Article

Trends in Antipsychotic Use in Dementia 1999-2007

Veterans Affairs Health Services Researchand Development Center for Clinical Management Research, Serious Mental Illness Treatment, Resource, and Evaluation Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Archives of general psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.75). 02/2011; 68(2):190-7. DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.200
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Use of atypical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia increased markedly in the 1990s. Concerns about their use began to emerge in 2002, and in 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration warned that use of atypical antipsychotics in dementia was associated with increased mortality.
To examine changes in atypical and conventional antipsychotic use in outpatients with dementia from 1999 through 2007.
Time-series analyses estimated the effect of the various warnings on atypical and conventional antipsychotic usage using national Veterans Affairs data across 3 periods: no warning (1999-2003), early warning (2003-2005), and black box warning (2005-2007).
Patients aged 65 years or older with dementia (n = 254 564).
Outpatient antipsychotic use (percentage of patients, percentage of quarterly change, and difference between consecutive study periods).
In 1999, 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.2-18.1) of patients with dementia were using atypical or conventional antipsychotics. Overall use began to decline during the no-warning period (rate per quarter, -0.12%; 95% CI, -0.16 to -0.07; P < .001). Following the black box warning, the decline continued (rate, -0.26%; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.18; P < .001), with a significant difference between the early and black box warning periods (P = .006). Use of atypical antipsychotics as a group increased during the no-warning period (rate, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.30; P < .001), started to decline during the early-warning period (rate, -0.012; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.11; P = .85), and more sharply declined during the black box warning period (rate, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.18; P < .001). Olanzapine and risperidone showed declining rates and quetiapine showed an increase during the early-warning period, but rates of use for all 3 antipsychotics declined during the black box warning period. In the black box warning period, there was a small but significant increase in anticonvulsant prescriptions (rate, 0.117; 95% CI, 0.08-0.16; P < .001).
Use of atypical antipsychotics began to decline significantly in 2003, and the Food and Drug Administration advisory was temporally associated with a significant acceleration in the decline.

0 Followers
 · 
78 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Background: Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) occur in people with dementia throughout disease course and across etiologies. NPS are associated with significant morbidities and hastened disease processes. Nevertheless, people with dementia are not systematically assessed for NPS in clinical settings. We review existing NPS measures for clinical and/or research purposes, and identify measurement gaps. Methods: We conducted a computerized search of peer-reviewed published studies of measures (January 1, 1980-December 1, 2013) using multiple search terms. Measures selected for review were in English, had adequate psychometric properties, and were developed for or used with people with dementia. Papers describing measures were evaluated by three coders along seven characteristics: behavioral domains, number of items, method of administration, response categories, targeted population, setting, and psychometric properties. Results: Overall, 2,233 papers were identified through search terms, and 36 papers from manual searches of references. From 2,269 papers, 85 measures were identified of which 45 (52.9%) had adequate psychometric properties and were developed or used with dementia populations. Of these, 16 (35.6%) were general measures that included a wide range of behaviors; 29 (64.4%) targeted specific behaviors (e.g. agitation). Measures differed widely as to behaviors assessed and measurement properties. Conclusions: A robust set of diverse measures exists for assessing NPS in different settings. No measures identify risk factors for behaviors or enable an evaluation of the context in which behaviors occur. To improve clinical efforts, research is needed to evaluate concordance of behavioral ratings between formal and informal caregivers, and to develop and test measures that can identify known risks for behaviors and the circumstances under which behaviors occur.
    International Psychogeriatrics 08/2014; 26(11):1-44. DOI:10.1017/S1041610214001537 · 1.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Antipsychotics are commonly used for management of behavioural symptoms in dementia, among people in residential care. This continues to occur despite their modest effectiveness, potential harms including increased risk of death and stroke, and absence of detrimental effect when people with dementia were randomised to antipsychotic withdrawal. This study aims to test the hypothesis that the multifaceted REducing Anti-Psychotic use in residential care-Huntington Disease (REAP-HD) programme is more effective than standard staff education (SSE) in reducing antipsychotic use for people with HD in residential care facilities (RCF). this is a cluster randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. The study population is healthcare professionals looking after people with HD in individual RCF, in the state of New South Wales. Each RCF will be centrally randomised to the REAP-HD programme or the comparator, SSE. Blinded outcome assessment will be performed by examining drug charts and using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Q (NPI-Q). Primary outcome is the proportion of people with HD who have had a reduction in antipsychotic use 4 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome measures are (1) change in severity of behavioural symptoms, as measured by the NPI-Q at 4 months (to ensure antipsychotic reduction has not lead to worsening behavioural symptoms), and (2) proportion of people with HD who have had a reduction in antipsychotic dosage at 4 months for each strategy, compared to 4 months prior to enrolment (to capture the possibility that both arms reduced antipsychotic use). Analysis will be by Intention-To-Treat and take into account the clustering. Recruitment is ongoing, as of July 2014. This protocol has been approved by the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, trial registration ACTRN12614000083695. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication in an anonymous manner. ACTRN12614000083695, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    BMJ Open 12/2014; 4(12):e006151. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006151 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Atypical antipsychotics (AAP) have become some of the most commonly prescribed medications in primary and specialist care settings. Off-label prescribing accounts for much of the expanded use of AAPs. This has become common in the elderly. Marketing by pharmaceutical companies appears to have contributed to the off-label use of AAPs, in situations where their safety and efficacy is far from established. Although evidence provides varying degrees of support for their use for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, augmentation of antidepressants in depression, anxiety, insomnia and in the management of psychosis in Parkinson’s Disease, there are a number of potential problems with their expanded use in the elderly. These include weight gain, type two diabetes mellitus, sudden cardiac death and increased mortality rates in the elderly with dementia. It is recommended that whenever AAPs are used off-label, a review date is identified, informed consent is obtained and treatment and side-effects are closely monitored.
    Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 12/2014; 8(1). DOI:10.1586/17512433.2015.974557