Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Polypharmacy”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Reducing polypharmacy through the introduction of a treatment algorithm: use of a treatment algorithm on the impact on polypharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is very common in the psychiatric setting despite the lack of evidence to justify its use. The objective of this study was to review the prescription patterns in a tertiary mental health institute in Asia and evaluate the impact of a treatment algorithm for patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) on the use of polypharmacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A treatment algorithm was implemented for patients accepted into an Early Psychosis Intervention Programme (EPIP) and the prescription patterns of these patients were compared with a comparator group (pre-EPIP) before the use of the algorithm. The prescribing pattern was established at 2 points: at baseline after the diagnosis was made, and 3 months later. RESULTS: There were 68 subjects in the comparator group and 483 EPIP patients; the latter were on the average younger. None in the comparator group was diagnosed to have an affective psychosis. There was a significant reduction in the rate of antipsychotic polypharmacy, prolonged use of benzodiazepines and anticholinergic medication in EPIP patients. This group also had an increase in the use of second-generation antipsychotics and received lower doses of antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a treatment algorithm coupled with audit has changed the trend towards polypharmacy among patients with FEP.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Polypharmacy trends in office visits by the elderly in the United States, 1990 and 2000.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy has been extensively studied internationally and reported to be increasing among the elderly. Within the United States, few studies have examined polypharmacy trends in the elderly population and even fewer studies addressed those at-risk for polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the trends in office-based visits in the United States by the elderly involving polypharmacy and identify elderly at-risk for polypharmacy. METHODS: Data from the 1990 and 2000 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys were used to examine polypharmacy visit trends in the elderly. The Bonferroni inequality method was used to analyze the visit estimates and visit rates. Logistic regression analysis was used to model predisposing, enabling, and need factors associated with polypharmacy visits in the elderly using the 2000 survey data. RESULTS: Office visits involving polypharmacy for elderly patients were estimated to have nearly quadrupled from 10.1 million in 1990 to 37.5 million in 2000. The proportion of visits by elderly patients involving polypharmacy was 7% in 1990 and 19% in 2000. The increase was consistent among all demographic groups and remained significant even after controlling for elderly population increase. Medication classes involved in polypharmacy remained consistent during the study period and included cardiovascular, hormonal, pain, and gastrointestinal medications. Analysis of the 2000 survey data revealed that several need (multiple diagnoses, chronic problems, and specific disease states), predisposing (female gender), and enabling factors (primary care provider visit and health insurance coverage) were associated with polypharmacy visits in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: The study found a significant increase in elderly patients' office visits involving polypharmacy in the United States. The study also found that several need, predisposing, and enabling factors were associated with polypharmacy visits in the elderly. These findings suggest opportunities to review and manage elderly patients' medications as recommended by Healthy People 2010, a national agenda to improve the health of Americans.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Reduction of high-risk polypharmacy drug combinations in patients in a managed care setting.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To enhance physician and patient awareness of polypharmacy; to decrease the risks, drug costs, and waste resulting from polypharmacy; and to make the business case for reducing misuse, overuse, and underuse of drugs by reducing polypharmacy. DESIGN: Longitudinal, time series cohort. SETTING: Outpatient, managed care, integrated delivery system. PATIENTS: A total of 195,971 patients who received health care from the Henry Ford Medical Group and had health insurance coverage from the Health Alliance Plan. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two identical interventions separated by 1 year were conducted in patients at high risk of harm from polypharmacy based on five categories of high-risk drug combinations (referred to as polypharmacy events). Six months of pharmacy claims data were reviewed before and after each intervention to identify these patients. The intervention program consisted of clinical pharmacists performing drug therapy reviews, educating physicians and patients about drug safety and polypharmacy, and working with physicians and patients to correct polypharmacy problems. Prescription cost/member/month, number of prescriptions/member/month, and rates of polypharmacy events/1000 members were measured before and after each of the two interventions. After the first intervention, the overall rate of polypharmacy events decreased from 29.01 to 9.43/1000 patients (67.5% reduction). The number of prescriptions/member/month decreased from 4.6 to 2.2 (52.2% reduction), prescription cost/member/month decreased from $222 to $113 (49.1% reduction), and overall institution drug cost was reduced by $4.8 million. Six months after the second intervention, the overall rate of polypharmacy events was reduced from 27.99 to 17.07/1000 (39% reduction), the number of prescriptions/member/month decreased from 4.5 to 4.0 (11.1% reduction), and prescription cost/member/month decreased from $264 to $239 (9.5% reduction). Overall institution drug costs were reduced by $1.3 million. Sustained effects were seen for all measures of polypharmacy (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These interventions reduced drug costs and numbers of prescriptions in a managed care cohort of patients at high risk for adverse drug events due to polypharmacy. By providing clinical information, decision support, patient self-management support, and care delivery redesign some of the problems resulting from polypharmacy can be solved.

