Botvinik Lev, Ng Chee, Schweitzer Isaac
Professorial Unit, Melbourne Clinic, Richmond, Vic., Australia.
Australas Psychiatry. 2004 Sep;12(3):227-33. doi: 10.1080/j.1039-8562.2004.02099.x.
There exists a substantial and growing body of evidence suggesting that antipsychotic medications are efficacious in the treatment of many non-psychotic psychiatric disorders. Although indications for the use of antipsychotics (particularly the atypicals) remain relatively narrow in Australia, psychiatrists seem to be using them for an expanding range of disorders in a variety of clinical settings. This has raised issues of cost-effectiveness and methods of funding of these medications. The present study aimed to quantify and describe the patterns of prescribing of antipsychotic medications in a large private psychiatric hospital. Another aim was to compare the findings with other published evidence, and consider the implications of antipsychotic use for current clinical practice in Australia.
A retrospective review of the medical records of 100 consecutive patients admitted to a private psychiatric hospital was conducted. The data collected included demographic details, major psychiatric diagnoses, all medications prescribed during the admission and their doses and, in the case of antipsychotics, the target symptoms/conditions for which they were prescribed.
Fifty-nine per cent of inpatients received at least one dose of an antipsychotic during their admission. While all patients with psychotic illnesses were treated with antipsychotics, 57% of patients with primary mood disorders and 40% of patients with a primary anxiety disorder also received an antipsychotic. The most common indications for use of antipsychotics included the treatment of psychotic symptoms, augmentation of antidepressants, relief of anxiety symptoms and lessening of agitation, and control of difficult behaviours (including self-harm and aggression) associated with personality disorders. The most frequently used antipsychotic was olanzapine (22%), followed by chlorpromazine (20%), and quetiapine (14%). Eleven per cent of patients received a combination of two antipsychotics.
Antipsychotic medications were widely used in a private psychiatric inpatient setting for the treatment of non-psychotic disorders. This finding parallels those from other Australian studies of psychotropic prescribing patterns. The issues of clinical utility, cost-effectiveness and benefits of funding of these medications for such wider indications require further study and evaluation.
有大量且不断增加的证据表明,抗精神病药物在治疗许多非精神病性精神障碍方面是有效的。尽管在澳大利亚,使用抗精神病药物(尤其是非典型抗精神病药物)的适应症仍然相对较窄,但精神科医生似乎在各种临床环境中,将其用于越来越多的疾病治疗。这引发了这些药物的成本效益和资金筹集方法的问题。本研究旨在量化并描述一家大型私立精神病医院中抗精神病药物的处方模式。另一个目的是将研究结果与其他已发表的证据进行比较,并考虑抗精神病药物的使用对澳大利亚当前临床实践的影响。
对一家私立精神病医院连续收治的100例患者的病历进行回顾性研究。收集的数据包括人口统计学细节、主要精神科诊断、住院期间开具的所有药物及其剂量,对于抗精神病药物,还包括开具这些药物所针对的目标症状/病症。
59%的住院患者在住院期间至少接受了一剂抗精神病药物。虽然所有患有精神病性疾病的患者都接受了抗精神病药物治疗,但57%的原发性情绪障碍患者和40%的原发性焦虑症患者也接受了抗精神病药物治疗。使用抗精神病药物最常见的适应症包括治疗精神病性症状、增强抗抑郁药疗效、缓解焦虑症状和减轻激动情绪,以及控制与人格障碍相关的困难行为(包括自我伤害和攻击行为)。最常用的抗精神病药物是奥氮平(22%),其次是氯丙嗪(20%)和喹硫平(14%)。11%的患者接受了两种抗精神病药物的联合使用。
抗精神病药物在私立精神病住院环境中被广泛用于治疗非精神病性疾病。这一发现与澳大利亚其他关于精神药物处方模式的研究结果相似。对于这些药物在如此广泛适应症下的临床效用、成本效益和资金资助效益等问题,需要进一步研究和评估。