Long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy prescribing in secondary mental health care and the risk of mortality

Proarrhythmic drugs, drug levels, and polypharmacy in victims of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome: An autopsy-based study from Denmark

BACKGROUND

Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome (SADS), characterized by an unknown or inconclusive cause of death at autopsy together with a negative or nonlethal toxicology screening result, is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in victims younger than 35 years. The complete causality of SADS remains unclear, with drugs being a potential risk factor.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the toxicologic profiles of SADS victims, focusing on proarrhythmic drugs, drug levels, and polypharmacy.

METHODS

All deaths in Denmark of those aged 1-35 years in 2000-2019 and 36-49 years in 2007-2019 were examined through death certificates, national registries, and autopsy reports with toxicology screenings. We investigated all sudden unexpected death victims with an autopsy performed, including negative or nonlethal drug findings, where cause of death was unknown or inconclusive (SADS).

RESULTS

We identified 477 SADS victims; 313 (66%) had a positive toxicology screening result (adjudicated nonlethal), with an average of 2.8 drugs per case. More than half of the SADS victims with a positive toxicology screening result had QT-prolonging or brugadogenic drugs present. Polypharmacy was present in 66%, psychotropic polypharmacy in 37%, and QT-prolonging polypharmacy in 22%, with the most frequent overall and QT-prolonging drug combination being an antipsychotic and a psychoanaleptic drug. QT-prolonging drugs were more often present at suprapharmacologic levels than non-QT-prolonging drugs.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the SADS population had a positive toxicology screening result, with a notably large proportion having proarrhythmic drugs and polypharmacy. This highlights the need for future focus on drugs as a risk factor for SADS.

Distributions of recorded pain in mental health records: a natural language processing based study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine demographic and diagnostic distributions of physical pain recorded in clinical notes of a mental health electronic health records database by using natural language processing and examine the overlap in recorded physical pain between primary and secondary care.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The data were extracted from an anonymised version of the electronic health records of a large secondary mental healthcare provider serving a catchment of 1.3 million residents in south London. These included patients under active referral, aged 18+ at the index date of 1 July 2018 and having at least one clinical document (≥30 characters) between 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2019. This cohort was compared with linked primary care records from one of the four local government areas.

OUTCOME

The primary outcome of interest was the presence of recorded physical pain within the clinical notes of the patients, not including psychological or metaphorical pain.

RESULTS

A total of 27 211 patients were retrieved. Of these, 52% (14,202) had narrative text containing relevant mentions of physical pain. Older patients (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.19), females (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.49), Asians (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.45) or black (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.59) ethnicities, living in deprived neighbourhoods (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.73) showed higher odds of recorded pain. Patients with severe mental illnesses were found to be less likely to report pain (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.46, p<0.001). 17% of the cohort from secondary care also had records from primary care.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study show sociodemographic and diagnostic differences in recorded pain. Specifically, lower documentation across certain groups indicates the need for better screening protocols and training on recognising varied pain presentations. Additionally, targeting improved detection of pain for minority and disadvantaged groups by care providers can promote health equity.

Serious adverse drug events associated with psychotropic treatment of bipolar or schizoaffective disorder: a 17-year follow-up on the LiSIE retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Mood stabilisers and other psychotropic drugs can lead to serious adverse drug events (ADEs). However, the incidence remains unknown. We aimed to (a) determine the incidence of serious ADEs in patients with bipolar or schizoaffective disorders, (b) explore the role of lithium exposure, and (c) describe the aetiology.

Methods

This study is part of the LiSIE (Lithium-Study into Effects and Side Effects) retrospective cohort study. Between 2001 and 2017, patients in the Swedish region of Norrbotten, with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizoaffective disorder, were screened for serious ADEs to psychotropic drugs, having resulted in critical, post-anaesthesia, or intensive care. We determined the incidence rate of serious ADEs/1,000 person-years (PY).

Results

In 1,521 patients, we identified 41 serious ADEs, yielding an incidence rate of 1.9 events per 1,000 PY. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) between ADEs with lithium present and causally implicated and ADEs without lithium exposure was significant at 2.59 (95% CI 1.20-5.51; p = 0.0094). The IRR of ADEs in patients <65 and ≥65 years was significant at 3.36 (95% CI 1.63-6.63; p = 0.0007). The most common ADEs were chronic lithium intoxication, oversedation, and cardiac/blood pressure-related events.

