How Psychotropic Polypharmacy in Schizophrenia Begins: A Longitudinal Perspective

[Anticholinergic scales: Use in psychiatry and update of the anticholinergic impregnation scale]

Anticholinergic properties are well known to prescribers, notably in mental health, as a therapeutic strategy for i.e. extrapyramidal syndrome but also as a source of numerous adverse side effects. Herein, we propose a narrative literature review describing: (i) cholinergic pharmacology and anticholinergic properties; (ii) the importance of anticholinergic therapeutic properties in psychiatry; (iii) the existing anticholinergic drug scales and their usage limitations in Psychiatry and; last (iv) an update to the anticholinergic drug impregnation scale, designed for the French psychiatry practice. The anticholinergic side effects can appear both in the peripheral level (dry mouth, constipation, etc.) and in the central level (especially as cognitive deficits). Many of the so called « anticholinergic » drugs are in fact entirely or mostly antimuscarinic and act essentially as parasympathetic system antagonists. Overall, anticholinergic/antimuscarinic side effects are usually attributed to psychotropic medications: to certain antipsychotics, notably classical neuroleptics such as phenothiazine and also to tricyclic antidepressants. In practice, the impact of anticholinergic toxicity treatments is often highlighted due to their excessively prolonged use in patients on antipsychotics. Interestingly, these antipsychotic treatments are better known for their anticholinergic side effects, especially cognitive ones, with an early onset specially in elder patients and/or in the case of polymedication. In order to evaluate anticholinergic side effects, metrics known as anticholinergic burden scales were created in the last few decades. Nowadays, 13 different scales are documented and accepted by the international academic community, but only three of them are commonly used: the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS), the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS) and the Anticholinergic Burden Scale (ACB). All of them are based on a similar principle, consisting of grading treatments individually, and they are normally scored from 0 - no presence of side effects - to 3 - anticholinergic effects considered to be strong or very strong. Using these scales enables the calculation of the so-called "anticholinergic burden", which corresponds to the cumulative effect of using multiple medications with anticholinergic properties simultaneously. The application of anticholinergic scales to patients with psychiatric disorders has revealed that schizophrenic patients seem to be especially sensitive to anticholinergic cognitive side effects, while elder and depressed patients were more likely to show symptoms of dementia when exposed to higher anticholinergic burden. Unfortunately, these tools appear to have a low parallel reliability, and so they might induce large differences when assessing side effects predictability. In addition, the capacity of these scales to predict central adverse effects is limited due to the fact they poorly or do not differentiate, the ability of treatments to cross the blood-brain barrier. Finally, one last limitation on the validity of these scales is prescription posology is not accounted for side effects considered to be dose dependent. Recently, the MARANTE (Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor ANTagonist Exposure) scale has incorporated an anticholinergic burden weighting by posology. Nevertheless, this new model can be criticized, due to the limited number of medications included and due to testing a limited number of potency ranges and dosages for each treatment. Herein, we propose an update to the Anticholinergic Impregnation Scale, developed specifically for the French Psychiatry practice. The scale validation was based on an evaluation of the prescriptions correcting anticholinergic peripheral side effects (constipation, xerostomia and xeropthalmia). This indirect evaluation allowed us to show patients with an anticholinergic impregnation score higher than 5 received significantly more treatments for constipation and xerostomia. This strategy bypasses the bias of a cognitive evaluation in patients with severe mental health disorders. Moreover, the relevance of a tool developed specifically for French psychiatry is justified by the fact that some highly prescribed treatments for mental illness in France (cyamemazine and tropatemine) are strong anticholinergics, and also by the fact they are rarely included in the existing anticholinergic scales. This update of the original scale, published in 2017, includes information whether prescribed drugs cross the blood-brain barrier and thus makes possible a more accurate assessment when evaluating anticholinergic central side effects. Finally, the anticholinergic impregnation scale will soon be integrated into a prescription help software, which is currently being developed to take into consideration dose dependent adverse effects.

