Short-acting parenteral antipsychotics drive choice for classical versus atypical agents.

Altrecht Institute for Mental Health Care, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 2.7). 04/2003; 58(11):757-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-002-0545-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to investigate which antipsychotics (classical versus atypical) are prescribed in a psychiatric hospital and which determinants affect the choice for one of these two classes of antipsychotics in newly admitted patients.
In a retrospective cohort design, 522 newly admitted patients were followed from the date of admission until discharge from the hospital. In the cohort of newly admitted patients treated with an oral antipsychotic, a nested case-control study was conducted considering recipients of an atypical agent as cases. Controls were all other cohort members. The association of patient characteristics and the choice between classical versus atypical antipsychotics was studied using logistic regression analysis. The same analysis was performed with adjustment for possible confounding factors (age group, gender, DSM-IV diagnoses, use of short-acting parenteral antipsychotic, global assessment of functioning score, involuntary admissions and involuntary measures).
Patients treated with classical oral antipsychotics were more often previously treated with short-acting parenteral antipsychotics than patients treated with atypical antipsychotics (40.8% vs 15.2%; adjusted OR=0.20 95% CI=0.09-0.44). No statistically significant difference was found between patients with different severities of disease.
Availability of injectable forms seems to drive the choice for oral antipsychotic agents. Future introductions of short-acting parenteral atypical antipsychotics may have a large impact on first-choice oral antipsychotic treatment.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The occurrence of aggressive incidents in psychiatric care has a great impact on the well being of staff and patients, and is associated with considerable costs (Cole, 2005; Hunter & Carmel, 1992; Nijman, Bowers, Oud, & Jansen, 2005). Considering the high impact of aggression in mental health care, prevention, and management of aggression should have high priority (Palmer, 1996). Several treatment approaches to manage aggressive behavior exist, including psychopharmacological and behavioral approaches (Morrison, 2003). Observational research has shown that aggressive patients more often use psychotropics compared to nonaggressive patients (Soliman & Reza, 2001; Stolker, 2002). Because in animal and human models of aggression, several neurotransmitters appeared to be implicated in the modulation of aggressive behavior (Miczek, Fish, De Bold, & De Almeida, 2002), it is not surprising that a broad range of psychotropics has been investigated for their antiaggressive properties. However, despite the high prevalence of psychotropic drug use in aggressive patients, evidence for the efficacy of the pharmacological management of aggressive behavior is currently lacking. Lack of evidence is reflected by the existence of a variety of guidelines for the emergency management of aggression, and was stressed in two recent systematic reviews for the maintenance of the pharmacotherapy of aggression dating from 1996 to 1997 (Fava, 1997; Pabis & Stanislav, 1996).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined the evidence for a decreased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) with intramuscular second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) versus intramuscular haloperidol alone or in combination with an anticholinergic agent. We searched MEDLINE (1950 to the present), and EMBASE and the Cochrane Database through January 16, 2008, for studies published in English of intramuscular SGAs and intramuscular haloperidol alone or in combination with an anticholinergic agent using the following drug names: ziprasidone, Geodon, olanzapine, Zyprexa, aripiprazole, Abilify, haloperidol, and Haldol. We then searched this pool of studies for trials with the terms intramuscular, IM, or injectable. Initially, we included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To obtain more data comparing SGAs to the combination of haloperidol and an anticholinergic, we conducted a second analysis including studies of any methodology. Seven RCTs that compared intramuscular SGAs to intramuscular haloperidol alone were identified. However, we found only one RCT of haloperidol plus an anticholinergic. In the second analysis, we identified 18 studies, including 4 using haloperidol combined with promethazine (an antihistamine with anticholinergic properties). The primary outcome measure was acute dystonia; secondary outcome measures included akathisia, parkinsonism, or the need for additional anticholinergic medication. For RCTs, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome. When all studies were included in the second analysis, we calculated the risk of acute dystonia. Among RCTs (N = 2032), SGAs were associated with a significantly lower risk of acute dystonia (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.39), akathisia (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.44), and anticholinergic use (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.43) compared with haloperidol alone. When all trials were considered (N = 3425), rates of acute dystonia were higher for haloperidol alone (4.7%) than for SGAs (0.6%) or for haloperidol plus promethazine (0.0%). Intramuscular SGAs have a significantly lower risk of acute EPS compared to haloperidol alone. However, intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine has a risk of acute dystonia comparable to intramuscular SGAs. The decision to use SGAs should consider other factors in addition to the reduction of EPS, which can be prevented by the use of an anticholinergic agent.
    The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 01/2009; 69(12):1869-79. DOI:10.4088/JCP.v69n1204 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thalidomide is het schoolvoorbeeld van het feit dat de kennis over een geneesmiddel steeds vermeerdert en dat de plaats die het in het therapeutisch arsenaal inneemt continu evolueert. De beslissing van de daartoe bevoegde registratieautoriteiten om een geneesmiddel toe te laten tot de markt, waarna het door artsen kan worden voorgeschreven, is in dat ontwikkelingsproces van het geneesmiddel, hoe belangrijk ook, slechts een momentopname. Het verleden heeft ons geleerd dat het noodzakelijk is ook na de registratie de effecten van het geneesmiddel zorgvuldig te monitoren en de plaats ervan in het therapeutisch arsenaal continu te herbeoordelen.
    12/2004; 8(6):152-156. DOI:10.1007/BF03079023

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 10, 2014