PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) are used in the management of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and related psychiatric conditions. The efficacy of LAIAs has been established in randomized controlled trials; however, usage of LAIAs outside of randomized controlled trials may not correlate to naturalistic prescribing habits. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the prescribing patterns of LAIAs within our health system and identify any inconsistencies between medications' published labeling information and clinical practice. METHODS/PROCEDURES: All patients who received a LAIA at the time of the analysis were included for review. Areas of inconsistency between the prescribed LAIA and each medication's published labeling information were targeted and assessed. Frequency statistics were used to review the following areas for inconsistencies: indication, trial of oral therapy, dose, frequency, and titration method. FINDINGS/ RESULTS: This analysis included 427 patient cases who received a combined 1480 injections during the analysis period. Overall consistency rates between labeling information and prescribed LAIAs within the analysis period were as follows: 71.2% for indication, 67.4% for trial of oral therapy, 94.4% for dose of LAIA, 84.5% for injection frequency, and 93.9% for titration method. IMPLICATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies were observed between labeling information and clinical practice for LAIAs prescribed within the community health system. Patients who are more symptomatic and have additional psychological comorbidities are commonly excluded from clinical trials. Alternative dosing may be clinically necessary to obtain an adequate response, and this may have been captured in this review. This analysis may be hypothesis generating for future studies on LAIAs.
PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) are used in the management of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and related psychiatric conditions. The efficacy of LAIAs has been established in randomized controlled trials; however, usage of LAIAs outside of randomized controlled trials may not correlate to naturalistic prescribing habits. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the prescribing patterns of LAIAs within our health system and identify any inconsistencies between medications' published labeling information and clinical practice. METHODS/PROCEDURES: All patients who received a LAIA at the time of the analysis were included for review. Areas of inconsistency between the prescribed LAIA and each medication's published labeling information were targeted and assessed. Frequency statistics were used to review the following areas for inconsistencies: indication, trial of oral therapy, dose, frequency, and titration method. FINDINGS/ RESULTS: This analysis included 427 patient cases who received a combined 1480 injections during the analysis period. Overall consistency rates between labeling information and prescribed LAIAs within the analysis period were as follows: 71.2% for indication, 67.4% for trial of oral therapy, 94.4% for dose of LAIA, 84.5% for injection frequency, and 93.9% for titration method. IMPLICATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies were observed between labeling information and clinical practice for LAIAs prescribed within the community health system. Patients who are more symptomatic and have additional psychological comorbidities are commonly excluded from clinical trials. Alternative dosing may be clinically necessary to obtain an adequate response, and this may have been captured in this review. This analysis may be hypothesis generating for future studies on LAIAs.