Multi-trajectories of antidepressant and antipsychotic use: a 11-year naturalistic study in a community-based sample

OBJECTIVE

To explore the temporal dynamic of antidepressant and antipsychotic co-prescribing in real-life conditions.

METHODS

The study was performed using reimbursement data from the French Insurance Healthcare system in a cohort of 118 454 persons with at least one dispensing of antidepressants and/or antipsychotics over the period 2006-2016. Latent class analyses were used to identify homogeneous groups of persons following similar multi-trajectories of antidepressant and/or antipsychotic dispensing. Multivariate polynomial logistic regression models were used to explore the characteristics independently associated with distinct trajectories.

RESULTS

Five multi-trajectories of antidepressant and/or antipsychotic dispensing were identified: more than half of the sample (58%) had very low antidepressant and antipsychotic use; two groups had chronic (12%) or decreasing (11%) antidepressant use with very low antipsychotic use; two groups used both antidepressants and antipsychotics simultaneously either in an increasing (12%) or chronic (7%) way. Persons with chronic antidepressant-antipsychotic use presented with markers of poor social and mental health conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Most persons using antipsychotics over the follow-up also used antidepressants over the same period. The benefit/risk ratio of these prescribing practices should be further explored as the long-term efficacy of antidepressant-antipsychotic polypharmacy is poorly documented, while this combination increases the risk of adverse effects.

Polypharmacy and psychotropic drug loading in patients with schizophrenia in Asian countries: Fourth survey of Research on Asian Prescription Patterns on antipsychotics

AIM

The aim of the present study was to survey the prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy and combined medication use across 15 Asian countries and areas in 2016.

METHODS

By using the results from the fourth survey of Research on Asian Prescription Patterns on antipsychotics, the rates of polypharmacy and combined medication use in each country were analyzed. Daily medications prescribed for the treatment of inpatients or outpatients with schizophrenia, including antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antiparkinson agents, were collected. Fifteen countries from Asia participated in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 3744 patients' prescription forms were examined. The prescription patterns differed across these Asian countries, with the highest rate of polypharmacy noted in Vietnam (59.1%) and the lowest in Myanmar (22.0%). Furthermore, the combined use of other medications, expressed as highest and lowest rate, respectively, was as follows: mood stabilizers, China (35.0%) and Bangladesh (1.0%); antidepressants, South Korea (36.6%) and Bangladesh (0%); anxiolytics, Pakistan (55.7%) and Myanmar (8.5%); hypnotics, Japan (61.1%) and, equally, Myanmar (0%) and Sri Lanka (0%); and antiparkinson agents, Bangladesh (87.9%) and Vietnam (10.9%). The average psychotropic drug loading of all patients was 2.01 ± 1.64, with the highest and lowest loadings noted in Japan (4.13 ± 3.13) and Indonesia (1.16 ± 0.68), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Differences in psychiatrist training as well as the civil culture and health insurance system of each country may have contributed to the differences in these rates. The concept of drug loading can be applied to other medical fields.

Patients' Knowledge about Prescribed Antipsychotics and Medication Adherence in Schizophrenia: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Introduction Data on the knowledge about antipsychotic medications prescribed in patients with schizophrenia are very limited. Moreover, it remains unclear how patients' knowledge about prescribed antipsychotics affects medication adherence. Methods ighty-one Japanese outpatients with schizophrenia according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition, were included. Patients' knowledge of the primary antipsychotics prescribed to them in terms of therapeutic effects, type, and implicated neurotransmitters was assessed with a multiple-choice questionnaire developed for this study. Medication possession ratios (MPRs) were compared between patients who answered correctly and those who did not in each category. Results The percentages of subjects who answered correctly regarding antipsychotic effects, type, and implicated neurotransmitters were low at 30.9%, 30.9%, and 7.4%, respectively. No differences were found in MPRs between subjects who answered correctly and those who did not. Discussion Our preliminary results indicate that patients lack knowledge about their antipsychotic medications. More concerning, they suggest that knowledge about prescribed antipsychotics may not directly translate into actual medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia.