Discussion

Serious ADEs related to treatment of bipolar (BD) or schizoaffective disorder (SZD) were uncommon but not rare. Older individuals were particularly at risk. The risk was higher in individuals exposed to lithium. Serum lithium concentration should always be checked when patients present with new or unclear somatic symptoms. However, severe ADEs also occurred with other mood stabilisers and other psychotropic drugs.

Association of Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Two-Year All-Cause Mortality: A Population-Based Cohort Study of 33,221 Italian Continuous Users

Background: Differences in survival between patients treated with antipsychotic monotherapy vs. polytherapy are debated. This study aimed to examine the association of antipsychotic polytherapy with 2-year all-cause mortality in a population-based cohort. Methods: Data were retrieved from healthcare databases of four local health units of Lombardy, Italy. Subjects aged 18-79 years who received continuous antipsychotic prescriptions in 2018 were identified. Overall survival among patients with antipsychotic monotherapy vs. polytherapy was compared. A multivariate Cox PH model was used to estimate the association between antipsychotic therapy, or antipsychotic use (continuous vs. non-continuous), and all-cause mortality. Adjustments were made for the presence of metabolic disturbances, total antipsychotic dosage amount (olanzapine equivalent doses), age, and sex. Results: A total of 49,875 subjects receiving at least one prescription of antipsychotics during 2018 were identified. Among the 33,221 patients receiving continuative antipsychotic prescriptions, 1958 (5.9%) experienced death from any cause at two years. Patients with continuous antipsychotic use had a 1.13-point increased mortality risk compared with non-continuous users. Patients treated with antipsychotic polytherapy showed an adjusted mortality risk increased by 17% (95% CI: 2%, 33%) compared to monotherapy. Conclusions: The study highlights the potential risks associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy, emphasizing the importance of optimizing drug prescriptions to improve patient safety and reduce mortality rates in individuals receiving antipsychotic therapy.

Mental Health Polypharmacy in "Non-Coded" Primary Care Patients: The Effect of Deprescribing

Background: Mental health (MH) polypharmacy, defined as prescribing multiple mental health medications for the same condition, presents significant challenges in clinical practice. With varying prevalence rates and an increasing trend, particularly in the UK, this deprescribing prospective quality improvement project aimed to address the complexities and risks associated with MH polypharmacy. Patients and Methods: A large primary care centre in London was selected for this project. Electronic records of 667 patients (non-coded in mental health lists) were analysed as a result of the absence of a Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) for mental health. Seventy-two non-coded patients exhibiting "same-class" as well as "adjunctive" and "augmentation" polypharmacy were identified. Their demographic and health data, including MH diagnoses, physical status, and lifestyle habits, were evaluated. This deprescribing prospective project included 68 patients and employed a model inspired by the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, focusing on reducing psychotropic, adjunctive, and augmentative medications while monitoring mental health control through face-to-face consultations using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) scores, alongside physical health parameters. Results: The project revealed a significant decrease in the average number of psychotropic and adjunct medications from initial consultations to the end of the 18-month period. Additionally, a marked reduction in reported side effects and drug interactions was observed. Improvements in mental health control, as evidenced by PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, were noted. Physical health parameters, including BMI, blood pressure, heart rate, HbA1c, and cholesterol levels, also showed significant improvements. Educational initiatives for patients and clinicians were successfully implemented, contributing to these positive outcomes. Discussion: The project faced challenges like balancing medication reduction with mental health stability, patient apprehension, and the absence of standardised protocols. However, the successful reduction in medication numbers and the improvement in health outcomes highlight the effectiveness of the model. This project underscores the necessity of a tailored approach to MH polypharmacy, emphasising continuous education, clinical titration, and adherence to guidelines. Future research is needed to develop clear guidelines for medication combination in mental health care and to understand the long-term effects of polypharmacy in mental health populations. Conclusions: This project demonstrates the potential for significant improvements in the management of MH polypharmacy. By carefully managing medication reductions and employing a comprehensive care approach, including patient education and clinician training, the project achieved improvements in both mental and physical health outcomes. These findings suggest a promising direction for future practices in MH polypharmacy management.

Clozapine augmentation with long-acting antipsychotic injections: A case series and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of patients with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant psychosis remain symptomatic despite an optimal trial with the gold standard treatment, clozapine. Emerging evidence suggests the clinical utility of long-acting injections (LAI) in such clinical scenarios. In this study, we aimed to describe clozapine augmentation with LAIs in an inner London hospital and explore the literature on the clinical effectiveness of this treatment modality.

