Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:46:59.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antipsychotic prescribing trends in community treatment of schizophrenia: 1998–2003

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

T Lambert and
B Singh
T Lambert
Affiliation:
OPENORYGEN Research CentreThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
B Singh
Affiliation:
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Abstracts from ‘Brainwaves’— The Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research Annual Meeting 2006, 6–8 December, Sydney, Australia
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2006, pp. 296
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard

Background:

Following deinstitutionalization in Australia, there is little published literature on the use of antipsychotics in treating psychotic disorders under the new community-based paradigm of care. The present pharmacoepidemiological study was undertaken to examine the trends in antipsychotic prescribing in a number of service settings in Victoria from 1998 to 2003 to understand how such trends relate to community care.

Methods:

Patients in community care teams from Northwestern Mental Health, Barwon Health, Grampians Health and Austin were sampled at various time points from 1998 (T1) to 2003 (T4) (n = 3966). Prescribing information and a slew of sociodemo-graphic and adjunct treatment variables such as community treatment order status were ascertained.

Results:

Between 1998 and 2003, prescriptions of second-generation (‘atypical’) antipsychotics grew to account for 78% of patients with schizophrenia being treated with these agents (RR 2.1, P < 0.01). Firstgeneration (‘typical’) antipsychotics decreased to <3% of prescriptions (RR .11, P < 0.01) and depots fell and stabilized at about 30% of prescriptions (RR .64, P < 0.01).

Conclusions:

Oral SGAs have largely replaced oral FGAs; yet, despite the apparent endorsement of the new agents, depot FGAs remain a mainstay of prescribing. This may reflect that up to 67% of patients show partial adherence with oral antipsychotics. The maintenance of depot prescribing meets the needs for prevention relapse as a primary outcome goal.