When Is Antipsychotic Polypharmacy Supported by Research Evidence? Implications for QI

Readmission Rates of Patients Discharged on Antipsychotic Polypharmacy Compared to Antipsychotic Monotherapy

Antipsychotic medications are used to treat many psychiatric conditions and are paramount for relapse prevention in patients with mental illnesses. Antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) is a commonly recommended approach, however there is no clear consensus on the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP). A single-center retrospective review was conducted comparing readmission rates of behavioral health patients discharged on APP or APM between August 1st 2019 and July 31st 2021. The primary outcome was the one-year psychiatric readmission rate. Secondary outcomes included further readmission time frame stratification, olanzapine equivalent doses, and use of anticholinergic medications. The total readmission rate was 24.5% (24/98) in the APP group compared to 19.1% (107/560) in the APM group (p = 0.22). Patients discharged on APM were not found to have a statistically significant increase in readmission rate compared to patients discharged on APP. Further research is needed to assess the risks and benefits of APP.

Polypharmacy in children and adolescents initiating antipsychotic drug in 2008-2016: a nationwide register study

OBJECTIVE

The use of antipsychotics in children and adolescents has increased rapidly. Little is known about psychotropic polypharmacy in children and adolescent initiating an antipsychotic drug. Thus, we investigated the frequency and predictors of polypharmacy during the first year of antipsychotic use in Finnish children and adolescents.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2016, 14 848 individuals aged 1-17 years initiating risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, or olanzapine treatment were identified from Finnish Prescription Registry. Data on psychotropic drug prescriptions prior to and during antipsychotic treatment were collected. Associations between predictors and polypharmacy were analyzed with regression models.

RESULTS

During the study period polypharmacy occurred in 44.9% of the new antipsychotic users, being more frequent in girls (55.5%) than in boys (44.5%, p < 0.001). The two most frequent concomitant psychotropic drug classes were antidepressants (66.2%) and psychostimulants/atomoxetine (30.8%). Adolescents aged 13-15 and 16-17 years, and girls showed an increased risk of polypharmacy during antipsychotic treatment (OR 2.37 [95% CI 1.91-2.92], OR 2.39 [95% CI 1.92-2.98], and OR 1.64 [95% CI 1.51-1.78], respectively). The use of psychostimulants/atomoxetine or antidepressants prior to initiation of antipsychotic treatment was strongly associated with polypharmacy during antipsychotic treatment (OR 8.39 [95% CI 7.49-9.41], OR 3.02 [95% CI 2.75-3.31]).

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy was common in children and adolescents initiating antipsychotic treatment. Prior use of psychostimulants/atomoxetine and antidepressants increased the risk of polypharmacy. The use of antipsychotics was mainly off-label, thus, the risks of concomitant use of antipsychotics with other psychotropic drugs should be carefully weighed.

Pharmacotherapy of Schizophrenia in Acute and Maintenance Phase

Schizophrenia is one of the leading disorders causing impairment in society. Therefore, it is crucial to review evidence-based treatment approaches which are both effective and causing minimum side effects. In this paper, treatment recommendations for first episode schizophrenia, patients in acute phase with a history of multiple episodes, and patients in the maintenance phase will be discussed in light of the Psychiatric Association of Turkey Guideline for Treatment of Schizophrenia, other recent national and international guidelines as well as expert consensus reports in the literature. Finally, practical considerations will be suggested.

Does antipsychotic combination therapy reduce the risk of hospitalization in schizophrenia?

INTRODUCTION

: Despite treatment with antipsychotic medication, approximately 1/3 of individuals with schizophrenia will fail to have an adequate response. To treat these patients, a commonly utilized approach is antipsychotic combination therapy. Antipsychotic combination therapy is controversial with mixed efficacy and tolerability results. It is also unclear if antipsychotic combination therapy reduces or increases the risk of psychiatric hospitalization.

AREAS COVERED

: The authors review the prevalence, efficacy and tolerability concerns, and rationale behind antipsychotic combination therapy. Evidence comparing antipsychotic monotherapy vs polypharmacy using hospitalization as an outcome measure is summarized.

