Article

Trends in the utilisation of psychotropic medications in Australia from 2000 to 2011

School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Australia.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.77). 11/2012; 47(1). DOI: 10.1177/0004867412466595
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objective:This study examined longitudinal trends in the dispensing of psychotropic medications in Australia from January 2000 to December 2011.Method:Dispensing data for the major classes of psychotropic medications (antidepressants, anxiolytics, sedatives, antipsychotics, mood stabilisers and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications) were obtained from the Drug Utilisation Sub-Committee of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Results were expressed in terms of defined daily doses/1000 population/day (DDDs/1000/day).Results:There was a 58.2% increase in the dispensing of psychotropic drugs in Australia from 2000 to 2011, driven by major increases in antidepressants (95.3% increase in DDDs/1000/day), atypical antipsychotics (217.7% increase) and ADHD medications (72.9% increase). Dispensing of anxiolytics remained largely unchanged, while sedatives and typical antipsychotics decreased by 26.4% and 61.2%, respectively. Lithium dispensing remained static while valproate and lamotrigine increased markedly. In 2011, antidepressants accounted for 66.9% of total psychotropic DDDs/1000/day totals, far greater than anxiolytics (11.4%), antipsychotics (7.3%), mood stabilisers (5.8%), sedatives (5.5%), or ADHD medications (3.0%). Sertraline, olanzapine, valproate and methylphenidate were the most frequently dispensed antidepressant, antipsychotic, mood stabiliser and ADHD medication, respectively, while diazepam and temazepam were the most commonly dispensed anxiolytic and sedative.Conclusions:Psychotropic utilisation markedly increased in Australia between 2000 and 2011. Some potential concerns include: (1) the continuing high use of benzodiazepines, particularly alprazolam, despite their problematic effects; (2) the rapid increase in serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) use, given their more complex side-effect profile relative to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and (3) the dramatic increase in antidepressant prescriptions despite questions about the efficacy of these drugs in mild to moderate depression. Finally, some limitations are identified regarding use of the DDDs/1000/day metric, which can distort estimates of utilisation of specific drugs when the defined daily dose is higher or lower than the formulation most commonly dispensed by pharmacies.

1 Follower
 · 
90 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Antidepressant prescribing continues to rise. Increased long-term prescribing and higher doses are contributing to current growth; however, patient factors associated with the use of higher doses remain unknown. This study¿s aim was to investigate patient factors associated with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescribed daily dose for depression treatment in general practice.MethodsA stratified sample of low to high prescribing practices were selected. Routine individual patient-level data were extracted one practice at a time: September 2009 to January 2011. Patients included were ¿18 years, and prescribed an SSRI for depression. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to assess individual predictor variables on SSRI daily dose by standard therapeutic dose versus higher dose, as SSRIs demonstrate flat dose response curves for depression treatment. Predictor variables included: age, gender, deprivation, co-morbidity, smoking status, being prescribed the same SSRI for ¿2 years, and patients¿ general practice. For a subgroup of patients a second sub-group analysis included long-term benzodiazepine and/or z-hypnotic (B&Z) as a predictor variable.ResultsInter-practice SSRI prescribing varied significantly; practice point prevalence ranged from 2.5% (94/3697) to 11.9% (359/3007) of the practice population ¿18 years old; median 7.3% (250/3421) (¿2¿=¿2277.2, df¿=¿10, p¿<¿0.001). Overall point prevalence was 6.3% (3518/52575), with 5.8% (3066/52575) prescribed SSRIs for depression of whom 84.7% (2596/3066) had data for regression analysis. Higher SSRI doses were significantly associated with, in descending order of magnitude, individual practice attended, being prescribed the same SSRI for ¿2 years (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17, p¿<¿0.001) and living in a more deprived area (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.16, p¿=¿0.009). Higher SSRI doses in the B&Z subgroup were significantly associated with individual practice attended, being prescribed a long-term B&Z (OR 2.05 95% CI 1.47 to 2.86, p¿<¿0.001) and being prescribed the same SSRI for ¿2 years (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.47, p¿<¿0.001).Conclusion Higher SSRI doses for depression were associated with practice attended and being prescribed the same antidepressant for ¿2 years. As long-term antidepressant use increases, the use of higher doses may further contribute to prescribing growth.
    BMC Family Practice 12/2014; 15(1):6. DOI:10.1186/s12875-014-0210-9 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders of children and adolescents, with a significant impact on health services and the community in terms of economic and social burdens. The objective of this systematic review will be to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with ADHD. Methods Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. Search results will be supplemented by reports from the regulatory and health technology agencies, clinical trials registers and by data requested from trialists and/or pharmaceutical companies. We will consider studies evaluating pharmacological interventions (e.g. stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants), psychological interventions (e.g. behavioural interventions, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine interventions (e.g. dietary interventions, supplement with fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, aminoacids, herbal treatment, homeopathy, and mind-body interventions including massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, yoga, meditation, Tai chi). Eligible control conditions will be placebo, waitlist, no treatment and usual care. Randomized controlled trials of a minimum of 3 weeks duration will be included. The primary outcomes of interest will be the proportion of patients who responded to treatment and who dropped out of the allocated treatment, respectively. Secondary outcomes will include treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, as well as the occurrences of serious adverse events and specific adverse events (decreased weight, anorexia, insomnia and sleep disturbances, anxiety, syncope and cardiovascular events). Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and risk of bias will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. Discussion This systematic review and network meta-analysis will compare the efficacy and safety of treatments used for ADHD in children and adolescents. The findings will assist patients, clinicians and healthcare providers to make evidence-based decisions regarding treatment selection. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014015008.
    02/2015; 4(1):19. DOI:10.1186/s13643-015-0005-7
  • Source