Aged, 80 and over↗
PubMed2004

Reasons for polypharmacy among psychiatric patients.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing attention has recently been focused on polypharmacy, which is often referred to as an indicator of irrational drug consumption. Although polypharmacy is an important risk factor for problems arising from drug therapies, certain health concerns and conditions or patient-specific factors may justify the need for polypharmacy. In recent years there no data have been published regarding polypharmacy in Hungary. OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the frequency of polypharmacy among psychiatric patients. The study also looked at the extent to which comorbidity and demographic characteristics (age, gender) were responsible for the multiple drug use. METHODS: An inpatient database of the year 2001 at the psychiatric department was analysed. Based on the standard definition of polypharmacy the authors enrolled into the polypharmacy group those patients who were on more than five drugs as part of chronic and simultaneous therapy. The data were analysed with the SPSS 9.0 statistics program package. RESULTS: Among the psychiatric patients included in the study (N = 984) the frequency of polypharmacy was 33.6%. Significant correlation was found between the investigated factors (age, gender, comorbidity) and polypharmacy. On the basis of OR-values, comorbidity was the strongest inducer of polypharmacy. CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy cannot be fundamentally regarded as unnecessary drug use. Numerous facts prove that in certain diseases and conditions adequate polypharmacy is necessary.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Three complementary definitions of polypharmacy: methods, application and comparison of findings in a large prescription database.

PURPOSE: To develop and compare three operational definitions of polypharmacy using a large prescription database. METHODS: We defined Cumulative polypharmacy as all prescriptions filled during a 178 day window--which captured 95% of eventual refills as calculated from Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence curves. Continuous polypharmacy was all prescriptions filled in two such windows 6 months apart. Simultaneous polypharmacy was the number of prescriptions active on a particular day, as determined by fill dates and amount of medication given. We applied these definitions to the outpatient prescription files of New England veterans and compared the resulting estimates of polypharmacy using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 118,013 patients received at least one prescription between January 1998 and July 1999. Cumulative polypharmacy averaged 3.54 (SD = 4.95) medications and continuous polypharmacy averaged 1.96 (SD = 3.23). Examination of simultaneous polypharmacy over 40 2-week intervals revealed an average of 2.63 (CI 2.61-2.65), a minimum of 1.09 (CI 1.08-1.10) and maximum of 4.94 (CI 4.92-4.96). One arbitrarily selected observation point had an average of 3.87 (SD = 3.17). CONCLUSIONS: Our definitions of cumulative and continuous polypharmacy serve to set upper and lower bounds for the estimate of polypharmacy. Our method for simultaneous polypharmacy gives numbers that diverge in some respects, but it is better at showing transient changes in medications. The methods are complementary and allow exploration of various aspects of medication use, such as cumulative medication exposure over time, the influence of chronic medical problems, and the causes of rapid changes in medications.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed2005

Polypharmacy in the elderly: a literature review.