EXPERT OPINION

: Psychiatric rehospitalization is a useful measure of treatment effectiveness, incorporating aspects of treatment efficacy and tolerability. The evidence comparing the impact of antipsychotic monotherapy vs combination therapy on rehospitalization is mixed. Evidence is primarily retrospective in nature, and there is high heterogeneity between studies, which could partially explain the mixed results. There is likely a subset of patients for whom antipsychotic combination therapy reduces the risk of hospitalization greater than antipsychotic monotherapy. Patients should be treated individually taking into account their specific pattern of response.

Multiple antipsychotics use in patients with schizophrenia: Why do we use it, what are the results from patient follow-ups?

In this study, the rates of antipsychotic polypharmacy, factors affecting combined drug use, the relationship between antipsychotic polypharmacy as it relates to duration of hospitalization and re-hospitalization, and treatment compliance were evaluated in schizophrenia patients. The study data was obtained between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 by examining the files of all patients who were hospitalized in Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine Hospital, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara Gulhane Training and Research Hospital psychiatric services. The inpatients' drug prescriptions at discharge and after one-year outpatient follow-up, as well as treatment compliance and re-hospitalization, were examined. The mean duration of illness was 109.3 ± 109.7 months, and the mean duration of hospitalization was 24.6 ± 19.1 days. For a total of 599 patients, multiple antipsychotic medication was used in 21.2% of hospitalizations. 11.2% of patients using single antipsychotic and 14.2% of patients using multiple antipsychotics were re-hospitalized within one year (X ² :0.830, p:0.362). Disease duration (Z:-3.654, p < 0.001) and duration of hospitalization (Z:-3.333, p < 0.001) were found to be longer in multiple antipsychotic users. 37.8% of the patients used a depot antipsychotic. There was no significant difference between depot antipsychotic use and oral antipsychotic use as it related re-hospitalization rates. As a conclusion, multiple antipsychotic use has reduced in Turkey. Contrary to popular belief, the use of multiple antipsychotics does not shorten, but rather may prolongs hospitalization, and it has no effect in reducing re-hospitalization. Drug combinations are generally used together with a depot treatment, clozapine treatment is preferred less frequently in combinations, clinicians have proven effectiveness of the drug combination they prefer, and they should give priority to the treatments recommended in treatment guidelines.

Changes in Prescription of Psychotropic Drugs After Introduction of Polypharmacy Reduction Policy in Japan Based on a Large-Scale Claims Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In Japan, polypharmacy reduction policy, which reduces the reimbursement of medical cost, was introduced to address unnecessary psychotropic polypharmacy. The rule was applied to the prescriptions of three or more anxiolytics or three or more hypnotics in the policy introduced in 2012. The prescriptions of four or more antidepressants or four or more antipsychotics were added to the rule in the policy revised in 2014. Furthermore, the prescriptions of three or more drugs of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, or antipsychotics were subject to the reduction criteria of the policy revision in 2016. Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZs) are classified both into anxiolytics and hypnotics, and the reduction rule was not applied to the category of BZs before April 2018. This study aimed to examine the effect of the policy on the prescriptions of four drug categories as well as BZs from the point of view of the number of drugs and doses.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study using a large-scale Japanese health insurance claims database. Patients who were prescribed at least one psychotropic drug (anxiolytic, hypnotic, antidepressant, or antipsychotic) during the study period (from April 2011 to March 2017) were selected. Segmented regression analysis was used to analyze the proportions of patients with three or more or four or more drugs as well as patients above clinically recommended doses, and the means of the average daily doses by drug category.

RESULTS

A total of 312,167 patients were identified as a study population. The proportions of patients with three or more drugs in anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, and antipsychotics significantly decreased after the introduction or revisions of the policy, but not BZs. The proportions of patients with three or more drugs in March 2017 were 0.9%, 2.0%, 1.2%, 2.4%, and 8.9% in anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and BZs, respectively. The effect of the policy in reducing the proportions of patients above clinically recommended doses was identified in antipsychotics after the revision in 2016, but not identified in the sum of anxiolytics and hypnotics as well as BZs after the revision in 2014, and antidepressants after the revision in 2016. The proportions of monotherapy were increased from April 2011 to March 2017 only for antidepressants (76.9% → 80.8%) and antipsychotics (79.8% → 82.1%), and not changed or decreased for anxiolytics (85.2% → 85.7%), hypnotics (78.6% → 77.6%), sum of anxiolytics and hypnotics (68.1% → 65.7%), BZs (68.0% → 67.3%), and sum of psychotropic drugs (52.1% → 49.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The polypharmacy reduction policy reduced the proportions of patients with three or more drugs in four drug categories, but not BZs. Only limited effects were seen for reducing the proportions of patients above clinically recommended doses. The policy was revised in April 2018 again. Further investigation is needed to examine the effect of the revision in 2018.