METHODS

Patients prescribed clozapine, who were commenced on a LAI between 2007 and 2023 by the United Kingdom's largest mental health trust, were identified from electronic patient records. First, routine clinical data were used to describe the use, effectiveness, and safety of this augmentation strategy. Second, we conducted a literature search up to 1st June 2023 to identify published studies describing clinical outcomes after clozapine augmentation with a LAI. Clinical outcomes were collated and presented in a table, including hospitalisation rates and quantitative clinical assessments using validated scales.

RESULTS

Of the 1248 patients prescribed clozapine in SLaM, three patients (0.2%) received augmentation with the following LAIs: olanzapine embonate, paliperidone palmitate and pipotiazine palmitate. This treatment strategy was clinically effective and generally well tolerated in all three cases. Twelve published studies between 2010 and 2022 were included in the review. Eight distinct LAIs were reported (4 first and 4 second generation antipsychotics), with risperidone and paliperidone most widely studied. All the identified studies were observational including mirror-image studies, case series and case reports. Duration of follow up varied from 3 months to 3 years. There was evidence that the use of LAIs with clozapine can significantly reduce clinical symptoms, hospitalisation rates and bed days. No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary evidence suggests clinical utility of LAIs in alleviating residual symptoms and subsequently reducing hospitalisation rates in patients optimised on clozapine treatment. The current study warrants further investigations including a randomised controlled study to establish the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and place in therapy of this treatment modality.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy and adverse drug reactions among adults in a London mental health service, 2008-2018

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) occurs commonly but it is unclear whether it is associated with an increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Electronic health records (EHRs) offer an opportunity to examine APP using real-world data. In this study, we use EHR data to identify periods when patients were prescribed 2 + antipsychotics and compare these with periods of antipsychotic monotherapy. To determine the relationship between APP and subsequent instances of ADRs: QT interval prolongation, hyperprolactinaemia, and increased body weight [body mass index (BMI) ⩾ 25].

METHODS

We extracted anonymised EHR data. Patients aged 16 + receiving antipsychotic medication at Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018 were included. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to elucidate the relationship between APP and the subsequent presence of QT interval prolongation, hyperprolactinaemia, and/or increased BMI following a period of APP within 7, 30, or 180 days respectively.

RESULTS

We identified 35 409 observations of antipsychotic prescribing among 13 391 patients. Compared with antipsychotic monotherapy, APP was associated with a subsequent increased risk of hyperprolactinaemia (adjusted odds ratio 2.46; 95% CI 1.87-3.24) and of registering a BMI > 25 (adjusted odds ratio 1.75; 95% CI 1.33-2.31) in the period following the APP prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observations suggest that APP should be carefully managed with attention to hyperprolactinaemia and obesity.

Comparison of antipsychotic dose equivalents for acute bipolar mania and schizophrenia

QUESTION

Are antipsychotic dose equivalents between acute mania and schizophrenia the same?

STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six databases were systematically searched (from inception to 17 September 2022) to identify blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used a flexible-dose oral antipsychotic drug for patients with acute mania. The mean and SD of the effective dose and the pre-post changes in manic symptoms were extracted. A network meta-analysis (NMA) under a frequentist framework was performed to examine the comparative efficacy between the antipsychotics. A classic mean dose method (sample size weighted) was used to calculate each antipsychotic dose equivalent to 1 mg/day olanzapine for acute mania. The antipsychotic dose equivalents of acute mania were compared with published data for schizophrenia.

FINDINGS

We included 42 RCTs which enrolled 11 396 participants with acute mania. The NMA showed that risperidone was superior to olanzapine (reported standardised mean difference: -022, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.02), while brexpiprazole was inferior to olanzapine (standardised mean difference: 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.64). The dose equivalents to olanzapine (with SD) were 0.68 (0.23) for haloperidol, 0.32 (0.07) for risperidone, 0.60 (0.11) for paliperidone, 8.00 (1.41) for ziprasidone, 41.46 (5.98) for quetiapine, 1.65 (0.32) for aripiprazole, 1.23 (0.20) for asenapine, 0.53 (0.14) for cariprazine and 0.22 (0.03) for brexpiprazole. Compared with the olanzapine dose equivalents for schizophrenia, those of acute mania were higher for quetiapine (p<0.001, 28.5%) and aripiprazole (p<0.001, 17.0%), but lower for haloperidol (p<0.001, -8.1%) and risperidone (p<0.001, -15.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic drugs have been considered first-line treatment for acute mania, warranting specific dose equivalence for scientific and clinical purposes.