PURPOSE: To review the body of literature addressing polypharmacy in individuals aged 60 years and older to (a) determine primary care providers' definition of polypharmacy, (b) explore how polypharmacy was assessed in primary care, and (c) seek tested interventions that address polypharmacy. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of electronic bibliographic databases (e.g. EBSCOHost, InfoTrac, OVID, FirstSearch, and FirstSearch Deluxe) utilizing the search terms "polypharmacy," "polypharmacy and elderly," "polypharmacy and research," and "multiple medications" for the period January 1991 to October 2003 was completed. The search was supplemented with online site searches of relevant journals and review of reference lists of each article. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the literature review revealed that polypharmacy continues to be a significant issue and little research has been conducted regarding the methods primary care providers utilize to assess polypharmacy. Also, there is a gap in the literature regarding the interventions implemented by primary care providers to address polypharmacy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The following definition of polypharmacy in clinical practice might be more practical: the use of medications that are not clinically indicated. Selecting appropriate limits for numbers of medications may be counterproductive in populations with multiple comorbidities.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Polypharmacy and Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy has not been defined for Crohn's disease. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy, factors associated with polypharmacy, and consequences of polypharmacy in a Crohn's disease population. METHODS: A review of 291 Crohn's disease patients was performed. Polypharmacy was defined as either minor (two to four medications) or major (> or = 5 medications). Clinical status was evaluated with the Harvey-Bradshaw index of disease activity (HBI) and the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ). RESULTS: Major polypharmacy was identified in 50% of patients. Crohn's disease patients on less than two medications at the intake visit had an HBI of 3.6 compared with 5.4 and 6.0 in the minor and major polypharmacy groups (P < 0.05). Similarly, patients on less than two medications had an SIBDQ of 60.3 compared with 55.7 and 53.4 in the minor and major polypharmacy groups (P = 0.11). Predictors of polypharmacy included age > 40 years (OR 1.9), duration of disease > 10 years (OR 2.0), and female sex (OR 2.5). CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is common in Crohn's disease and correlates with increased disease activity and decreased quality of life. Increasing age, increasing duration of disease, and female sex are associated with major polypharmacy. These findings emphasize the need for improved treatment algorithms to optimize Crohn's disease patient management.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Prevalence, trends, and factors associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy among Medicaid-eligible schizophrenia patients, 1998-2000.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, trends, and factors associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy categorized according to type of antipsychotic and duration of use and to contrast usage patterns with published treatment guidelines. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was designed, and Medicaid recipients > or = 16 years of age with a schizophrenia diagnosis (ICD-9-CM = 295.xx) between 1998 and 2000 were identified from the California (20% random sample) and Georgia Medicaid claims databases. Use of anti-psychotic polypharmacy was categorized based on duration (long-term polypharmacy was defined as lasting > 2 months), and long-term use was further categorized based on type of antipsychotic combinations (clozapine, conventional, and atypical). The prevalence, mean duration, and frequency of and yearwise trends in antipsychotic polypharmacy were estimated. A stepwise logistic variable selection procedure was used to identify factors associated with long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy. RESULTS: Of a total of 31,435 persons with schizophrenia, the 1998-2000 prevalence of anti-psychotic polypharmacy was 40% (N = 12,549; mean age = 43 years; white, 47%; female, 48%; mean duration of polypharmacy = 149 days), and long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy prevalence was 23% (N = 7222, mean duration = 236 days). The prevalence of atypical antipsychotic poly-pharmacy increased between 1998 and 2000 (p < .0001). Use of newer atypicals such as quetiapine (OR = 18.32) and older conventionals such as chlorpromazine (OR = 28.87) was strongly associated with long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotic polypharmacy is widely prevalent, is prescribed for long durations, and is an increasing phenomenon among Medicaid-eligible schizophrenia patients, indicating a significant discrepancy with treatment guidelines (which do not advocate the use of any poly-pharmacy except for short-term periods when transitioning patients to new antipsychotics). Further research evaluating the effects of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia patients may assist in defining the scope and potential of such use.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Antipsychotic polypharmacy.

The administration of more than one drug for a single medical condition is considered to be polypharmacy. There are many possible reasons for polypharmacy: (1) psychosis is a chronic disease that cannot be cured; (2) expectations to improve patients' quality of life beyond what drugs can actually do is high; (3) the lack of side effects and interactions can cause physicians to be more daring in terms of potential complications; (4) information from the Internet may cause patients and their families to demand medications; (5) the diluted mental health system allows legal guardians and other mental health professionals to force physicians to provide multiple drugs; (6) many new drugs are available; and (7) physicians are forced to shorten hospitalization days. The 1997 American Psychiatric Association Practice Research Network found that 17% of 146 patients with schizophrenia were treated concurrently with more than one antipsychotic medication. Polypharmacy may increase the risk of adverse effects, drug interactions, noncompliance, and medication errors. It is not wise to use polypharmacy only to prevent side effects and drug and interactions. Our attempts to reduce polypharmacy may fail, as academicians also propagate polypharmacy, and all of the algorithms indicate polypharmacy as an option, putting physicians in a legal and ethical bind. Techniques such as experimental ward, peer review, computer information feedback, and comparing different techniques may temporarily reduce polypharmacy but long-term outcome is not affected. Scientific data on the efficacy of polypharmacy is needed in order to sort out good and bad polypharmacy.

