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: 3.41). 11/2012; 47(1). DOI: 10.1177/0004867412466595
Source: PubMed


This study examined longitudinal trends in the dispensing of psychotropic medications in Australia from January 2000 to December 2011.

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).

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.

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.

Download full-text


Available from: Emily Karanges, Jan 20, 2016
    • "The model considers a mix of pharmacotherapies because in practice, a large variety of antidepressants are prescribed for patients with MDD depending on previous treatments, medication tolerance, and resistance. The antidepressant mix includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which account for a large share of MDD medications in Australia, followed by serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclics, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants, reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase A, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors [12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy is a clinically safe, noninvasive, nonsystemic treatment for major depressive disorder. Objective: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rTMS versus pharmacotherapy for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications. Methods: A 3-year Markov microsimulation model with 2-monthly cycles was used to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of rTMS and a mix of antidepressant medications (including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclics, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors). The model synthesized data sourced from published literature, national cost reports, and expert opinions. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated, and uncertainty of the results was assessed using univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with pharmacotherapy, rTMS is a dominant/cost-effective alternative for patients with treatment-resistant depressive disorder. The model predicted that QALYs gained with rTMS were higher than those gained with antidepressant medications (1.25 vs. 1.18 QALYs) while costs were slightly less (AU $31,003 vs. AU $31,190). In the Australian context, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of AU $50,000 per QALY gain, the probability that rTMS was cost-effective was 73%. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the superiority of rTMS in terms of value for money compared with antidepressant medications. Conclusions: Although both pharmacotherapy and rTMS are clinically effective treatments for major depressive disorder, rTMS is shown to outperform antidepressants in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications.
    No preview · Article · May 2015 · Value in Health
  • Source
    • "Several studies on US and Canada prescriptions examined the impact of regulatory safety warnings and found only a slight decrease or even an increase of the antipsychotic use (especially SGAs in patients with dementia) [20-23]. Our data are also in line with a recent analysis on Australian data, which revealed a +217.7% increase in atypical antipsychotic dispensation over the 2000-2011 period, with olanzapine as the most frequently dispensed agent [53]. A previous European Cross National Comparison survey, performed on 12 Countries over the 2000-2005 period, highlighted large variability in antipsychotic exposure, but reported only a slight increase in their consumption [40]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Antipsychotics (APs) have been associated with risk of torsade de Pointes (TdP). This has important public health implications. Therefore, (a) we exploited the public FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to characterize their torsadogenic profile; (b) we collected drug utilization data from 12 European Countries to assess the population exposure over the 2005-2010 period. FAERS data (2004-2010) were analyzed based on the following criteria: (1) ≥4 cases of TdP/QT abnormalities; (2) Significant Reporting Odds Ratio, ROR [Lower Limit of the 95% confidence interval>1], for TdP/QT abnormalities, adjusted and stratified (Arizona CERT drugs as effect modifiers); (3) ≥4 cases of ventricular arrhythmia/sudden cardiac death (VA/SCD); (4) Significant ROR for VA/SCD; (5) Significant ROR, combined by aggregating TdP/QT abnormalities with VA and SCD. Torsadogenic signals were characterized in terms of signal strength: from Group A (very strong torsadogenic signal: all criteria fulfilled) to group E (unclear/uncertain signal: only 2/5 criteria). Consumption data were retrieved from 12 European Countries and expressed as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DID). Thirty-five antipsychotics met at least one criterium: 9 agents were classified in Group A (amisulpride, chlorpromazine, clozapine, cyamemazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone). In 2010, the overall exposure to antipsychotics varied from 5.94 DID (Estonia) to 13.99 (France, 2009). Considerable increment of Group A agents was found in several Countries (+3.47 in France): the exposure to olanzapine increased across all Countries (+1.84 in France) and peaked 2.96 in Norway; cyamemazine was typically used only in France (2.81 in 2009). Among Group B drugs, levomepromazine peaked 3.78 (Serbia); fluphenazine 1.61 (Slovenia). This parallel approach through spontaneous reporting and drug utilization analyses highlighted drug- and Country-specific scenarios requiring potential regulatory consideration: levomepromazine (Serbia), fluphenazine (Slovenia), olanzapine (across Europe), cyamemazine (France). This synergy should be encouraged to support future pharmacovigilance activities.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2013 · PLoS ONE
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Existing evidence points to a substantial rise in psychosocial disorders affecting young people over the past 50 years (Rutter & Smith, 1995). However, there are major methodological challenges in providing conclusive answers about secular changes in disorder. Comparisons of rates of disorder at different time points are often affected by changes in diagnostic criteria, differences in assessment methods, and changes in official reporting practices. Few studies have examined this issue using the same instruments at each time point. The current study assessed the extent to which conduct, hyperactive and emotional problems have become more common over a 25-year period in three general population samples of UK adolescents. The samples used in this study were the adolescent sweeps of the National Child Development Study and the 1970 Birth Cohort Study, and the 1999 British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Survey. Comparable questionnaires were completed by parents of 15-16-year-olds at each time point (1974, 1986, and 1999). Results showed a substantial increase in adolescent conduct problems over the 25-year study period that has affected males and females, all social classes and all family types. There was also evidence for a recent rise in emotional problems, but mixed evidence in relation to rates of hyperactive behaviour. Further analyses using longitudinal data from the first two cohorts showed that long-term outcomes for adolescents with conduct problems were closely similar. This provided evidence that observed trends were unaffected by possible changes in reporting thresholds.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2004 · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Show more