Long-term effects of antipsychotics on mortality in patients with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To gather current evidence on the impact of antipsychotics on long-term mortality in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We systematically searched for articles in Embase, PubMed, and PsycINFO reporting the long-term mortality (follow-up > 1 year) of patients with schizophrenia who were using any antipsychotics. We then conducted multiple meta-analyses to determine differences in long-term mortality between different types of antipsychotics.

RESULTS

We identified 45 articles that provided unadjusted long-term mortality rates, including 46,171 deaths during 2,394,911 person-years. The pooled mortality rate was 9.9 (95%CI = 7.4-12.7) per 1,000 person-years. The unadjusted crude mortality rate of antipsychotic drug users was lower than that of non-users (risk ratio [RR] = 0.546, 95%CI = 0.480-0.621), first-generation antipsychotics caused higher all-cause mortality than second-generation antipsychotics (RR = 1.485, 95%CI = 1.361-1.620), and polypharmacy had better effects than monotherapy on long-term mortality (RR = 0.796, 95%CI = 0.689-0.921). As for the causes of death, heart disease and cardiovascular disease ranked highest among cause-specific mortality (5.6 per 1,000 person-years).

CONCLUSION

Since antipsychotics had a beneficial effect on long-term mortality in schizophrenia, greater precaution should be taken with patients who do not take them. However, since disease severity, comorbidities, and other confounding factors cannot be fully controlled, further research and verification are needed.

Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

Introduction

Polypharmacy is commonly associated with adverse health outcomes. There are currently no meta-analyses of the prevalence of polypharmacy or factors associated with polypharmacy. We aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies with no restrictions on date. We included observational studies that reported on the prevalence of polypharmacy among individuals over age 19. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics including polypharmacy definitions, study design, setting, geography, and participant demographics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. The main outcome was the prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy prevalence. The pooled prevalence estimates of polypharmacy with 95% confidence intervals were determined using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to evaluate factors associated with polypharmacy such as polypharmacy definitions, study setting, study design and geography. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the associations between polypharmacy prevalence and study year.

Results

106 full-text articles were identified. The pooled estimated prevalence of polypharmacy in the 54 studies reporting on polypharmacy in all medication classes was 37% (95% CI: 31-43%). Differences in polypharmacy prevalence were reported for studies using different numerical thresholds, study setting, and publication year. Sex, study geography, study design and geographical location were not associated with differences in polypharmacy prevalence.

Discussion

Our review highlights that polypharmacy is common particularly among older adults and those in inpatient settings. Clinicians should be aware of populations who have an increased likelihood of experiencing polypharmacy and efforts should be made to review the appropriateness of prescribed medications and occurrence of adverse effects potentially associated with polypharmacy.

Conclusions and implications

Clinicians should be aware of the common occurrence of polypharmacy and undertake efforts to minimize inappropriate polypharmacy whenever possible.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03279-x.

Mortality in people with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of relative risk and aggravating or attenuating factors