Antipsychotic Agents↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Polypharmacy: a case report and new protocol for management.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is an important issue in primary care, yet few data are available concerning its prevalence, complications, and management in clinical medicine. The following case illustrates the clinical perils of polypharmacy and serves as a point for critical discussion. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched, using the key word "polypharmacy," from 1994 to the present. A case report of polypharmacy is described, and a novel protocol for the management of polypharmacy is proposed. RESULTS: Polypharmacy can lead to unnecessary expense, wasted time, and embarrassment on the part of the patient and confusion and mismanagement on the part of the physician. The literature reveals controversy surrounding the definition of polypharmacy and reflects the considerable morbidity and expense associated with polypharmacy. Finally, the SAIL protocol shows that physicians need to keep in mind simplicity, adverse effects, indications, and a precise list of all medications to manage appropriately a patient's drug regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is associated with morbidity and iatrogenic complications. The SAIL protocol can be a useful tool in the management of this entity. More research needs to be done on the prevalence, complications, and management of polypharmacy.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

The development of polypharmacy. A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: To date, only a few studies have been carried out on the development and progress of polypharmacy in relation to morbidity in general practices in The Netherlands. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between an increase in long-term drug use and the incidence and severity of some chronic diseases, particularly in the elderly. METHODS: Data on medication and morbidity of 1544 elderly people were collected for the period 1994-1997 from three family practices in the medication and morbidity Registration Network of Groningen (RNG) in the northern part of The Netherlands. Polypharmacy is defined as the long-term simultaneous use of two or more drugs; long-term is defined as >240 days in a year. We looked for differences in incidences of some chronic diseases in those subgroups of the elderly in whom multiple long-term drug use respectively increased, stayed constant or did not exist. Polypharmacy at the end of the period was predicted using regression analysis. RESULTS: Polypharmacy occurred in 42% of the elderly at the end of 1997, with major polypharmacy (>5 drugs) in only 4%. The average number of drugs used long-term increased from 1.3 to 1.8 in 4 years. Predictors for the increase of polypharmacy were the number of drugs at the start, age, diabetes, coronary ischaemic diseases and use of medication without a clear indication (P < 0.005). The average number of diseases also increased, especially in the elderly who showed the greatest increase in long-term drug use; however, there was no significant difference from the groups with a slow or no increase in drug use. DISCUSSION: Polypharmacy showed a slow increase over 4 years: almost 20% of the elderly developed polypharmacy, i.e. going from no drugs or one drug to two or more drugs. Polypharmacy develops mainly in elderly patients who already use several drugs, who are known to suffer from cardiovascular diseases, diabetes or stomach symptoms, those who often take drugs (especially sedatives/hypnotics) without clear indication and those who develop hypertension or atrial fibrillation over time.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Polypharmacy in general practice: differences between practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy, the simultaneous use of multiple drugs, is associated with adverse drug reactions, medication errors, and increased risk of hospitalization. When the number of concurrently used drugs totals five or more (major polypharmacy), a significant risk may be present. AIM: To analyse the interpractice variation in the prevalence of major polypharmacy among listed patients, and to identify possible predictors of major polypharmacy related to the practice. METHOD: Prescription data were retrieved from the Odense Pharmacoepidemiological Database, and individuals subject to major polypharmacy were identified. The age- and sex-standardized prevalence rate of major polypharmacy was calculated for each practice in the County of Funen in Denmark (n = 173), using the distribution of age and sex of the background population as a reference. The practice characteristics were retrieved from the Regional Health Insurance System. Possible predictors of major polypharmacy related to the general practitioners (GPs) were analysed using backward stepwise linear multiple regression. RESULTS: A six-fold variation between the practices in the prevalence of major polypharmacy was found (16 to 96 per 1000 listed patients; median = 42). Predictors related to the practice structure, workload, clinical work profile, and prescribing profile could explain 56% of the variation. CONCLUSION: A substantial part of the variation in major polypharmacy between practices can be explained by predictors related to practice.

Adult↗
PubMed1986

Polypharmacy in an Australian teaching hospital. Preliminary analysis of prevalence, types of drugs and associations.