Psychotropic polypharmacy reconsidered: Between-class polypharmacy in the context of multimorbidity in the treatment of depressive disorders

OBJECTIVES

Both psychiatric polypharmacy and multimorbidity are common in depressed adults. We examine recent patterns of psychotropic polypharmacy with attention to concurrent multimorbidity in the treatment of depressive disorders in outpatient psychiatric care.

METHODS

Data from the 2006-2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey offer nationally representative samples of office-based psychiatric care in adults with depressive disorders (ICD-9-CM codes 296.20-296.26, 296.30-296.36, 300.4, 311, and 301.10-301.13) (n = 6,685 unweighted). These data allowed estimation of the prevalence of polypharmacy (within-class, between-class, and both) involving four major psychotropic classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood-stabilizers, and sedative-hypnotics. We further evaluated the proportion of within-class and between-class psychotropic prescription combinations that were potentially justifiable, taking FDA-approved indications and multimorbidity into consideration.

RESULTS

Prescribing two or more psychotropic medications for depressed adults remained substantial and stable ranging from 59.0% in 2006-2007 to 58.0% in 2014-2015. The most common within-class polypharmacy types were: antidepressants (22.7%) and sedative-hypnotics (14.8%). The most common between-class polypharmacy types were: an antidepressant and a sedative-hypnotic (30.7%), an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (16.4%), and an antipsychotic and a sedative-hypnotic (9.0%). In visits in which between-class psychotropics were prescribed, 53.9% were potentially justified by FDA-approved augmentation and/or adjunctive treatment strategies or by psychiatric multimorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Psychotropic polypharmacy affects more than half of depressed adults. Between-class polypharmacy is the most common pattern and in over 50% of instances may be justified by augmentation strategies or considerations of psychiatric multimorbidity. Future research is needed to address effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of polypharmaceutical care for depression, especially those occurring with psychiatric co-morbididities.

Is the risk of antipsychotic polypharmacy discontinuation dependent on the agents used?

This study assesses the risks and benefits of switching from two to one antipsychotic among participants on two non-clozapine oral antipsychotics, and among those on combinations involving either clozapine or an injectable antipsychotic. Ninety adult participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were assigned to stay on polypharmacy or to switch to monotherapy. Half of these participants were receiving combinations of non-clozapine oral antipsychotics and half were receiving combinations involving either clozapine or an injectable antipsychotic. Participants were assessed every 60 days for one year. We examined differences in symptom and side effect trajectories as a function of group assignment and time for both medication groups. Participants who switched from two to one non-clozapine oral antipsychotic experienced significant increases in symptoms relative to stay participants. They also saw significant side effect benefits. Switch participants on combinations involving clozapine or an injectable antipsychotic did not differ over time from stay participants on either symptom or side effect measures. It appears that patients on these combinations can be safely switched to monotherapy. While there may be symptom related risks associated with switching patients on combinations of non-clozapine oral antipsychotics, there are significant health related benefits. Clozapine or injectable antipsychotic monotherapy are recommended options.

Antipsychotic Medication Prescribing Practices Among Adult Patients Discharged From State Psychiatric Inpatient Hospitals

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to explore antipsychotic medication prescribing practices in a sample of 86,034 patients discharged from state psychiatric inpatient hospitals and to find the prevalence of patients discharged with no antipsychotic medications, on antipsychotic monotherapy, and on antipsychotic polypharmacy. For patients discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy, the study explored the adjusted rates of antipsychotic polypharmacy, the reasons patients were discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy, the proportion of antipsychotic polypharmacy by mental health disorder, and the characteristics associated with being discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed all discharges for adult patients (18 to 64 y of age) from state psychiatric inpatient hospitals between January 1 and December 31, 2011. The relationship among variables was explored using χ, t test, and analysis of variance. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of antipsychotic polypharmacy.