People with schizophrenia die 15-20 years prematurely. Understanding mortality risk and aggravating/attenuating factors is essential to reduce this gap. We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective, nationwide and targeted cohort studies assessing mortality risk in people with schizophrenia versus the general population or groups matched for physical comorbidities or groups with different psychiatric disorders, also assessing moderators. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality risk ratio (RR); key secondary outcomes were mortality due to suicide and natural causes. Other secondary outcomes included any other specific-cause mortality. Publication bias, subgroup and meta-regression analyses, and quality assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were conducted. Across 135 studies spanning from 1957 to 2021 (schizophrenia: N=4,536,447; general population controls: N=1,115,600,059; other psychiatric illness controls: N=3,827,955), all-cause mortality was increased in people with schizophrenia versus any non-schizophrenia control group (RR=2.52, 95% CI: 2.38-2.68, n=79), with the largest risk in first-episode (RR=7.43, 95% CI: 4.02-13.75, n=2) and incident (i.e., earlier-phase) schizophrenia (RR=3.52, 95% CI: 3.09-4.00, n=7) versus the general population. Specific-cause mortality was highest for suicide or injury-poisoning or undetermined non-natural cause (RR=9.76-8.42), followed by pneumonia among natural causes (RR=7.00, 95% CI: 6.79-7.23), decreasing through infectious or endocrine or respiratory or urogenital or diabetes causes (RR=3 to 4), to alcohol or gastrointestinal or renal or nervous system or cardio-cerebrovascular or all natural causes (RR=2 to 3), and liver or cerebrovascular, or breast or colon or pancreas or any cancer causes (RR=1.33 to 1.96). All-cause mortality increased slightly but significantly with median study year (beta=0.0009, 95% CI: 0.001-0.02, p=0.02). Individuals with schizophrenia <40 years of age had increased all-cause and suicide-related mortality compared to those ≥40 years old, and a higher percentage of females increased suicide-related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia samples. All-cause mortality was higher in incident than prevalent schizophrenia (RR=3.52 vs. 2.86, p=0.009). Comorbid substance use disorder increased all-cause mortality (RR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.47-1.80, n=3). Antipsychotics were protective against all-cause mortality versus no antipsychotic use (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.84, n=11), with largest effects for second-generation long-acting injectable anti-psychotics (SGA-LAIs) (RR=0.39, 95% CI: 0.27-0.56, n=3), clozapine (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.34-0.55, n=3), any LAI (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.39-0.58, n=2), and any SGA (RR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63, n=4). Antipsychotics were also protective against natural cause-related mortality, yet first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) were associated with increased mortality due to suicide and natural cause in incident schizophrenia. Higher study quality and number of variables used to adjust the analyses moderated larger natural-cause mortality risk, and more recent study year moderated larger protective effects of antipsychotics. These results indicate that the excess mortality in schizophrenia is associated with several modifiable factors. Targeting comorbid substance abuse, long-term maintenance antipsychotic treatment and appropriate/earlier use of SGA-LAIs and clozapine could reduce this mortality gap.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy-Related Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality: A Comprehensive Review

Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder that exists at the more extreme end of a spectrum of diseases, and significantly affects daily functioning. Cardiovascular adverse effects of antipsychotic medications are well known, and include changes in blood pressure and arrhythmias. Sudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death worldwide, and antipsychotic medications are associated with numerous cardiac side effects. A possible link exists between antipsychotic medications and sudden cardiac death. Common prescribing patterns that may influence cardiovascular events include the use of multiple antipsychotics and/or additional drugs commonly prescribed to patients on antipsychotics. The results of this review reflect an association between antipsychotic drugs and increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death by iatrogenic prolongation of the QTc interval. QTc prolongation and sudden cardiac death exist in patients taking antipsychotic monotherapy. The risk increases for the concomitant use of specific drugs that prolong the QTc interval, such as opioids, antibiotics, and illicit drugs. However, evidence suggests that QTc intervals may not adequately predict sudden cardiac death. In considering the findings of this narrative review, we conclude that it is unclear whether there is a precise association between antipsychotic polypharmacy and sudden cardiac death with QTc interval changes. The present narrative review warrants further research on this important potential association.

COVID-19-Related Mortality Risk in People With Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic and Critical Review

Background: Increasing clinical evidence suggests that people with severe mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive disorder (MDD), are at higher risk of dying from COVID-19. Several systematic reviews examining the association between psychiatric disorders and COVID-19-related mortality have recently been published. Although these reviews have been conducted thoroughly, certain methodological limitations may hinder the accuracy of their research findings. Methods: A systematic literature search, using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases (from inception to July 23, 2021), was conducted for observational studies assessing the risk of death associated with COVID-19 infection in adult patients with pre-existing schizophrenia spectrum disorders, BD, or MDD. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Of 1,446 records screened, 13 articles investigating the rates of death in patients with pre-existing SMI were included in this systematic review. Quality assessment scores of the included studies ranged from moderate to high. Most results seem to indicate that patients with SMI, particularly patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, are at significantly higher risk of COVID-19-related mortality, as compared to patients without SMI. However, the extent of the variation in COVID-19-related mortality rates between studies including people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was large because of a low level of precision of the estimated mortality outcome(s) in certain studies. Most studies on MDD and BD did not include specific information on the mood state or disease severity of patients. Due to a lack of data, it remains unknown to what extent patients with BD are at increased risk of COVID-19-related mortality. A variety of factors are likely to contribute to the increased mortality risk of COVID-19 in these patients. These include male sex, older age, somatic comorbidities (particularly cardiovascular diseases), as well as disease-specific characteristics. Conclusion: Methodological limitations hamper the accuracy of COVID-19-related mortality estimates for the main categories of SMIs. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that SMI is associated with excess COVID-19 mortality. Policy makers therefore must consider these vulnerable individuals as a high-risk group that should be given particular attention. This means that targeted interventions to maximize vaccination uptake among these patients are required to address the higher burden of COVID-19 infection in this already disadvantaged group.

