Department of Psychiatry and Behavior Sciences, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 825 Fairfax Avenue, Suite 710, Norfolk, Virginia 23507, USA.
Department of Molecular Biology and Chemistry, Christopher Newport University, 1 Avenue of the Arts, Newport News, Virginia 23606, USA; Program in Neuroscience, Christopher Newport University, 1 Avenue of the Arts, Newport News, Virginia 23606, USA.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2021 Jan 10;104:110017. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110017. Epub 2020 Jun 13.
A growing expert consensus has emerged to guide prescribing behavior and monitoring of psychotropic medications in adults and older adults with intellectual disability (ID). However, there is little empirically-derived evidence to inform physician selection of specific categories of psychotropic medication for treatment of "challenging" behaviors in this vulnerable population (such as aggression to self, others and objects; self-injurious behaviors; repetitive stereotypic behaviors; and hyperactivity). Difficulties with application of formal definitional diagnostic criteria and reliable assignment of psychiatric diagnoses to adults with ID, which is often difficult due to their poor communication skills, contribute to confusion and uncertainty surrounding medication selection. Long-term administration of antipsychotic medications are commonly prescribed for challenging behaviors in spite of their questionable long-term efficacy, leading some to suggest that their "episodic" short-term administration for imminent dangerousness to self and others or when difficult-to-find residential placements are threatened is preferred to their long-term administration. Further, literature supports engagement of interdisciplinary treatment teams to seek causes for challenging behaviors, formulate non-pharmacological psychosocial and behavioral plans for their amelioration and, if medications are initiated, convene regular medication monitoring to identify "drug-related problems". Medication monitoring is important because medication-related adverse events cause or contribute to challenging behaviors, which can sometimes be improved by dose reduction, medication discontinuation and/or elimination of polypharmacy and co-pharmacy. Importantly, medications themselves may interfere with self-reported measures of Quality of Life. The data clearly highlight the need for well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials in samples that are homogeneous with respect to severity of ID and residential setting; moreover, they should include a wider variety of clinical and safety outcome measures. Preclinical studies have suggested novel pharmacological strategies to prevent progressive worsening of adaptive function in adults with Down syndrome in particular, and improvement of cognition in adults with ID in general, irrespective of the etiopathogenesis of the ID. Translational clinical trials to address pathogenic mechanisms of ID, as well as challenging behaviors, are anticipated but raise societal issues pertaining to protection of this vulnerable population enrolling in clinical trials and prioritization of urgent therapeutic targets (e.g., amelioration of challenging behaviors versus improving or preserving intellectual functioning).
越来越多的专家共识已经出现,以指导精神药物在有智力障碍(ID)的成年人和老年人中的处方行为和监测。然而,对于为这一弱势群体治疗“挑战性”行为(如自我、他人和物体的攻击行为;自伤行为;重复刻板行为;和多动)选择特定类别的精神药物,医生的选择几乎没有基于经验的证据。由于他们沟通能力较差,应用正式定义的诊断标准和可靠的精神诊断分配给 ID 成人存在困难,这导致围绕药物选择的困惑和不确定性。尽管长期使用抗精神病药物治疗具有疑问的长期疗效,但仍常为挑战性行为开处方,导致一些人建议,与长期使用相比,当自我和他人有即时危险或难以找到居住安置受到威胁时,为其“发作性”短期使用更可取。此外,文献支持多学科治疗团队的参与,以寻找挑战性行为的原因,制定非药物性心理社会和行为计划以改善这些行为,如果开始使用药物,则定期进行药物监测以确定“药物相关问题”。药物监测很重要,因为药物相关的不良事件会导致或促成挑战性行为,有时可以通过减少剂量、停止用药和/或消除多药合用和共同用药来改善。重要的是,药物本身可能会干扰自我报告的生活质量测量。这些数据清楚地强调了在严重程度和居住环境方面同质的样本中进行精心设计的随机对照临床试验的必要性;此外,它们还应包括更广泛的临床和安全结果测量。临床前研究表明,特别是在唐氏综合征患者中,预防成人适应性功能逐渐恶化的新的药理学策略,以及改善 ID 成人的认知,无论 ID 的病因如何。预期会进行转化性临床试验以解决 ID 以及挑战性行为的发病机制,但这引发了与保护参与临床试验的这一弱势群体以及优先考虑紧急治疗目标(例如,改善挑战性行为与改善或保护智力功能)相关的社会问题。