1 Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
2 Pharmacy, School of Medicine, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;53(2):136-147. doi: 10.1177/0004867418758919. Epub 2018 Feb 28.
For at least two decades, concerns have been raised about inappropriate psychotropic prescribing in Australian residential aged care facilities, due to their modest therapeutic benefit and increased risk of falls and mortality. To date, the majority of prevalence data has been collected in Sydney exclusively and it is not known if recent initiatives to promote appropriate psychotropic prescribing have impacted utilisation. Thus, we aimed to comprehensively analyse psychotropic use in a large national sample of residential aged care facility residents.
A cross-sectional, retrospective cohort study of residents from 150 residential aged care facilities distributed nationally during April 2014-October 2015. Antipsychotic, anxiolytic/hypnotic and antidepressant utilisation was assessed, along with anticonvulsant and anti-dementia drug use. Negative binomial regression analysis was used to examine variation in psychotropic use.
Full psychotropic prescribing data was available from 11,368 residents. Nearly two-thirds (61%) were taking psychotropic agents regularly, with over 41% prescribed antidepressants, 22% antipsychotics and 22% of residents taking benzodiazepines. Over 30% and 11% were charted for 'prn' (as required) benzodiazepines and antipsychotics, respectively. More than 16% of the residents were taking sedating antidepressants, predominantly mirtazapine. South Australian residents were more likely to be taking benzodiazepines ( p < 0.05) and residents from New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory less likely to be taking them ( p < 0.01), after adjustment for rurality and size of residential aged care facility. Residents located in New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory were also significantly less likely to take antidepressants ( p < 0.01), as were residents from outer regional residential aged care facilities ( p < 0.01). Antipsychotic use was not associated with State, rurality or residential aged care facility size.
Regular antipsychotic use appears to have decreased in residential aged care facilities but benzodiazepine prevalence is higher, particularly in South Australian residential aged care facilities. Sedating antidepressant and 'prn' psychotropic prescribing is widespread. Effective interventions to reduce the continued reliance on psychotropic management, in conjunction with active promotion of non-pharmacological strategies, are urgently required.
至少二十年来,由于精神药物治疗的益处有限,且增加了跌倒和死亡的风险,人们对澳大利亚养老院中不适当的精神药物处方提出了担忧。迄今为止,大多数流行数据仅在悉尼收集,并且尚不清楚最近促进适当精神药物处方的举措是否影响了其使用。因此,我们旨在全面分析全国范围内大量养老院居民的精神药物使用情况。
这是一项 2014 年 4 月至 2015 年 10 月期间在全国范围内分布的 150 家养老院居民的横断面、回顾性队列研究。评估了抗精神病药、抗焦虑/催眠药和抗抑郁药的使用情况,以及抗惊厥药和抗痴呆药的使用情况。使用负二项式回归分析来检查精神药物使用的变化。
11368 名居民提供了完整的精神药物处方数据。近三分之二(61%)的人经常服用精神药物,其中 41%以上的人服用抗抑郁药,22%的人服用抗精神病药,22%的人服用苯二氮䓬类药物。分别有 30%和 11%的患者为“按需”(prn)开了苯二氮䓬类药物和抗精神病药。超过 16%的患者服用镇静性抗抑郁药,主要是米氮平。调整了农村地区和养老院规模后,南澳大利亚州的居民更有可能服用苯二氮䓬类药物(p<0.05),而新南威尔士州/澳大利亚首都地区的居民则不太可能服用(p<0.01)。新南威尔士州/澳大利亚首都地区的居民也明显不太可能服用抗抑郁药(p<0.01),而外地区养老院的居民也不太可能服用(p<0.01)。抗精神病药的使用与州、农村地区或养老院规模无关。
养老院中常规使用抗精神病药的情况似乎有所减少,但苯二氮䓬类药物的流行率更高,尤其是在南澳大利亚州的养老院。镇静性抗抑郁药和“按需”精神药物的处方非常普遍。迫切需要采取有效的干预措施,减少对精神药物管理的持续依赖,并积极推广非药物策略。