Exploring Hidden Issues in the Use of Antipsychotic Polypharmacy in the Treatment of Schizophrenia

The mainstay of schizophrenia treatment is pharmacological therapy using various antipsychotics including first- and second-generation antipsychotics which have different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic property leading to differential presentation of adverse events (AEs) and treatment effects such as negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms and cormorbid symptoms. Major treatment guidelines suggest the use of antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) as a gold standard in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the effects of APM is inadequate and less potent to achieve symptom remission as well as functional recovery in real practice which has been consistently reported in numerous controlled clinical trials, large practical trials, independent small studies and systematic reviews till today. Therefore anti-psychotic polypharmacy (APP) regardless of the class of antipsychotics has been also commonly utilized for many reasons in real world practice. However, APP has also crucial pitfalls including increase of total psychotics including antipsychotics, high-doses of antipsychotics used, poor compliance, drug-drug interaction and risks for developing AEs, all of which are paradoxically related to poor clinical outcomes, whereas APP has also substantial advantages in reduction of re-hospitalization, severe psychopathology and targeted control of concurrent symptoms. Given currently limited therapeutic options, it is also important to properly utilize APP in order to maximize its clinical utility and minimize its risk for better treatment outcomes for patients with schizophrenia, based on risk/benefit with full understanding of pharmacological and clinical issues on APP. The present paper intends to address intriguing and important issues in the use of APP in real world practice.

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.

Impact of Medication Reviews Delivered by Community Pharmacist to Elderly Patients on Polypharmacy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the impact of medication reviews delivered by community pharmacists to elderly patients on polypharmacy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in four bibliographic databases/search engine (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and IPA) and three gray literature sources (OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Digital Access to Research Theses - Europe) from inception to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials were selected if they met the following criteria: (a) studied in patients 65 years or older who were taking four or more prescribed medications; (b) the "test" interventions were delivered by community pharmacists; and (c) measured one of these following outcomes: hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visit, quality of life, or adherence. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group risk of bias tool. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 3634 articles screened, four studies with a total of 4633 participants were included. The intervention provided in all included studies was clinical medication review. Three studies were at low risk of bias, and the remaining study had unclear risk of bias. When compared with usual care, medication reviews provided by community pharmacist significantly reduced risk of ED visits (risk ratio = 0.68; 95% confidence interval = 0.48-0.96). There was also a tendency that pharmacist interventions decreased risk of hospitalizations (risk ratio = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.78-1.00), although no statistical significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence demonstrates that clinical medication reviews for older people with polypharmacy reduces the risk of ED visits. Medication reviews can be considered as another area where community pharmacists can contribute to improve patient safety.

The Potential of Research Drawing on Clinical Free Text to Bring Benefits to Patients in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: The analysis of clinical free text from patient records for research has potential to contribute to the medical evidence base but access to clinical free text is frequently denied by data custodians who perceive that the privacy risks of data-sharing are too high. Engagement activities with patients and regulators, where views on the sharing of clinical free text data for research have been discussed, have identified that stakeholders would like to understand the potential clinical benefits that could be achieved if access to free text for clinical research were improved. We aimed to systematically review all UK research studies which used clinical free text and report direct or potential benefits to patients, synthesizing possible benefits into an easy to communicate taxonomy for public engagement and policy discussions. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for articles which reported primary research using clinical free text, drawn from UK health record databases, which reported a benefit or potential benefit for patients, actionable in a clinical environment or health service, and not solely methods development or data quality improvement. We screened eligible papers and thematically analyzed information about clinical benefits reported in the paper to create a taxonomy of benefits. Results: We identified 43 papers and derived five themes of benefits: health-care quality or services improvement, observational risk factor-outcome research, drug prescribing safety, case-finding for clinical trials, and development of clinical decision support. Five papers compared study quality with and without free text and found an improvement of accuracy when free text was included in analytical models. Conclusions: Findings will help stakeholders weigh the potential benefits of free text research against perceived risks to patient privacy. The taxonomy can be used to aid public and policy discussions, and identified studies could form a public-facing repository which will help the health-care text analysis research community better communicate the impact of their work.

