Article

Treatment of schizophrenia with depot preparations of fluphenazine, haloperidol, and risperidone among inpatients at state-operated psychiatric facilities

Nathan S Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, 140 Old Orangeburg Road, Orangeburg, NY 10962, USA.
Schizophrenia Research (Impact Factor: 4.43). 03/2010; 119(1-3):153-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.02.1066
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study aimed to characterize the inpatient utilization of depot antipsychotics.
The characteristics of adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, hospitalized for at least 28 days, and who were prescribed depot antipsychotics were examined from 2004 to 2006 using a database from a large state-operated psychiatric hospital system. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients receiving depot fluphenazine or haloperidol were compared to those prescribed depot risperidone.
We identified 2210 unique patients who initiated treatment with a depot antipsychotic (after receiving oral antipsychotics). Of these, 1484 (67.1%) received depot fluphenazine or haloperidol, and 726 (32.9%) received risperidone as their initial depot antipsychotic. Patients who received depot risperidone did not differ from those receiving depot fluphenazine or haloperidol with regard to demographics, diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, number of comorbid psychiatric or medical diagnoses, or diagnosis of substance abuse. Patients started on depot risperidone during the observation period had a longer length of stay prior to initiation of depot than those started on depot fluphenazine or haloperidol (583 days vs. 237 days, t=5.489, p<.001). Patients who started on depot risperidone were less likely to be discharged on that medication than were patients who started on depot fluphenazine or haloperidol (odds ratio from Cox regression model=0.846 [95% CI 0.745-0.960]).
Patients initiated on depot risperidone had a longer length of stay prior to their first injection and were less likely to be discharged on that medication compared to patients initiated on depot fluphenazine or haloperidol, possibly indicating that patients initiating depot risperidone had a more severe or treatment-resistant course of illness and/or that there were reimbursement barriers for the outpatient utilization of depot risperidone, or that efficacy differences exist between the depot antipsychotics at the doses used in this population.

0 Followers
 · 
75 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections (SGA-LAIs) are rapidly replacing depot first-generation antipsychotics as first-line agents in treating schizophrenia spectrum disorders, a systematic assessment of their adverse effects is timely. English-language, peer-reviewed articles reporting original data on the safety and tolerability of SGA-LAIs were identified electronically by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and DARE databases and the Cochrane Library (January 2001-April 2013). In addition to second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics and long-acting injection (depot) antipsychotics, a separate search was performed for each available drug: aripiprazole LAI, olanzapine pamoate, paliperidone palmitate, and risperidone LAI. Articles were excluded if they were review articles, post hoc analyses, analyses of subsets of patients enrolled in previous trials, single case reports, case series studies, small naturalistic studies (involving less than 50 patients), studies providing no safety data, and studies lasting less than 8 weeks. Of 181 articles identified from the search, 140 were excluded; thus, 41 articles met the inclusion criteria. Predictably, the reviewed information revealed that SGA-LAIs have safety profiles consistent with their oral parent formulations. However, they seem to also show unforeseen and worrisome safety signals. Indeed, the routine use of olanzapine-LAI in clinical practice could be limited not only by the well-known risk of postinjection syndrome, whose clinical management remains a matter of concern, but also by the risk of worsening of psychosis. The reviewed information seems to suggest that worsening of psychotic symptoms and depression could also be associated with both risperidone-LAI and paliperidone palmitate. The leading cause of death among patients enrolled in risperidone-LAI studies was suicide. Given the exponential growth in the clinical use of SGA-LAIs, further studies must be urgently performed in order to confirm or exclude the potential safety signals associated with such drugs.
    Pharmacotherapy 06/2013; 33(10). DOI:10.1002/phar.1313 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE The authors compared the efficacy of long-acting injectable antipsychotics and oral antipsychotics on rehospitalization rate of community-dwelling patients with schizophrenia who had frequent admissions. METHODS The cohort study of 14,610 patients was conducted by analyzing the Taiwan National Health Research Institutes data. The patients were divided into groups that received oral antipsychotics (risperidone, a different second-generation antipsychotic, or a first-generation antipsychotic) or long-acting injectable antipsychotics (risperidone, haloperidol, or flupenthixol). RESULTS One-year rehospitalization rates of the final cohort of 10,552 patients were the same for both groups (by long-acting injection, 27.3%; by oral administration, 27.3%). Secondary analysis of groups receiving long-acting injectable medication showed that haloperidol resulted in lower rehospitalization rates (haloperidol, 22.5%; risperidone, 27.1%; and flupenthixol, 29.5%). Patients' characteristics, including age, region, and insurance payments were significantly correlated with the risk of relapse (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS Except for injectable haloperidol, long-acting injectable antipsychotics seem not to be superior to oral antipsychotics in reducing rehospitalization.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 12/2013; 64(12):1259-62. DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.201200506 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated factors influencing physicians' treatment decisions regarding 4 antipsychotic treatment strategies for schizophrenia (conventional oral/conventional depot/atypical oral/atypical depot). We analysed the influence of the patient's compliance with medication, socio-economic status (occupational prestige/educational attainment), as well as the influence of gender, age and practice setting (psychiatric/general hospital/private practice) of the prescribing physician.We examined the influence of these factors by means of case vignettes. 4 vignettes were constructed with varying levels for compliance and socio-economic status. For each vignette, physicians had to choose one treatment strategy from the 4 alternatives. Data were collected using a survey (n=1 342) of physicians in Germany and analysed using a weighted least-squares regression model and a random-effect logit model.Compliance and status had interactive effects on treatment selection. Low compliance was associated with an increase in selections of depot medication. For high-status, noncompliant patients, physicians selected mainly atypical oral and atypical depot antipsychotics. Low-status, noncompliant patients were mostly given conventional and atypical depot antipsychotics. Noncompliant, low-status patients received conventional depot antipsychotics 4 times as often as noncompliant, high-status patients. The physician's age and practice setting were also related to the treatment selection.Therapeutic decisions are influenced by patients' and the physicians' characteristics. There might be barriers for patients with low compliance and low socio-economic status that prevent them from being prescribed newer medications. Not all physicians seem to have the same choices of treatment options available to them.
    Pharmacopsychiatry 05/2012; 45(7). DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1312609 · 2.17 Impact Factor