Trends in the use of typical and atypical antipsychotics in children and adolescents.

Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Cincinnati, USA.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 6.35). 07/2005; 44(6):548-56. DOI: 10.1097/01.chi.0000157543.74509.c8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To estimate prevalence rates of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 in three state Medicaid programs (midwestern [MM], southern [SM], and western [WM]) and one private managed care organization (MCO).
Prescription claims were used to evaluate antipsychotic prevalence, defined as the number of children and adolescents up to the age of 19 years with at least one prescription claim for an antipsychotic per 1,000 enrolled youths.
From 1996 to 2001, the prevalence of total antipsychotic use increased in each program (MM: 4.7 to 14.3 per 1,000; SM: 6.3 to 15.5; WM: 4.5 to 6.9; and MCO: 1.5 to 3.4). Typical antipsychotic use decreased (MM: 3.7 to 2.0 per 1,000; SM: 4.6 to 1.5; WM: 4.4 to 1.3; and MCO: 1.2 to 0.9), while atypical antipsychotic use dramatically increased (MM: 1.4 to 13.1 per 1,000; SM: 2.5 to 14.9; WM: 0.3 to 6.2; and MCO: 0.4 to 2.7).
The increased prevalence of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 was attributed to increased use of atypical antipsychotics. Given the limited data with atypical antipsychotics in youths, this emphasizes the need for additional studies of these agents and other treatment modalities in this population.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of prior authorization policies on the receipt of antipsychotic medication for Medicaid-enrolled children. Methods: Using de-identified administrative Medicaid data from two large, neighboring, mid-Atlantic states from November 2007 through June 2011, we identified subjects <18 years of age using antipsychotics, from the broader group of children and adolescents receiving behavioral health services or any psychotropic medication. Prior authorization for antipsychotics was required for children in State A <6 years of age from September 2008, and for children <13 years of age from August 2009. No such prior authorizations existed in State B during that period. Filled prescriptions were identified in the data using national drug codes. Using a triple-difference strategy (using differences among the states, time periods, and differences in antidepressant prescribing rates among states over the same time periods), we examined the effect of the prior authorization policy on the rate at which antipsychotic prescriptions were filled for Medicaid-enrolled children and adolescents. Results: The impact of prior authorization policies on antipsychotic medication use varied by age: Among 6-12 year old children, the impact of the prior authorization policy on antipsychotic medication prescribing was a modest but statistically significant decrease of 0.47% after adjusting for other factors; there was no effect of the prior authorization among children 0-5 years. Conclusions: Prior authorization policies had a modest but statistically significant effect on antipsychotic use in 6-12 year old children, but had no impact in younger children. Future research is needed to understand the utilization and clinical effects of prior authorization and other policies and interventions designed to influence antipsychotic use in children.
    Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 08/2014; 24(7). DOI:10.1089/cap.2014.0008 · 3.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze the initial treatment with antipsychotics (APs) and its changes during the first year of treatment in patients visited in specialized child and adolescent psychiatry departments. Methods: Participants were 265 patients, aged 4 to 17 years, who attended consecutively at 4 different centers and were naive of AP or quasi-naive (less than 30 days since the beginning of AP treatment). Type of AP, dosage, and concomitant medication were registered at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after beginning the treatment with AP. Results: At baseline, the patients' mean age was 14.4 (2.9) years, and 145 (54.7%) patients were males. Antipsychotics were more prescribed in the following: schizophrenia spectrum disorders (30.2%), disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) (18.9%), bipolar disorders (14.3%), depressive disorders (12.8%), and eating disorders (11.7%). A total of 93.2% of the patients were on an off-label indication of AP. Risperidone was the AP most prescribed in all the assessments, but differences were observed in the type of AP according to diagnosis. Thus, risperidone was significantly most prescribed in patients with DBD and olanzapine was most prescribed in patients with eating disorders. Olanzapine and quetiapine were the second-generation APs (SGAs) most prescribed after risperidone, and haloperidol was the most prescribed first-generation AP. Up to 8.3% of patients during the follow-up were on AP polypharmacy. Almost 16% patients had a change in its AP treatment during the follow-up, and the main switch was from one SGA to another. Conclusions: Second-generation APs were the APs most prescribed in our sample and approximately 93% of the patients used AP off-label. Risperidone was the most common AP used above all in patients with DBD, whereas olanzapine was most prescribed in patients with eating disorders. Antipsychotic polypharmacy and switch rates were low during the follow-up.
    Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 08/2014; 34(5). DOI:10.1097/JCP.0000000000000190 · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this review is to consider the psychological (largely behavioral) and biological [neurochemical, medical (including genetic), and pharmacological] theories and approaches that contribute to current thinking about the etiology and treatment of self-injurious behavior (SIB) in individuals with autism spectrum disorder and/or intellectual disability. Algorithms for the assessment and treatment of SIB in this context, respectively, from a multidisciplinary, integrative perspective are proposed and challenges and opportunities that exist in clinical and research settings are discussed.
    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 11/2014; DOI:10.1007/s10803-014-2307-3 · 3.34 Impact Factor


Available from
May 17, 2014