Mortality risk from long-term treatment with antipsychotic polypharmacy vs monotherapy among adults with serious mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Long-term use of more than one concurrent antipsychotic [antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP)] is widely believed to contribute to excess mortality in people with serious mental illness (SMI) compared to those taking only one antipsychotic (monotherapy). However, no conclusive evidence is available.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in 6 major electronic databases from inception until December 2019, identifying observational studies examining the association between mortality and exposure to long-term APP vs monotherapy. Studies were eligible if they adopted a follow-up design and antipsychotic exposure was >3 months among adults with SMI. We determined the pooled mortality risk using random-effects meta-analyses. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019148044).

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies fulfilled all eligibility criteria reporting quantitative data for 834, 534 person years. No difference was found in the association between all-cause mortality and APP vs monotherapy use, in both crude (rate ratio = 0.94, 95% CI 0.81-1.10, p = 0.446; I² = 83.2%, p < 0.001; 10 studies) and adjusted models (adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.80-1.19, p = 0.802; I² = 58.3%, p < 0.05; 5 studies). Meta-regression did not identify any moderators influencing all-cause mortality risk. For natural causes of death, risk estimates followed the same pattern: (i) crude rate ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.67-1.14, p = 0.324; I² = 77.7%, p = 0.01 (5 studies); (ii) adjusted HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.90-1.99, p = 0.590; I² = 0.0%, p = 0.744 (5 studies).

CONCLUSION

Mortality risk of APP use in people with SMI appears to be comparable to that of monotherapy use, although work to date remains heterogeneous, precluding firm conclusions from made. Complex real-world clinical scenarios may be contributing to this lack of variation between these two types of antipsychotic use.

The association between primary care quality and health-care use, costs and outcomes for people with serious mental illness: a retrospective observational study

Background

Serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses, is linked with high disease burden, poor outcomes, high treatment costs and lower life expectancy. In the UK, most people with serious mental illness are treated in primary care by general practitioners, who are financially incentivised to meet quality targets for patients with chronic conditions, including serious mental illness, under the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The Quality and Outcomes Framework, however, omits important aspects of quality.

Objectives

We examined whether or not better quality of primary care for people with serious mental illness improved a range of outcomes.

Design and setting

We used administrative data from English primary care practices that contribute to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency attendances, Office for National Statistics mortality data and community mental health records in the Mental Health Minimum Data Set. We used survival analysis to estimate whether or not selected quality indicators affect the time until patients experience an outcome.

Participants

Four cohorts of people with serious mental illness, depending on the outcomes examined and inclusion criteria.

Interventions

Quality of care was measured with (1) Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators (care plans and annual physical reviews) and (2) non-Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators identified through a systematic review (antipsychotic polypharmacy and continuity of care provided by general practitioners).

Main outcome measures

Several outcomes were examined: emergency admissions for serious mental illness and ambulatory care sensitive conditions; all unplanned admissions; accident and emergency attendances; mortality; re-entry into specialist mental health services; and costs attributed to primary, secondary and community mental health care.

Results

Care plans were associated with lower risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.80), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.75), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.83), and lower overall health-care (£53), primary care (£9), hospital (£26) and mental health-care costs (£12). Annual reviews were associated with reduced risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.85), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.84), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.87), and lower overall health-care (£34), primary care (£9) and mental health-care costs (£30). Higher general practitioner continuity was associated with lower risk of accident and emergency presentation (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.97) and ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.92), but not with serious mental illness admission. High continuity was associated with lower primary care costs (£3). Antipsychotic polypharmacy was not statistically significantly associated with the risk of unplanned admission, death or accident and emergency presentation. None of the quality measures was statistically significantly associated with risk of re-entry into specialist mental health care.

Limitations

There is risk of bias from unobserved factors. To mitigate this, we controlled for observed patient characteristics at baseline and adjusted for the influence of time-invariant unobserved patient differences.

Conclusions

Better performance on Quality and Outcomes Framework measures and continuity of care are associated with better outcomes and lower resource utilisation, and could generate moderate cost savings.