RESULTS

The prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy was 12%. Of the discharged patients receiving at least 1 antipsychotic medication (adjusted rate), 18% were on antipsychotic polypharmacy. The strongest predictors of antipsychotic polypharmacy being prescribed were having a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a length of stay of 90 days or more. Patients were prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy primarily to reduce their symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic polypharmacy continues at a high enough rate to affect nearly 10,000 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia each year in state psychiatric inpatient hospitals. Further analysis of the clinical presentation of these patients may highlight particular aspects of the illness and its previous treatment that are contributing to practices outside the best-practice guideline. An increased understanding of trend data, patient characteristics, and national benchmarks provides an opportunity for decision-making that is sensitive to the patient's needs and cognizant of the hospital's accomplishments in adopting best practices.

Trends in psychotropic polypharmacy among youths enrolled in Ohio Medicaid, 2002-2008

OBJECTIVE

This study examined polypharmacy patterns and rates over time among Medicaid-enrolled youths by comparing three enrollment groups (youths in foster care, with a disability, or from a family with low income).

METHODS

Serial cross-sectional trend analyses of Medicaid claims data were conducted for youths age 17 and younger who were continuously enrolled in Ohio Medicaid for a one-year period and prescribed one or more psychotropic medications during fiscal years 2002 (N=26,252) through 2008 (N=50,311). Outcome measures were any polypharmacy (three or more psychotropic medications from any drug class) and multiclass polypharmacy (three or more psychotropic medications from different drug classes).

RESULTS

Both types of polypharmacy increased across all three eligibility groups. Any polypharmacy increased from 8.8% to 11.5% for low-income youths (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.12, 99% confidence interval [CI]=1.10-1.13), from 18.0% to 24.9% for youths with a disability (AOR=1.11, CI=1.09-1.13), and from 19.8% to 27.3% for youths in foster care (AOR=1.09, CI=1.07-1.11). Combinations associated with positive increases were two or more antipsychotics, two or more stimulants, and antipsychotics with stimulants.

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy increased across all enrollment groups, with the highest absolute rates for youths in foster care. Both the overall prevalence and increases in prescriptions for drug combinations with limited evidence of safety and efficacy, such as the prescription of two or more antipsychotics, underscore the need for targeted quality improvement efforts. System oversight and monitoring of psychotropic medication use appears to be warranted, especially for higher-risk groups, such as youths in foster care and those from low-income households who were prescribed multiple antipsychotics.

Polypharmacy and bipolar disorder: what's personality got to do with it?

The majority of patients treated for bipolar disorder receive multiple psychotropic medications concurrently (polypharmacy), despite a lack of empirical evidence for any combination of three or more medications. Some patients benefit from the skillful management of a complex medication regimen, but iterative additions to a treatment regimen often do not lead to clinical improvement, are expensive, and can confound assessment of the underlying mood disorder. Given these potential problems of polypharmacy, this paper reviews the evidence supporting the use of multiple medications and seeks to identify patient personality traits that may put patients at a greater risk for ineffective complex chronic care. Patients with bipolar disorder (n = 89), ages 18 and older, were assessed on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), and completed a treatment history questionnaire to report psychotropic medication use. We found that patients with lower scores on openness had significantly more current psychotropic medications than patients with higher scores on openness (3.7 ± 1.9 vs. 2.8 ± 1.8, p < 0.05). Patients with the highest lifetime medication use had significantly lower extraversion (21.8 ± 8.9 vs. 25.4 ± 7.6, p < 0.05) and lower conscientiousness (21.9 ± 8.2 vs. 27.9 ± 8.2, p < 0.01) than those reporting lower lifetime medication use. Low levels of openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness may be associated with increased psychotropic medication use. Investigating the role of individual differences, such as patient personality traits, in moderating effective polypharmacy warrants future research.

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.

The impact of a change in prescribing policy on antipsychotic prescribing in a general adult psychiatric hospital

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of a change in local prescribing policy on the adherence to evidence-based prescribing guidelines for antipsychotic medication in a general adult psychiatric hospital.