Assessment of the Latent Adverse Events of Antipsychotic Treatment Using a Subjective Questionnaire in Japanese Patients with Schizophrenia

Objective

The adverse effects of antipsychotic agents can have a marked influence on medication adherence. In this study, we investigated the adverse events of antipsychotics that are less likely to be reported by patients and the reasons why such symptoms remain latent.

Methods

Data were collected by interviewing patients using a subjective questionnaire, and the associations between unreported symptoms and background factors were investigated.

Results

A total of 306 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were examined. Their major symptoms were daytime sleepiness (50.0%), weight gain (42.2%), and sexual dysfunction (38.9%). Sexual dysfunction was nominal significantly more common among the patients that had been treated with antipsychotic agent polypharmacy (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 4.30), and was nominal significantly more common among outpatients (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.13). Only approximately 30% of the patients had reported their symptoms to their physicians.

Conclusion

Patients receiving antipsychotic treatment tolerate some symptoms and do not feel able to report them to their physicians. The most common reason for this is an insufficient patient-physician relationship. Sexual dysfunction is especially hard to identify because it is a delicate problem, and our findings demonstrate that subjective questionnaires are helpful for detecting such symptoms.

Re-examining the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepine prescribing for schizophrenia occurs in clinical practice and antipsychotic trials. This review examined the clinical outcomes for benzodiazepines in schizophrenia.

METHOD

A systematic search identified randomised controlled trials that evaluated benzodiazepines in comparison with placebo or antipsychotics, and also as adjuncts to antipsychotics. Relevant clinical outcome data was extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty six studies were included with some reporting multiple comparisons. Seven short-term studies compared benzodiazepines with placebo: benzodiazepine superiority was found in two out of five studies for global improvements and two out of four studies for psychiatric/behavioural outcomes. Eleven studies compared benzodiazepines with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs): four out of nine studies (including two long-term studies) reported greater global improvements for antipsychotics; four out of five studies showed no treatment differences for psychiatric/behavioural outcomes. Fourteen studies compared benzodiazepines (as adjunct to antipsychotics) vs antipsychotics alone (mostly FGAs); benzodiazepine superiority was found for global improvement in one out of eight studies and inferiority in two out of eight short-term studies whereas superiority was found for psychiatric/behavioural outcomes in three out of 12 short-term studies and inferiority in three out of 12 studies.

CONCLUSION

Benzodiazepine superiority over placebo was found for global, psychiatric and behavioural outcomes, but inferiority to antipsychotics on longer-term global outcomes. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the addition of benzodiazepines to antipsychotics; thus the use of benzodiazepines in clinical practice and antipsychotic trials should be limited.

Number needed to harm: its limitations in psychotropic drug safety research

Commonly used statistical measures to quantify the likelihood of an adverse drug event (ADE) from clinical trials include risk ratio; odds ratio; and number needed to harm (NNH), the reciprocal of absolute risk. This critical review focused on NNH, specifically on its limitations in controlled trials with psychotropic medication. Data for this evaluation were obtained primarily from articles in MEDLINE from 1988 to 2012. Limitations of NNH were found to include the following: a) arbitrary binary cutoffs for continuous measures, b) limited use of confidence intervals, c) limited adjustments for potential baseline confounders, d) limited adjustments for differences in dose and treatment duration, e) rare consideration of high attrition rates, f) variable use of the term harm, g) oversimplified single harm comparisons, h) frequent biased design and reporting, i) undue emphasis on less severe ADEs, j) application primarily to short-term clinical trials, and k) little or no generalizability in community practice. In sum, the NNH metric supplies very limited information on the risks of psychotropic medication. Postmarketing surveillance of community treatment populations using case-control methodology provides far more useful data on serious ADEs.