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

Time to discontinuation of atypical versus typical antipsychotics in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate over whether atypical antipsychotics are more effective than typical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. This naturalistic study compares atypical and typical antipsychotics on time to all-cause medication discontinuation, a recognized index of medication effectiveness in the treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: We used data from a large, 3-year, observational, non-randomized, multisite study of schizophrenia, conducted in the U.S. between 7/1997 and 9/2003. Patients who were initiated on oral atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) or oral typical antipsychotics (low, medium, or high potency) were compared on time to all-cause medication discontinuation for 1 year following initiation. Treatment group comparisons were based on treatment episodes using 3 statistical approaches (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox Proportional Hazards regression model, and propensity score-adjusted bootstrap resampling methods). To further assess the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were performed, including the use of (a) only 1 medication episode for each patient, the one with which the patient was treated first, and (b) all medication episodes, including those simultaneously initiated on more than 1 antipsychotic. RESULTS: Mean time to all-cause medication discontinuation was longer on atypical (N = 1132, 256.3 days) compared to typical antipsychotics (N = 534, 197.2 days; p < .01), and longer on atypicals compared to typicals of high potency (N = 320, 187.5 days; p < .01), medium potency (N = 140, 213.5 days; p < .01), and low potency (N = 74, 208.7 days; p < .01). Among the atypicals, only clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone had significantly longer time to all-cause medication discontinuation compared to typicals, regardless of potency level, and compared to haloperidol with prophylactic anticholinergic treatment. When compared to perphenazine, a medium-potency typical antipsychotic, only clozapine and olanzapine had a consistently and significantly longer time to all-cause medication discontinuation. Results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In the usual care of schizophrenia patients, time to medication discontinuation for any cause appears significantly longer for atypical than typical antipsychotics regardless of the typical antipsychotic potency level. Findings were primarily driven by clozapine and olanzapine, and to a lesser extent by risperidone. Furthermore, only clozapine and olanzapine therapy showed consistently and significantly longer treatment duration compared to perphenazine, a medium-potency typical antipsychotic

Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogs from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system

ABSTRACT Human insulin is provided by the Brazilian Public Health System (BPHS) for the treatment of diabetes, however, legal proceedings to acquire insulin analogs have burdened the BPHS health system. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare insulin analogs and human insulins. This is a pharmacoeconomic study of cost-effectiveness. The direct medical cost related to insulin extracted from the Ministry of Health drug price list was considered. The clinical results, i.e. reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), were extracted by meta-analysis. Different scenarios were structured to measure the uncertainties regarding the costs and reduction in HbA1c. Decision tree was developed for sensitivity of Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). A total of fifteen scenarios were structured. Given the best-case scenario for the insulin analogs, the insulins aspart, lispro, glargine and detemir showed an ICER of R$1,768.59; R$ 3,308.54; R$11,718.75 and R$ 2,685.22, respectively. In all scenarios in which the minimum effectiveness was proposed, lispro, glargine and detemir were dominant strategies. Sensitivity analysis showed that the aspart had R$3,066.98 [95$ 6,163.97 [95% CI: 3919.29; 11401.57] for incremental costs. We concluded there was evidence that the insulin aspart is the most cost-effective

Avaliação econômica das anticitocinas adalimumabe, etanercepte e infliximabe no tratamento da artrite reumatoide no Estado do Paraná

Este estudo objetivou realizar uma avaliação econômica das anticitocinas adalimumabe (ADA), etanercepte (ETA) e infliximabe (IFX) para o tratamento da artrite reumatoide no Estado do Paraná, sob a perspectiva do SUS. Os dados de eficácia e segurança dos tratamentos foram buscados na literatura, e os custos foram calculados com valores gastos pelo SUS para cada um dos tratamentos. Foi elaborado o modelo de Markov para obter a relação custo-efetividade de cada tratamento. A relação custo-efetividade incremental (ICER) comparado ao tratamento padrão também foi calculada para cada anticitocina. Análises de sensibilidade e taxas de desconto foram aplicadas. Na avaliação custo-efetividade, encontraram-se custos por QALY de R$511.633,00, R$ 437.486,00 e R$657.593,00 para ADA, ETA e IFX, respectivamente. O ICER por QALY foi R$ 628.124,00, R$509.974,00 e R$ 965.927,00 para ADA, ETA e IFX, respectivamente. Nas análises de sensibilidade, o ETA e o ADA apresentaram valores próximos. Cabe aos gestores públicos e aos médicos prescritores a escolha adequada para cada paciente, entre os tratamentos disponibilizados.This study aimed to perform an economic evaluation of anticytokines adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETA) and infliximab (IFX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the State of Parana, in Brazil, in the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System. Data on efficacy and safety of treatment were collected in literature, and costs were calculated on the amounts spent by the Government for each treatment. A Markov model was performed to get the cost-effectiveness of each treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness relationship (ICER) compared to a standard treatment was also calculated for each anticytokine. Sensitivity analysis and discount rates were applied. In assessing cost-effectiveness we found the following values (cost at R$per QALY): 511,633.00, 437,486.00 and 657,593.00 (respectively for ADA, ETA and IFX). The ICER (R$ per QALY) was 628,124.00, 509,974.00 and 965,927.00 (for ADA, ETA and IFX). In the sensitivity analysis, ETA and ADA showed similar values. It is for public managers and physicians the choice for each patient, among the treatments available