OBJECTIVE: Although common in psychiatric practice, reasons for antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) have remained unclear. METHODS: Single-site, semi-structured interview study of prescribers at a psychiatric teaching hospital inquiring about APP attitudes and behaviors, including frequency, preferred combinations, rationale and concerns. RESULTS: Forty-four prescribers reported using APP in 17.0 ± 10.0% of antipsychotic-treated patients. Although clinicians themselves initiated APP in only 23.3 ± 27.0% of cases, they did not attempt conversion to antipsychotic monotherapy in 40.9 ± 37.7%, despite reported successful conversion in 28.0 ± 30.8% of cases. The following reasons justified most APP (0-10): cross-titration (9.2 ± 1.4), failed clozapine trial (8.2 ± 2.2), randomized controlled evidence (8.0 ± 2.0), and clozapine intolerance (7.7 ± 2.6). Prescribers felt "moderately" (5.0 ± 1.9) concerned about APP (0-10), mostly due to chronic side effects (7.6 ± 2.0), lack of evidence (7.1 ± 2.2), non-adherence risk (6.7 ± 2.3) and mortality risk (6.7 ± 3.2), while increased cost (4.9 ± 2.5) and higher total antipsychotic dose (4.2 ± 2.9) ranked lowest. Comparing high with low APP prescribers (>10% vs. ≤ 10% of patients; mean: 36.1 ± 19.8 vs. 3.4 ± 3.4, p<0.0001), no differences emerged on 25/26 ratings regarding APP justification and 9/9 ratings regarding concerns. In a multivariate analyses, only attending status (OR=10.3, p=0.0043) and endorsing a specific APP preference (OR=21.4, p=0.011) predicted APP use >10% (r(2):0.35, p<0.0001), yet no uniformly preferred APP strategy emerged. CONCLUSIONS: High APP prescribers had more clinical experience, less concerns about APP and more likely a preferred APP choice, although no overall preferred strategy emerged. Otherwise, high and low APP prescribers shared attitudes toward APP. Both had inherited most of their APP cases and were reluctant to convert patients to antipsychotic monotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: Although common in psychiatric practice, reasons for antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) have remained unclear. METHODS: Single-site, semi-structured interview study of prescribers at a psychiatric teaching hospital inquiring about APP attitudes and behaviors, including frequency, preferred combinations, rationale and concerns. RESULTS: Forty-four prescribers reported using APP in 17.0 ± 10.0% of antipsychotic-treated patients. Although clinicians themselves initiated APP in only 23.3 ± 27.0% of cases, they did not attempt conversion to antipsychotic monotherapy in 40.9 ± 37.7%, despite reported successful conversion in 28.0 ± 30.8% of cases. The following reasons justified most APP (0-10): cross-titration (9.2 ± 1.4), failed clozapine trial (8.2 ± 2.2), randomized controlled evidence (8.0 ± 2.0), and clozapine intolerance (7.7 ± 2.6). Prescribers felt "moderately" (5.0 ± 1.9) concerned about APP (0-10), mostly due to chronic side effects (7.6 ± 2.0), lack of evidence (7.1 ± 2.2), non-adherence risk (6.7 ± 2.3) and mortality risk (6.7 ± 3.2), while increased cost (4.9 ± 2.5) and higher total antipsychotic dose (4.2 ± 2.9) ranked lowest. Comparing high with low APP prescribers (>10% vs. ≤ 10% of patients; mean: 36.1 ± 19.8 vs. 3.4 ± 3.4, p<0.0001), no differences emerged on 25/26 ratings regarding APP justification and 9/9 ratings regarding concerns. In a multivariate analyses, only attending status (OR=10.3, p=0.0043) and endorsing a specific APP preference (OR=21.4, p=0.011) predicted APP use >10% (r(2):0.35, p<0.0001), yet no uniformly preferred APP strategy emerged. CONCLUSIONS: High APP prescribers had more clinical experience, less concerns about APP and more likely a preferred APP choice, although no overall preferred strategy emerged. Otherwise, high and low APP prescribers shared attitudes toward APP. Both had inherited most of their APP cases and were reluctant to convert patients to antipsychotic monotherapy.
Authors: Marcia F T Rupnow; Andrew Greenspan; Georges M Gharabawi; Colette Kosik-Gonzalez; Young Zhu; Stephen M Stahl Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Christoph U Correll; Christine Rummel-Kluge; Caroline Corves; John M Kane; Stefan Leucht Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Baojin Zhu; Haya Ascher-Svanum; Douglas E Faries; Christoph U Correll; John M Kane Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Juan A Gallego; Jimmi Nielsen; Marc De Hert; John M Kane; Christoph U Correll Journal: Expert Opin Drug Saf Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 4.250
Authors: Jonathan Brett; Benjamin Daniels; Emily A Karanges; Nicholas A Buckley; Carl Schneider; Atheer Nassir; Andrew J McLachlan; Sallie-Anne Pearson Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Taishiro Kishimoto; Koichiro Watanabe; Hiroyuki Uchida; Masaru Mimura; John M Kane; Christoph U Correll Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Suzanne Law; Peter M Haddad; Imran B Chaudhry; Nusrat Husain; Richard J Drake; Robert J Flanagan; Anthony S David; Maxine X Patel Journal: Ther Adv Psychopharmacol Date: 2015-08
Authors: Giouliana Kadra; Robert Stewart; Hitesh Shetty; Richard G Jackson; Mark A Greenwood; Angus Roberts; Chin-Kuo Chang; James H MacCabe; Richard D Hayes Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 3.630