Preskorn Sheldon, Flynn Alexandra, Macaluso Matthew
PRESKORN, FLYNN, and MACALUSO: Department of Psychiatry, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS.
J Psychiatr Pract. 2015 Sep;21(5):359-69. doi: 10.1097/PRA.0000000000000101.
This series of columns has 2 main goals: (1) to explain the use of class warnings by the US Food and Drug Administration and (2) to increase clinicians' awareness of movement disorders that may occur in patients being treated with antipsychotic medications and why it is appropriate and good practice to refrain from immediately assuming the diagnosis is tardive dyskinesia/dystonia (TD). This first column in the series will focus on the second goal, which will then serve as a case example for the first goal. Clinicians should refrain from jumping to a diagnosis of TD because a host of other causes need to be ruled out first before inferring iatrogenic causation. The causal relationship between chronic treatment with dopamine antagonists and TD is based on pharmacoepidemiology (ie, the prevalence of such movement disorders is higher in individuals receiving chronic treatment with such agents than in a control group). There is nothing pathognomonic about movement disorders, nor is there any test that can currently prove a drug caused a movement disorder in a specific individual. Another goal of this series is to describe the types of research that would be needed to establish whether a specific agent has a meaningful risk of causing TD. In this first column of the series, we present the case of a patient who developed orofacial dyskinesia while being treated with aripiprazole. In this case, the movement disorder was prematurely called TD, which led to a malpractice lawsuit. This case highlights a number of key questions clinicians are likely to encounter in day-to-day practice. We then review data concerning the historical background, incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for 2 movement disorders, TD and spontaneous dyskinesia. Subsequent columns in this series will review: (1) unique aspects of the psychopharmacology of aripiprazole, (2) the limited and inconsistent data in the literature concerning the causal relationship between aripiprazole and TD, (3) the use of class warnings by the US Food and Drug Administration, which are automatically applied to a drug if it belongs to a specific therapeutic or pharmacological class unless the manufacturer provides convincing data that it does not warrant such a class label, and (4) the types of prohibitively expensive studies that would be needed to determine whether a meaningful causal relationship between aripiprazole and TD exists.
(1)解释美国食品药品监督管理局对类别警示的使用;(2)提高临床医生对接受抗精神病药物治疗的患者可能出现的运动障碍的认识,以及为何避免立即认定诊断为迟发性运动障碍/肌张力障碍(TD)是恰当且良好的做法。本系列的第一篇专栏将聚焦于第二个目标,随后将其作为第一个目标的案例示例。临床医生不应急于诊断为TD,因为在推断医源性病因之前,需要首先排除许多其他原因。多巴胺拮抗剂的长期治疗与TD之间的因果关系基于药物流行病学(即接受此类药物长期治疗的个体中此类运动障碍的患病率高于对照组)。运动障碍没有任何特征性表现,目前也没有任何检测方法能够证明某种药物在特定个体中导致了运动障碍。本系列的另一个目标是描述确定某种特定药物是否存在导致TD的有意义风险所需的研究类型。在本系列的第一篇专栏中,我们介绍了一名在接受阿立哌唑治疗时出现口面部运动障碍的患者的案例。在这个案例中,该运动障碍被过早地诊断为TD,这引发了一起医疗事故诉讼。这个案例凸显了临床医生在日常实践中可能会遇到的一些关键问题。然后,我们回顾了关于TD和自发性运动障碍这两种运动障碍的历史背景、发病率、患病率及风险因素的数据。本系列后续专栏将回顾:(1)阿立哌唑精神药理学的独特方面;(2)文献中关于阿立哌唑与TD之间因果关系的有限且不一致的数据;(3)美国食品药品监督管理局对类别警示的使用,即如果一种药物属于特定的治疗或药理学类别,除非制造商提供令人信服的数据表明它不应有此类类别标签,否则将自动对该药物应用类别警示;(4)确定阿立哌唑与TD之间是否存在有意义的因果关系所需的极其昂贵的研究类型。