A computer-based prescription retrieval system was used to study 21,521 prescriptions that had been provided to hospital patients who were receiving predominantly outpatient care. Over a three-month period 338 patients were found to be receiving 10 or more different drugs concomitantly. A further 338 patients were drawn at random from the same outpatient population for comparison. Age was linked significantly to polypharmacy (polypharmacy group: mean age, 63.7 years, SEM = 1.09; comparison group: mean age, 53.8 years, SEM = 1.00, P less than 0.05; chi 2 = 62.8, P less than 0.001). The relative risk of polypharmacy was related linearly to age. Admission to hospital was associated with increased prescribing rates in the polypharmacy sample (P less than 0.05), as was attendance at multiple clinics and multiple attendance at outpatient clinics (P less than 0.05 and P less than 0.05, respectively). Benzodiazepine agents were included in 63.7% of prescriptions in the polypharmacy group and in 37.3% of prescriptions in the comparison group. Non-prescription drugs were noted in 97.2% of prescriptions in the polypharmacy group and 58.0% of prescriptions in the comparison group, representing 34.7% and 27.3% of all items, respectively. In patients of less than 30 years of age agents for allergy/asthma/atopy contributed most to polypharmacy; agents that were associated with renal failure most in patients aged 31-50 years; and agents for cardiovascular disease contributed most in patients aged over 50 years. Our results suggest that a reduction in the use of non-prescription and psychotropic agents, heightened awareness of the dangers of polypharmacy and coordination and integration of over-all care and prescribing habits should reduce polypharmacy materially.

Australia↗
PubMed2004

Specialist care of heart failure improves appropriate pharmacotherapy at the expense of greater polypharmacy and drug-interactions.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern at the nature and extent of polypharmacy in heart failure (HF), which may be associated with increased drug interactions, adverse drug effects and a poor understanding of and compliance with therapy. AIMS: This study evaluates polypharmacy in a relatively unselected community heart failure population following emergency admission and determines the impact of an in-hospital, specialist heart failure care programme on appropriate pharmacotherapy, polypharmacy and drug interactions. METHODS: We analysed the medication profiles of 91 consecutive patients with an emergency admission for HF to our institution on admission and discharge. The numbers of inappropriate medicines, inappropriate dosages and omitted medicines according to guidelines were recorded. Medication profiles were analysed for potential drug-drug, drug-liver and drug-kidney interactions using standard criteria. RESULTS: In the study population, average age 71.1+/-10.4 years, 65.9% were male, 68.1% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction and the average ejection fraction on transfer to the specialist HF service was 38+/-13%. A total of 66 inappropriate medicines, 107 omitted medicines and 37 inappropriate dosage regimens were identified in the cohort on admission. These figures had dropped to 31, 33 and 19, respectively, on discharge, with per patient averages decreasing significantly (all P<0.0001). However, polypharmacy and potential drug interactions increased by 33% and 62%, respectively, from admission to discharge (P<0.0001) as did drug-kidney interactions and drug-liver interactions. Only ischemic aetiology and hypercholesterolaemia predicted polypharmacy in this cohort on discharge, whereas age, sex, renal function and heart failure type did not. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist care of heart failure following emergency admission results in more appropriate pharmacotherapy of heart failure. However, increased polypharmacy and drug-interactions are an inevitable consequence independent of age, sex and renal function. We advocate a practice of systematic evaluation of polypharmacy in all heart failure patients to identify potential problems and modify therapy where appropriate.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Persistence with polypharmacy and excessive dosing in patients with schizophrenia treated in four European countries.

