High persistence and low treatment rates of metabolic syndrome in patients with mood and anxiety disorders: A naturalistic follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Patients with affective and anxiety disorders are at risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and, consequently, cardiovascular disease and premature death. In this study, the course and treatment of MetS was investigated using longitudinal data from a naturalistic sample of affective- and anxiety-disordered outpatients (Monitoring Outcome of psychiatric PHARmacotherapy [MOPHAR]).

METHODS

Demographics, clinical characteristics, medication use, and MetS components were obtained for n = 2098 patients at baseline and, in a FU-subsample of n = 507 patients, after a median follow-up (FU) of 11 months. Furthermore, pharmacological treatment rates of MetS were investigated at baseline and FU. Finally, demographic and clinical determinants of change in MetS (component) scores were investigated.

RESULTS

At baseline, 34.6 % of n = 2098 patients had MetS, 41.4 % of whom received treatment. Of patients with persisting MetS, 46.1 % received treatment for one (or more) MetS component(s) at baseline, and 56.6 % received treatment at FU. Treatment rates of solely elevated blood pressure and reduced HDL-cholesterol did significantly, but modestly, improve. Higher age, male sex, smoking behavior, low education, diabetes, and depressive versus anxiety disorder were predictors of worse outcome at FU on at least one MetS component.

LIMITATIONS

We did not have data on lifestyle interventions as a form of treatment, which might partly have explained the observed low pharmacotherapeutic treatment rates.

CONCLUSION

MetS (components) show high persistence rates in affective- and anxiety-disordered patients, and are, despite adequate monitoring, undertreated over time. This indicates that adherence and implementation of monitoring protocols should be crucially improved in psychiatric outpatients in secondary care.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and SSRIs

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline presented here, presents the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and antidepressants of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor type (SSRIs). Both genes' genotypes are translated into predicted normal metabolizer (NM), intermediate metabolizer (IM), poor metabolizer (PM), or ultra-rapid metabolizer (UM). Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained, based on a structured analysis of published literature. In CYP2C19 PM patients, escitalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 75% of the normal maximum dose. Escitalopram should be avoided in UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, citalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 70% (65-75%) of the normal maximum dose. In contrast to escitalopram, no action is needed for CYP2C19 UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, sertraline dose should not exceed 37.5% of the normal maximum dose. No action is needed for CYP2C19 IM and UM patients. In CYP2D6 UM patients, paroxetine should be avoided. No action is needed for CYP2D6 PM and IM patients. In addition, no action is needed for the other gene-drug combinations. Clinical effects (increase in adverse events or decrease in efficacy) were lacking for these other gene-drug combinations. DPWG classifies CYP2C19 genotyping before the start of escitalopram, citalopram, and sertraline, and CYP2D6 genotyping before the start of paroxetine as "potentially beneficial" for toxicity/effectivity predictions. This indicates that genotyping prior to treatment can be considered on an individual patient basis.

Lithium surveillance by community pharmacists and physicians in ambulatory patients: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Shared care agreements between clinical pharmacists and physicians can improve suboptimal lithium monitoring in in- and outpatient settings. However, it is unknown whether incorporating community pharmacists in such agreements can also improve lithium monitoring in an outpatient setting.

AIM

To assess the necessity for a shared care agreement for lithium monitoring in our region by investigating: intervention rates by community pharmacists and whether those are sufficient; lithium monitoring by physicians in ambulatory patients; the extent of laboratory parameter exchange to community pharmacists.

METHOD

Patient files of lithium users were surveyed in a retrospective cohort study among 21 community pharmacies in the Northern Netherlands. Outcome was the intervention rate by community pharmacists and whether those were deemed sufficient by an expert panel. Additionally, we investigated both the percentages of patients monitored according to current guidelines and of laboratory parameters exchanged to community pharmacists.

RESULTS

129 patients were included. Interventions were performed in 64.4% (n = 29), 20.8% (n = 5), and 25.0% (n = 1) of initiations, discontinuations, and dosage alterations of drugs interacting with lithium, respectively. The expert panel deemed 40.0% (n = 14) of these interventions as "insufficient". Physicians monitored 40.3% (n = 52) of the patients according to current guidelines for lithium serum levels and kidney functions combined. Approximately half of the requested laboratory parameters were available to the community pharmacist.

CONCLUSION

Intervention rates by community pharmacists and lithium monitoring by physicians can be improved. Therefore, a shared care agreement between community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, and physicians is needed to improve lithium monitoring in ambulatory patients.

Applicability of somatic monitoring instructions in clinical practice guidelines on antipsychotic drug use

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend the monitoring of somatic parameters in patients treated with antipsychotic drugs in order to detect adverse effects. The objective of this study was to assess, in adult and (frail) elderly populations, the consistency and applicability of the somatic monitoring instructions recommended by established CPGs prior to and during antipsychotic drug use.

METHODS

A search for national and international CPGs was performed by querying the electronic database PubMed and Google. Somatic monitoring instructions were assessed for adult and (frail) elderly populations separately. The applicability of somatic monitoring instructions was assessed using the Systematic Information for Monitoring (SIM) score. Somatic monitoring instructions were considered applicable when a minimum SIM score of 3 was reached.

RESULTS

In total, 16 CPGs were included, with a total of 231 somatic monitoring instructions (mean: 14; range: 0-47). Of the somatic monitoring instructions, 87% were considered applicable, although critical values and how to respond to aberrant values were only present in 28 and 52% of the available instructions respectively. Only 1 CPG presented an instruction specifically for (frail) elderly populations.

CONCLUSIONS

We emphasize the need for a guideline with somatic monitoring instructions based on the SIM definition for both adult and (frail) elderly populations using antipsychotic drugs. In addition, CPGs should state that clear agreements should be made regarding who is responsible for interventions and somatic monitoring prior to and during antipsychotic drug use.