METHODS

All adult in-patients had their clinical record and medication sheet reviewed. Antipsychotic prescribed, dose prescribed and documented indications for prescribing were recorded. This was done before and after the implementation of the change in hospital antipsychotic prescribing policy.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, sex, Mental Health Act status, psychiatric diagnosis or documented indications for prescribing multiple or high dose antipsychotics between the two groups. There was an increase in the preferential prescribing of multiple second-generation antipsychotics (p=0.01) in the context of a significant reduction in the prescribing of multiple antipsychotics overall (p=0.02). There were no significant reductions in prescribing of mixed generations of antipsychotics (p=0.12), high dose antipsychotics (p=1.00) or as required (PRN) antipsychotics (p=0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in local prescribing policy can improve adherence to quality prescribing guidelines and cause clinically significant improvements in patterns of prescribing in a general adult psychiatric hospital.

Polypharmacy with antipsychotic drugs in patients with schizophrenia: trends in multiple health care systems

PURPOSE

Patterns of pharmacologic treatment in U.S. outpatients with schizophrenia across multiple health care settings were investigated.

METHODS

Antipsychotic drug utilization by patients with schizophrenia and related disorders was analyzed using data on 119,662 patients served by the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system in fiscal years 2005-09, data on 5,440 enrollees in two health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in 2002-09, and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data reflecting the experience of 17.6 million U.S. residents seeking care outside federal systems during the same eight-year period. Polypharmacy was defined as the use of more than one antipsychotic agent during one year (in the VA sample) or one week (in the HMO and NAMCS samples). The association of polypharmacy with hospital admissions was assessed via multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Rates of antipsychotic use in the VA sample ranged from 74% to 78%, with lower and more variable rates in the NAMCS sample (69-84%) and the HMO sample (22-67%). VA patients were found to have lower polypharmacy rates (20-22%) than patients in the HMO and NAMCS samples (19-31%). In all samples evaluated, polypharmacy was associated with an increased likelihood of hospital admission (odds ratio range, 1.4-2.4).

CONCLUSION

A multisystem study revealed that antipsychotic use among patients with schizophrenia varied substantially among health care systems and that nearly one fifth of patients with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders in most of the health care systems experienced antipsychotic polypharmacy.

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.

Description of long-term polypharmacy among schizophrenia outpatients

OBJECTIVE

This large nationwide study describes the prevalence and predictors of long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy among patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

A register-based longitudinal study of all people in Finland, who had at least one hospitalization due to schizophrenia during the years 2000-2007 and who were alive on March 1, 2007. Entry to the cohort was defined from the first hospitalization for schizophrenia during the years 2000-2007, and the date of assessment of antipsychotic polypharmacy was March 1, 2007. We studied separately chronic (N = 8,037) and recent onset (N = 8,046) schizophrenia patients. Antipsychotic polypharmacy was defined as overlapping of two or more filled prescriptions of antipsychotics for over 60 days.

RESULTS

In a total 16,083 patients with schizophrenia the prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy was 46.2 % (N = 7,436, mean age 47.5 years, male 55 %). The longer the duration of schizophrenia, the more common the antipsychotic polypharmacy. Long index hospitalization and being male significantly associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy among all schizophrenia patients. Especially, in chronic schizophrenia patients, the previous use of benzodiazepine like agents was associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy, but the use of antidepressants associated with less frequent antipsychotic polypharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic polypharmacy was widely prevalent among patients with schizophrenia and it was associated with long hospitalizations and long duration of illness. Benzodiazepine use was associated with increased risk and antidepressant use with decreased risk of antipsychotic polypharmacy when the effect of other clinical and socioeconomic factors was adjusted. Research is needed of risks and benefits of antipsychotic polypharmacy and augmentation of antipsychotic with other psychoactive drugs.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy: a comprehensive evaluation of relevant correlates of a long-standing clinical practice

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) is common in the treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The literature indicates that APP is related to patient, illness, and treatment variables that are proxy measures for greater illness acuity, severity, complexity, and chronicity. The largely unknown relative risks and benefits of APP need to be weighed against the known risks and benefits of clozapine for treatment-resistant patients. To inform evidence-based clinical practice, controlled, high-quality antipsychotic combination and discontinuation trials are necessary to determine the effectiveness, safety, and role of APP in the management of severely ill patients with insufficient response to antipsychotic monotherapy.

