Antipsychotic dose escalation as a trigger for Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS): literature review and case series report

Background: “Neuroleptic malignant syndrome” (NMS) is a potentially fatal idiosyncratic reaction to any medication which affects the central dopaminergic system. Between 0.5% and 1% of patients exposed to antipsychotics develop the condition. Mortality rates may be as high as 55% and many risk factors have been reported. Although rapid escalation of antipsychotic dose is thought to be an important risk factor, to date it has not been the focus of a published case series or scientifically defined. <p/>Aims: To identify cases of NMS and review risk factors for its development with a particular focus on rapid dose escalation in the 30 days prior to onset. <p/>Methodology: A review of the literature on rapid dose escalation was undertaken and a pragmatic definition of “rapid dose escalation” was made. NMS cases were defined using DSM-IV criteria and systematically identified within a secondary care mental health service. A ratio of titration rate was calculated for each NMS patient and “rapid escalators” and “non rapid escalators” were compared. <p/>Results: 13 cases of NMS were identified. A progressive mean dose increase 15 days prior to the confirmed episode of NMS was observed (241.7mg/day during days 1-15 to 346.9mg/day during days 16-30) and the mean ratio of dose escalation for NMS patients was 1.4. Rapid dose escalation was seen in 5/13 cases and non rapid escalators had markedly higher daily cumulative antipsychotic dose compared to rapid escalators. <p/>Conclusions: Rapid dose escalation occurred in less than half of this case series (n=5, 38.5%), although there is currently no consensus on the precise definition of rapid dose escalation. Cumulative antipsychotic dose – alongside other known risk factors - may also be important in the development of NMS

Investment in online self-evaluation tests: A theoretical approach

BACKGROUND: Large-scale traumatic events may burden any affected public health system with consequential charges. One major post-disaster, expense factor emerges form early psychological interventions and subsequent, posttraumatic mental health care. Due to the constant increase in mental health care costs, also post-disaster public mental health requires best possible, cost-effective care systems. Screening and monitoring the affected population might be one such area to optimize the charges. METHODS: This paper analyzes the potential cost-effectiveness of monitoring a psychologically traumatized population and to motivate individuals at risk to seek early treatment. As basis for our model served Grossman's health production function, which was modified according to fundamental concepts of cost-benefit analyzes, to match the basic conditions of online monitoring strategies. We then introduce some fundamental concepts of cost-benefit analysis. RESULTS: When performing cost-benefit analyses, policy makers have to consider both direct costs (caused by treatment) and indirect costs (due to non-productivity). Considering both costs sources we find that the use of Internet-based psychometric screening instruments may reduce the duration of future treatment, psychological burden and treatment costs. CONCLUSION: The identification of individuals at risk for PTSD following a disaster may help organizations prevent both the human and the economic costs of this disease. Consequently future research on mental health issues should put more emphasis on the importance of monitoring to detect early PTSD and focus the most effective resources within early treatment and morbidity prevention