The purpose of this study was to calculate the proportion of patients with schizophrenia receiving persistent antipsychotic polypharmacy and excessive dosing in four European countries; to test the hypothesis that excessive dosing and/or antipsychotic polypharmacy is associated with higher levels of psychopathology; and to establish whether use of second-generation antipsychotics is a protective or a risk factor for polypharmacy and excessive dosing. Participants with schizophrenia were recruited from patients under the care of psychiatric services serving geographical catchment areas in Croydon (UK), Verona (Italy), Amsterdam (Netherlands), and Leipzig (Germany). We defined patients persistently receiving high antipsychotic dose (i.e. excessive dosing) as those with a prescribed daily dose/defined daily dose ratio of >1.5 both at initial assessment and after 1 year of follow-up. Similarly, we defined patients persistently receiving polypharmacy as those being prescribed two or more antipsychotic drugs both at baseline and at follow-up. A sample of 375 participants with schizophrenia was analyzed. A proportion of 28% of patients persistently received high-dose antipsychotic drugs, and a proportion of 13% of patients persistently received antipsychotic polypharmacy. In the multivariate analysis, psychopathology was not a predictor of persistent polypharmacy and excessive dosing; similarly, use of second-generation antipsychotics was not associated with polypharmacy and excessive dosing; however, persistence with high antipsychotic doses was predicted by baseline use of first-generation antipsychotics and second-generation antipsychotics concurrently. Antipsychotic drug use for patients with schizophrenia is only sometimes satisfactory and offers the opportunity of improvement. Clinicians should consider that dose reduction strategies have been shown to be a feasible intervention in patients with schizophrenia.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Polypharmacy in psychiatric practice in the Canary Islands.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy with psychoactive drugs is an increasingly common and debatable contemporary practice in clinical psychiatry based more upon experience than evidence. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and conditioners of polypharmacy in psychiatric patients. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was carried out using the Canary Islands Health Service Clinical Records Database. A representative sample (n = 2,647) of patients with mental disorders receiving psychotropic medication was studied. RESULTS: The mean number of psychoactive drugs prescribed was 1.63 +/- 0.93 (range 1-7). The rate of polypharmacy was 41.9%, with 27.8% of patients receiving two drugs, 9.1% receiving three, 3.2% receiving four, and 1.8% of the patients receiving five or more psychotropic drugs. Multiple regression analysis shows that variables sex and diagnosis have a predictive value with regard to the number of psychotropic drug used, being men and schizophrenic patients the most predisposed. Benzodiazepines were the more prevalent drugs in monotherapy, while anticonvulsants and antipsychotics were the more used in combination with other treatment. A questionable very high degree of same-class polypharmacy was evidenced, while multi-class, adjunctive and augmentation polypharmacy seem to be more appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the psychiatric patients are treated with several psychotropics. Polypharmacy is common and seems to be problematic, especially when same class of drugs are prescribed together. Some diagnoses, such as schizophrenia, are associated with an increase risk of Polypharmacy but there is a lack of evidence based indicators that allows for quality evaluation on this practice.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Antipsychotic monotherapy and polypharmacy in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia with atypical antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic monotherapy is recognized as the treatment of choice for patients with schizophrenia. Simultaneous treatment with multiple antipsychotics (polypharmacy) is suggested by some expert consensus guidelines as the last resort after exhausting monotherapy alternatives. This study assessed the annual rate and duration of antipsychotic monotherapy and its inverse, antipsychotic polypharmacy, among schizophrenia patients initiated on commonly used atypical antipsychotic medications. METHODS: Data were drawn from a large prospective naturalistic study of patients treated for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, conducted 7/1997-9/2003. Analyses focused on patients (N = 796) who were initiated during the study on olanzapine (N = 405), quetiapine (N = 115), or risperidone (N = 276). The percentage of patients with monotherapy on the index antipsychotic over the 1-year post initiation, and the cumulative number of days on monotherapy were calculated for all patients and for each of the 3 atypical antipsychotic treatment groups. Analyses employed repeated measures generalized linear models and non-parametric bootstrap re-sampling, controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: During the 1-year period, only a third (35.7%) of the patients were treated predominately with monotherapy (> 300 days). Most patients (57.7%) had at least one prolonged period of antipsychotic polypharmacy (> 60 consecutive days). Patients averaged 195.5 days on monotherapy, 155.7 days on polypharmacy, and 13.9 days without antipsychotic therapy. Olanzapine-initiated patients were significantly more likely to be on monotherapy with the initiating antipsychotic during the 1-year post initiation compared to risperidone (p = .043) or quetiapine (p = .002). The number of monotherapy days was significantly greater for olanzapine than quetiapine (p < .001), but not for olanzapine versus risperidone, or for risperidone versus quetiapine-initiated patients. CONCLUSION: Despite guidelines recommending the use of polypharmacy only as a last resort, the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy for prolonged periods is very common during the treatment of schizophrenia patients in usual care settings. In addition, in this non-randomized naturalistic observational study, the most commonly used atypical antipsychotics significantly differed on the rate and duration of antipsychotic monotherapy. Reasons for and the impact of the predominant use of polypharmacy will require further study.

Adult↗