Safety and tolerability of antipsychotic polypharmacy

INTRODUCTION

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP), the concomitant use of ≥ 2 antipsychotics, is common in clinical practice. Prior reviews have focused on the efficacy of APP, but no systematic review exists regarding the safety and tolerability of this practice.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review of adverse effects associated with APP was conducted to prepare this review; case series with ≥ 2 patients, chart reviews, naturalistic, database, cohort and randomized studies that reported on the association between APP in general or specific APP combinations and global or specific adverse effect were included. Methodological limitations of available studies are discussed and recommendations for clinicians and future research are provided.

EXPERT OPINION

Across mostly small and uncontrolled studies, APP has been associated with increased global side effect burden, rates of Parkinsonian side effects, anticholinergic use, hyperprolactinemia, sexual dysfunction, hypersalivation, sedation/somnolence, cognitive impairment and diabetes. Effects on akathisia and mortality were inconclusive. Although some combinations, particularly aripiprazole augmentation of an agent with greater side effect burden, may reduce weight gain, dyslipidemia, hyperprolactinemia and sexual dysfunction, APP should remain a last-resort treatment option after monotherapy, switching and non-antipsychotic combinations have failed. More data are needed to further inform the individualized risk-benefit evaluation of APP.

Antipsychotic treatment among youth in foster care

OBJECTIVE

Despite national concerns over high rates of antipsychotic medication use among youth in foster care, concomitant antipsychotic use has not been examined. In this study, concomitant antipsychotic use among Medicaid-enrolled youth in foster care was compared with disabled or low-income Medicaid-enrolled youth.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The sample included 16 969 youths younger than 20 years who were continuously enrolled in a Mid-Atlantic state Medicaid program and had ≥1 claim with a psychiatric diagnosis and ≥1 antipsychotic claim in 2003. Antipsychotic treatment was characterized by days of any use and concomitant use with ≥2 overlapping antipsychotics for >30 days. Medicaid program categories were foster care, disabled (Supplemental Security Income), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Multicategory involvement for youths in foster care was classified as foster care/Supplemental Security Income, foster care/TANF, and foster care/adoption. We used multivariate analyses, adjusting for demographics, psychiatric comorbidities, and other psychotropic use, to assess associations between Medicaid program category and concomitant antipsychotic use.

RESULTS

Average antipsychotic use ranged from 222 ± 110 days in foster care to only 135 ± 101 days in TANF (P < .001). Concomitant use for ≥180 days was 19% in foster care only and 24% in foster care/adoption compared with <15% in the other categories. Conduct disorder and antidepressant or mood-stabilizer use was associated with a higher likelihood of concomitant antipsychotic use (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional study is needed to assess the clinical rationale, safety, and outcomes of concomitant antipsychotic use and to inform statewide policies for monitoring and oversight of antipsychotic use among youths in the foster care system.

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.

Polypharmacy or medication washout: an old tool revisited

There has been a rapid increase in the use of polypharmacy in psychiatry possibly due to the introduction of newer drugs, greater availability of these newer drugs, excessive confidence in clinical trial results, widespread prescribing of psychotropic medications by primary care, and pressure to augment with additional medications for unresolved side effects or greater efficacy. Even the new generation of medications may not hold significant advantages over older drugs. In fact, there may be additional safety risks with polypharmacy being so widespread. Washout, as a clinical tool, is rarely done in medication management today. Studies have shown that augmenting therapy with additional medications resulted in 9.1%-34.1% dropouts due to intolerance of the augmentation, whereas studies of medication washout demonstrated only 5.9%-7.8% intolerance to the washout procedure. These perils justify reconsideration of medication washout before deciding on augmentation. There are unwarranted fears and resistance in the medical community toward medication washout, especially at the moment a physician is trying to decide whether to washout or add more medications to the treatment regimen. However, medication washout provides unique benefits to the physician: it establishes a new baseline of the disorder, helps identify medication efficacy from their adverse effects, and provides clarity of diagnosis and potential reduction of drug treatments, drug interactions, and costs. It may also reduce overall adverse events, not to mention a potential to reduce liability. After washout, physicians may be able to select the appropriate polypharmacy more effectively and safely, if necessary. Washout, while not for every patient, may be an effective tool for physicians who need to decide on whether to add potentially risky polypharmacy for a given patient. The risks of washout may, in some cases, be lower and the benefits may be clearly helpful for diagnosis, understanding medication effects, the doctor/patient relationship, and safer use of polypharmacy if indicated.

