HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Taylor, D. Articles by Whiskey, E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Taylor, D. Articles by Whiskey, E.

Co-prescribing of atypical and typical antipsychotics — prescribing sequence and documented outcome

Pharmacy Department, Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AZ (tel: 020 7740 5040; fax: 020 7919 3448)

Declaration of interest

D.T. has received research funding from various manufacturers of atypical antipsychotics and the Department of Health, and consultancy fees and honoraria for presentations received from AstraZeneca, Janssen—Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. S.M. has received consultancy fees and honoraria for presentations from Eli Lilly and Novartis; S.M. has received research funding from Pfizer; and E.W. has received honoraria for presentations from Eli Lilly.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction The study Findings Comment References

 
AIMS AND METHOD

To evaluate patterns of antipsychotic co-prescription and to establish documented outcome, we reviewed 1441 in-patient and community prescriptions written in a large mental health trust. For patients co-prescribed regular atypical and typical antipsychotics for longer than 6 weeks, medication histories were taken and case notes examined to determine sequence of prescribing, documented outcome and reasons for co-prescription.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients had been co-prescribed aytpical and typical antipsychotics for more than 6 weeks. In 62% of cases the atypical drug had been prescribed first and a typical drug added later. The most frequently documented reason for co-prescription was that symptoms persisted when prescribed a single antipsychotic. Clinical outcome was documented for 64% of patients: 45% of the total number treated showed some improvement, with seven of 53 patients noted to have shown improvements in psychotic symptoms.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Co-prescription of aytpical and typical antipsychotics often occurs as a consequence of poor outcome with single drug treatment. In this study there was minimal evidence to suggest that co-prescription improved outcome to an important extent. There remains little support for co-prescription of antipsychotics but considerable evidence to suggest that such practice worsens adverse effect burden. Co-prescription of atypical and typical antipsychotics should be avoided in all but very exceptional circumstances.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction The study Findings Comment References

 
In practice, typical and atypical antipscyhotics are commonly co-prescribed (Ereshefsky, 1999; Taylor et al, 2000a) despite clear evidence that such prescribing substantially increases the use of anticholingeric medication (Taylor et al, 2000a,b). This increased frequency of anticholinergic prescribing is an accepted marker of an increased frequency or severity of acute extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), presumably brought about by additional blockade of striatal dopamine D₂ receptors (Kapur et al, 2001).

Very few data support the supposed therapeutic benefits of atypical—typical co-prescribing. As far as we are aware, only one randomised controlled trial has been conducted in this field (Shiloh et al, 1997) and this showed only a modest benefit for the addition of sulpiride to clozapine therapy. Other supporting data are rather less compelling (Yuzda, 2000), being derived largely from case studies or case series (e.g. Mowerman & Siris, 1996).

Thus, co-prescription of atypical and typical antipsychotics continues to be widespread in the face of weak evidence of benefit and rather stronger evidence of a deleterious effect on tolerability. Little or nothing is known of the reasoning behind decisions to co-prescribe, the sequence of prescribing or of the documented outcome of co-prescribing in everyday practice.

This study was undertaken to evaluate these elements of co-prescribing of atypical and typical antipsychotics.

	The study

Top Abstract Introduction The study Findings Comment References

 
In the first quarter of 2001 we reviewed all prescriptions written for patients of the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. This review included all in-patients and community patients whose medication was supplied by trust pharmacies, but excluded out-patients and patients obtaining medication from community pharmacies.

All patients co-prescribed regular atypical antipsychotics with any other regular antipsychotic for longer than 6 weeks at full treatment doses were identified. For these patients, prescribing details and medication histories were recorded and patient notes examined to determine demographic data, documented reasoning for co-prescribing and documented outcome.

	Findings

Top Abstract Introduction The study Findings Comment References

 
We examined 1441 prescriptions and uncovered 53 patients (4%) fulfilling the criteria above. Their mean age was 40.5 years (range 21-71) and 34 (64%) were male. All had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

In 33 patients (62%) an atypical antipsychotic had been prescribed first and another antipsychotic added to it. Clozapine was first prescribed in 21 of these patients, olanzapine in nine, quetiapine in two and risperidone in one. For the other 20 patients (38%) a typical antipsychotic was first prescribed (depot 15, oral typical five patients) (see Table 1 for details).

The reason for co-prescribing was documented for 48 (91%) patients. Documented reasons are given in Table 2.

