Stefan Leucht1, Myrto Samara2, Stephan Heres2, John M Davis3. 1. stefan.leucht@lrz.tum.de. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; 3. Psychiatric Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL; Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dose equivalents of antipsychotics are an important but difficult to define concept, because all methods have weaknesses and strongholds. METHODS: We calculated dose equivalents based on defined daily doses (DDDs) presented by the World Health Organisation's Collaborative Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. Doses equivalent to 1mg olanzapine, 1mg risperidone, 1mg haloperidol, and 100mg chlorpromazine were presented and compared with the results of 3 other methods to define dose equivalence (the "minimum effective dose method," the "classical mean dose method," and an international consensus statement). RESULTS: We presented dose equivalents for 57 first-generation and second-generation antipsychotic drugs, available as oral, parenteral, or depot formulations. Overall, the identified equivalent doses were comparable with those of the other methods, but there were also outliers. CONCLUSIONS: The major strength of this method to define dose response is that DDDs are available for most drugs, including old antipsychotics, that they are based on a variety of sources, and that DDDs are an internationally accepted measure. The major limitations are that the information used to estimate DDDS is likely to differ between the drugs. Moreover, this information is not publicly available, so that it cannot be reviewed. The WHO stresses that DDDs are mainly a standardized measure of drug consumption, and their use as a measure of dose equivalence can therefore be misleading. We, therefore, recommend that if alternative, more "scientific" dose equivalence methods are available for a drug they should be preferred to DDDs. Moreover, our summary can be a useful resource for pharmacovigilance studies.
BACKGROUND: Dose equivalents of antipsychotics are an important but difficult to define concept, because all methods have weaknesses and strongholds. METHODS: We calculated dose equivalents based on defined daily doses (DDDs) presented by the World Health Organisation's Collaborative Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. Doses equivalent to 1mg olanzapine, 1mg risperidone, 1mg haloperidol, and 100mg chlorpromazine were presented and compared with the results of 3 other methods to define dose equivalence (the "minimum effective dose method," the "classical mean dose method," and an international consensus statement). RESULTS: We presented dose equivalents for 57 first-generation and second-generation antipsychotic drugs, available as oral, parenteral, or depot formulations. Overall, the identified equivalent doses were comparable with those of the other methods, but there were also outliers. CONCLUSIONS: The major strength of this method to define dose response is that DDDs are available for most drugs, including old antipsychotics, that they are based on a variety of sources, and that DDDs are an internationally accepted measure. The major limitations are that the information used to estimate DDDS is likely to differ between the drugs. Moreover, this information is not publicly available, so that it cannot be reviewed. The WHO stresses that DDDs are mainly a standardized measure of drug consumption, and their use as a measure of dose equivalence can therefore be misleading. We, therefore, recommend that if alternative, more "scientific" dose equivalence methods are available for a drug they should be preferred to DDDs. Moreover, our summary can be a useful resource for pharmacovigilance studies.
Authors: Waleed M Sweileh; Jihad Bani Odeh; Naser Y Shraim; Sa'ed H Zyoud; Ansam F Sawalha; Samah W Al-Jabi Journal: Saudi Pharm J Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Claudia A W Rijcken; Taco B M Monster; Jacobus R B J Brouwers; Lolkje T W de Jong-van den Berg Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: T Scott Stroup; Natalie A Bareis; Robert A Rosenheck; Marvin S Swartz; Joseph P McEvoy Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Jessica M Gannon; Deanna L Kelly; Abigail Besch; Tanu Thakur; Neil Khurana; Michael R Shurin; Galina V Shurin; Jaspreet S Brar; Daniela Cihakova; Monica V Talor; K N Roy Chengappa Journal: Psychiatr Q Date: 2020-03
Authors: Juan A Gallego; Emily A Blanco; Christopher Morell; Todd Lencz; Anil K Malhotra Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 7.853