Future work

Future research should examine the impact of primary care quality on measures that capture broader aspects of health and functioning.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Polypharmacy in schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder characterized by a heterogeneous symptom profile which comprises a clinical platform for widespread use of polypharmacy even though antipsychotic monotherapy is the recommended treatment regimen. This narrative review provides a summary of the current gap between evidence and practice for use of antipsychotic combination therapy in patients with schizophrenia. Antipsychotic polypharmacy is frequently prescribed instead of following international consensus of clozapine monotherapy in treatment-resistant patients. Antipsychotic-benzodiazepine combination therapy clearly has a role in the treatment of acute agitation whereas there is no evidence to support an effect on core schizophrenia symptoms when chronically prescribed. Antidepressants are typically added to antipsychotic treatment in case of persistent negative symptoms. Available evidence suggests that antidepressants may improve negative symptom control in schizophrenia. Combining an antipsychotic with an antiepileptic is not supported by any firm evidence, but individual mood stabilizers have come out positively in single trials. Generally, the evidence base for polypharmacy in schizophrenia maintenance treatment is sparse but may be warranted in certain clinical situations. Therapeutic benefits and side effects should be carefully monitored and considered to ensure a beneficial risk-benefit ratio if prescribing polypharmacy for specific clinical indications.

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

These updated guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology replace the original version published in 2011. They address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting was held in 2017, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment. They were asked to review key areas and consider the strength of the evidence on the risk-benefit balance of pharmacological interventions and the clinical implications, with an emphasis on meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials where available, plus updates on current clinical practice. The guidelines 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. It is hoped that the practice recommendations presented will support clinical decision making for practitioners, serve as a source of information for patients and carers, and inform quality improvement.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy: A Dirty Little Secret or a Fashion?

The term polypharmacy was originally coined to refer to problems related to multiple drug consumption and excessive drug use during the treatment of a disease or disorder. In the treatment of schizophrenia, polypharmacy usually refers to the simultaneous use of 2 or more antipsychotic medications or combined (adjunct) medications such as mood stabilizers, antidepressants, anxiolytics, or hypnotics in addition to single or multiple antipsychotics. Two decades ago, antipsychotic polypharmacy was criticized as being more expensive, having unproven efficacy, and causing more side effects. However, in recent years, antipsychotic polypharmacy has become more or less acceptable in the views of clinical practitioners and academic researchers. Results from recent reviews have suggested that the common practice of antipsychotic polypharmacy lacks double-blind or high-quality evidence of efficacy, except for negative symptom reduction with aripiprazole augmentation. We reviewed some representative studies that enrolled large numbers of patients and compared antipsychotic polypharmacy and monotherapy during the past decade. The results revealed that a certain proportion of select patients can benefit from antipsychotic polypharmacy without further negative consequences. Because most of the current treatment guidelines from different countries and organizations prefer monotherapy and discourage all antipsychotic polypharmacy, guidelines regarding the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy in clinical practice should be revised. On the basis of the findings of 2 large-scale studies from Asia and Europe, we also suggest ideal rates of various maintenance treatments of schizophrenia, which are as follows: antipsychotic polypharmacy, 30%; combined mood stabilizer, 15%; combined antidepressant, 10%; combined anxiolytics, 30%; and combined hypnotic, 10%.

Long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy prescribing in secondary mental health care and the risk of mortality

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy use and mortality; and determine whether this risk varies by cause of death and antipsychotic dose.

METHODS

Using data from a large anonymised mental healthcare database, we identified all adult patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who had been prescribed a single antipsychotic or polypharmacy, for six or more months between 2007 and 2014. Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed, adjusting for sociodemographic, socioeconomic, clinical factors and smoking, to examine the association between APP use and the risk of death.

RESULTS

We identified 10 945 adults with SMI who had been prescribed long-term antipsychotic monotherapy (76.9%) or APP (23.1%). Patients on long-term APP had a small elevated risk of mortality, which was significant in some but not all models. The adjusted hazard ratios for death from natural and unnatural causes associated with APP were 1.2 (0.9-1.4, P = 0.111) and 1.1 (0.7-1.9, P = 0.619) respectively. The strengths of the associations between APP and mortality outcomes were similar after further adjusting for % BNF antipsychotic dose (P = 0.031) or olanzapine equivalence (P = 0.088).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the effect of long-term APP on mortality is not clear-cut, with limited evidence to indicate an association, even after controlling for the effect of dose.