Clinical outcome of co-prescribing was documented for 34 (64%). Overall, 24 patients (45%) were noted to have shown some improvement in any symptom domain. Documented evidence of improvement in psychotic symptoms (delusions, hallucinations and thought disorder) was noted in seven cases (13%). Psychotic symptoms were clearly not improved in 27 patients (51%). In one case (2%) an improvement in adverse effects was documented. For 10 patients (19%) documentation clearly indicated that no improvement of any kind had been observed.

	Comment

Top Abstract Introduction The study Findings Comment References

 
The main findings of this study were that co-prescription was undertaken largely in an attempt to improve symptoms and that clinical outcome, where documented, was variable but unremarkable. Where response to treatment was documented, improvements in psychotic symptoms were uncommon. Indeed, most documented changes were trivial (examples included: sleep improved, more settled and less distracted).

As discussed earlier, atypical—typical co-prescription is for the most part poorly supported by published literature. However, augmentation of clozapine with sulpiride has some clinical trial backing (Shiloh et al, 1997) and attempted augmentation with any drug is probably supportable if clozapine has proved insufficiently effective alone (Chong & Remington, 2000). In 21 of 53 cases examined here, another drug was added to clozapine therapy; of these, only five had had documented improvements in psychotic symptoms. In another 12 cases, typical drugs were added to existing atypical (non-clozapine) therapy, largely in an attempt to improve psychotic symptoms. Improvement in psychotic symptoms was documented in only two cases. Clozapine may have been a more appropriate choice in these cases, since only one of these 12 had previously received the drug.

In seven of 53 cases studied here, co-prescription had arisen from an apparent desire to improve adverse effects. In most cases it was clear that the intention was to withdraw the poorly tolerated drug once the second drug had been established, but this had not been done. In only one patient was there documented improvement in adverse effects — the addition of olanzapine to fluphenazine depot reduced the severity of oro-facial dyskinesia.

Documentation of clinical change was poor — outcome could not be determined for 34% of patients in the sample. Where clinical change was documented, it was limited to brief descriptions of alterations in symptoms or adverse effects. In no case was monitoring or documentation systematic and no validated rating scales of any kind had been used.

In this study, co-prescription of atypical and typical antipsychotics rarely led to documented improvement in psychotic symptoms. Augmentation of clozapine with, for example, sulpiride, is probably valid where clozapine alone has failed, but all other co-prescription should probably be avoided. Prospective, randomised evaluations of antipsychotic polypharmacy are needed.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction The study Findings Comment References

 
CHONG, S. A. & REMINGTON, G. (2000) Clozapine augmentation: safety and efficacy. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26, 421-440.

ERESHEFSKY, L. (1999) Pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic considerations in choosing an antipsychotic. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60(Suppl 10), 20-30.

KAPUR, S., ROY, P., DASKALAKIS, J., et al (2001) Increased dopamine D2 receptor occupancy and elevated prolactin level associated with addition of haloperidol to clozapine. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 311-314.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

MOWERMAN, S. & SIRIS, S. G. (1996) Adjunctive loxapine in a clozapine resistant cohort of schizophrenic patients. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 8, 193-197.[Medline]

SHILOH, R., ZEMISHLANY, S., AIZENBERG, D., et al(1997) Sulpride augmentation in people with schizophrenia partially responsive to clozapine. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 569-573.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

TAYLOR, D., MACE, S., MIR, S., et al (2000a) A prescription survey of the use of atypical antipsychotics for hospital inpatients in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 4, 41-46.

TAYLOR, D., MIR, S. & KERWIN, R. (2000b) Prescribing in schizophrenia. Evaluating the effect of introducing a new treatment protocol. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24, 106-108.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

YUZDA, M. S. K., (2000) Combination antipsychotics: what is the evidence? Journal of Informed Pharmacotherapy, 2, 300-305.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Ito, A. Koyama, and T. Higuchi Polypharmacy and excessive dosing: psychiatrists' perceptions of antipsychotic drug prescription The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2005; 187(3): 243 - 247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Haw and J. Stubbs Combined antipsychotics for 'difficult-to-manage' and forensic patients with schizophrenia: reasons for prescribing and perceived benefits Psychiatr. Bull., December 1, 2003; 27(12): 449 - 452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Taylor Antipsychotic prescribing -- time to review practice Psychiatr. Bull., November 1, 2002; 26(11): 401 - 402. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Taylor, D. Articles by Whiskey, E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Taylor, D. Articles by Whiskey, E.