical and conventional antipsychotic use.

RESULTS

Twenty-three per cent of the residents were prescribed one or more antipsychotics. In the LR model, factors for predicting the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for any antipsychotic medication use were agitation (7.11, 95% CI 3.15-16.03), challenging behaviours (7.47, 95% CI 2.53-22.10), dementia (2.35, 95% CI 1.36-4.06), dementia with mood disorder (0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.92), paranoia (6.70, 95% CI 1.08-41.55), psychosis (14.79, 95% CI 3.64-60.00) and any psychiatric diagnosis (3.30, 95% CI 1.82-6.00). Use of atypical antipsychotic medication was significant for agitation (4.58, 95% CI 2.05-10.23), aggression (2.25, 95% CI 1.05-4.78), challenging behaviours (8.01, 95% CI 2.76-23.24), dementia (3.64, 95% CI 1.99-6.67), dementia with mood disorder (0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.43), psychosis (16.51, 95% CI 4.28-63.66) and any psychiatric diagnosis (4.44, 95% CI 2.33-8.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric diagnosis, psychosis and dementia were associated with significantly greater odds for the use of antipsychotic medications. Older people suffering from dementia and comorbid mood disorders treated with antidepressants were less likely to be prescribed atypical antipsychotics.

Time to 'get real': preliminary insights into the long-term management of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

A brief file and medication chart review was undertaken to examine the 'real world' treatment of schizophrenia, with a particular focus on long-term treatment strategies that extend beyond existing evidence-based guidelines.

METHOD

Treatment strategies were identified through an audit of patient files and their medication charts for patients admitted 2-5 years in a non-acute psychiatric hospital.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine file reviews and 20 medication chart audits were conducted. High levels of diagnostic heterogeneity were identified with the presence of psychosis and mood-related diagnoses (primarily schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder) and high rates of comorbidity (86%). Functional impairment, poor insight and high levels of risk were present in most patients. Treatments largely consisted of combination strategies with 75% of patients prescribed two or more antipsychotics and an average of 3.4 psychotropic medications in total. While clozapine was commonly prescribed (65%), this was often in combination with, on average, two other psychotropic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the limited sample, these findings provide a valuable glimpse into the management strategies employed in the long-term management of schizophrenia. Evidence-based guidelines are largely of limited value for this cohort that often has complex presentations and further research is urgently needed to provide guidance into management strategies that extend beyond 5 years, with particular emphasis on the utility of medication combinations.

Changes in medication practices for hospitalized psychiatric patients: 2009 versus 2004

BACKGROUND

We tested the hypothesis that combinations and total daily doses of psychotropics for hospitalized patients diagnosed with major psychiatric disorders are rising.

METHODS

We evaluated McLean Hospital records of 481 consecutive inpatients with DSM-IV schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar disorders in 2004 (n = 278) or 2009 (n = 203) to compare characteristics and treatments.

RESULTS

In 2009, Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-severity scores were 6% lower at intake and improved 1.7 times more than in 2004, as hospitalization-length decreased by 12%. Polytherapy (> or = 2 psychotropics) increased in 2009 (affective or schizoaffective disorders > schizophrenia). Total psychotropics/patient (3.1-3.2) remained stable but mood-stabilizers/patient increased markedly and antipsychotics/patient decreased somewhat in 2009. Antipsychotic-choice (2009) ranked: quetiapine, aripiprazole, risperidone, and others; mood-stabilizers ranked: lamotrigine, valproate, lithium, and others (1/4 off-label). In 2009, final total antipsychotic doses (mg/day) increased by 97%, and mood-stabilizers by 75%. Adverse-effect rates fell by half. Factors differing independently for 2009 versus 2004 ranked: (a) more CGI improvement, (b) more mood-stabilizers/patient, (c) lower admission CGI scores, and (c) higher total antipsychotic dose.

COMMENT

Combinations and doses of antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing drugs for inpatients increased markedly (2004 vs. 2009) without consistent correspondence of agents/person and doses, without apparent increase in major adverse effects, and with possibly superior clinical improvement.

Metabolomics: a global biochemical approach to the study of central nervous system diseases

Metabolomics, the omics science of biochemistry, is a global approach to understanding regulation of metabolic pathways and metabolic networks of a biological system. Metabolomics complements data derived from genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics to assist in providing a systems approach to the study of human health and disease. In this review we focus on applications of metabolomics for the study of diseases of the nervous system. We share concepts in metabolomics, tools used in metabolic profiling and early findings from the study of neuropsychiatric diseases, and drugs used to treat these diseases. Metabolomics emerges as another powerful tool in central nervous system research.