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.

National trends in child and adolescent psychotropic polypharmacy in office-based practice, 1996-2007

OBJECTIVE

To examine patterns and recent trends in multiclass psychotropic treatment among youth visits to office-based physicians in the United States.

METHOD

Annual data from the 1996-2007 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys were analyzed to examine patterns and trends in multiclass psychotropic treatment within a nationally representative sample of 3,466 child and adolescent visits to office-based physicians in which a psychotropic medication was prescribed.

RESULTS

There was an increase in the percentage of child visits in which psychotropic medications were prescribed that included at least two psychotropic classes. Across the 12 year period, multiclass psychotropic treatment rose from 14.3% of child psychotropic visits (1996-1999) to 20.2% (2004-2007) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-2.94, p < .01). Among medical visits in which a current mental disorder was diagnosed, the percentage with multiclass psychotropic treatment increased from 22.2% (1996-1999) to 32.2% (2004-2007) (AOR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.42-3.52, p < .001). Over time, there were significant increases in multiclass psychotropic visits in which ADHD medications, antidepressants, or antipsychotics were prescribed, and a decrease in those visits in which mood stabilizers were prescribed. There were also specific increases in co-prescription of ADHD medications and antipsychotic medications (AOR = 6.22, 95% CI = 2.82-13.70, p < .001) and co-prescription of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications (AOR = 5.77, 95% CI = 2.88-11.60, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although little is known about the safety and efficacy of regimens that involve concomitant use of two or more psychotropic agents for children and adolescents, multiclass psychotropic pharmacy is becoming increasingly common in outpatient practice.

The combined use of risperidone long-acting injection and clozapine in patients with schizophrenia non-adherent to clozapine: a case series

Poor adherence to clozapine treatment represents an important problem in clinical practice because additional useful treatment options are unavailable. Although switching to risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) has been recommended for those with compliance problems, this medication has been found to be less suitable for patients who previously received clozapine. Based on the suggested beneficial effects of RLAI, such as higher rates of treatment continuation and patient satisfaction, and the possible effectiveness of oral risperidone augmentation, it seems worthwhile to try RLAI augmentation for clozapine non-adherence. In this article, we present the cases of four patients with schizophrenia undergoing combined treatment with RLAI and clozapine for more than one year after multiple relapses related to clozapine non-adherence. Durations and frequencies of hospitalizations markedly declined after RLAI augmentation. Indeed, three patients receiving RLAI and clozapine for 1.2-3.5 years were never hospitalized during this period. The lengths of hospitalizations before and after augmenting with RLAI were 54.7 +/- 33.1 and 4.2 +/- 4.2 days/year, respectively. Participants also showed great improvements in social skills. These findings suggest the possible beneficial effects of RLAI augmentation in cases of clozapine nonadherence. However, controlled clinical trials are necessary to confirm whether RLAI augmentation represents a useful treatment option for patients who have not adhered to clozapine treatment.

Quality assurance in psychiatry: quality indicators and guideline implementation

In many occasions, routine mental health care does not correspond to the standards that the medical profession itself puts forward. Hope exists to improve the outcome of severe mental illness by improving the quality of mental health care and by implementing evidence-based consensus guidelines. Adherence to guideline recommendations should reduce costly complications and unnecessary procedures. To measure the quality of mental health care and disease outcome reliably and validly, quality indicators have to be available. These indicators of process and outcome quality should be easily measurable with routine data, should have a strong evidence base, and should be able to describe quality aspects across all sectors over the whole disease course. Measurement-based quality improvement will not be successful when it results in overwhelming documentation reducing the time for clinicians for active treatment interventions. To overcome difficulties in the implementation guidelines and to reduce guideline non-adherence, guideline implementation and quality assurance should be embedded in a complex programme consisting of multifaceted interventions using specific psychological methods for implementation, consultation by experts, and reimbursement of documentation efforts. There are a number of challenges to select appropriate quality indicators in order to allow a fair comparison across different approaches of care. Carefully used, the use of quality indicators and improved guideline adherence can address suboptimal clinical outcomes, reduce practice variations, and narrow the gap between optimal and routine care.