Prescription patterns of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in mental hospitals in Tashkent/Uzbekistan and in four German cities.

PURPOSE: Little is known about psychopharmacological prescription practice in low-income countries. The present study aimed for an analysis of pharmacological treatment strategies for inpatients with schizophrenia in Tashkent, the capital city of Uzbekistan, facing a low-income situation as compared with four German cities in a high-income Western situation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative survey of age, gender, diagnoses, and psychotropic medication of 845 urban psychiatric inpatients of the Tashkent psychiatric hospital and of 922 urban psychiatric inpatients in four German cities on 1 day in October 2008. We compared the current treatment strategies for specific diagnostic categories between the two settings. RESULTS: In Tashkent, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia were treated with clozapine (66%), haloperidol (62%), or both (44%). More than one-third of the patients treated for schizophrenia were prescribed amitriptyline. The usual treatment strategy for schizophrenia was the combination of two or more antipsychotics (67%). In German cities, the preferred antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia were olanzapine (21%), clozapine (20%), quetiapine (17%), risperidone (17%), and haloperidol (14%); the most common treatment strategy for patients with schizophrenia was the combination of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines; 44% of the patients were treated with two or more antipsychotics at a time. CONCLUSIONS: In both settings, psychotropic combination treatments are common for the treatment of schizophrenia contrasting current guideline recommendations. Its rationale and effectiveness needs to be tested in further studies.

Use of psychiatric inpatient capacities and diagnostic practice in Tashkent/Uzbekistan as compared to Berlin/Germany.

OBJECTIVES: The present study shows a comparison of diagnoses used for the treatment of urban psychiatric inpatients in Tashkent/Uzbekistan and Berlin/Germany. Differential diagnostic practices related to different traditions in psychopathology between the two settings are analysed to explain part of the difference in relative frequencies of the diagnoses. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of diagnoses used for the treatment of 845 inpatients including 17 out of 18 wards of the Tashkent psychiatric hospital and of all 2,260 psychiatric and psychotherapeutic inpatients in Berlin in October 2008. Relative frequencies of diagnostic categories were calculated for each setting and compared between the two settings using the Chi-square test. A descriptive analysis of differential diagnostic practice is used to explain differences in relative frequencies. RESULTS: Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (59.3 vs. 21.0%), with organic mental disorders (20.5 vs. 8.3%), with mental retardation (6.9 vs. 0.2%) and with neurasthenia (1.4 vs. 0.0%) had larger relative frequencies of the psychiatric inpatient population in Tashkent than in Berlin. Patients diagnosed with unipolar depression (24.1 vs. 0.9%), substance use disorder (17.4 vs. 6.4%), adjustment disorder (6.0 vs. 0.4%), schizoaffective disorder (4.9 vs. 0.0%), mania and bipolar disorder (5.3 vs. 0.4%), personality disorder (3.2 vs. 2.0%) and anxiety disorder (3.1 vs. 0.1%) had larger relative frequencies in Berlin than in Tashkent. The diagnostic concept of schizophrenia in Tashkent includes patients with affective psychoses, schizoaffective psychoses and delusional disorders. In Tashkent, mental disorders are more readily associated with organic brain disease such as head trauma or vascular disease than in Berlin. CONCLUSIONS: In Tashkent, most of the psychiatric inpatient capacities are used for the treatment of schizophrenia and organic mental disorders, whereas in Berlin patients with affective disorders, schizophrenia and substance use disorders are most commonly treated as inpatients. The differences can in part be explained by differential diagnostic traditions between the Russian/post-Soviet nosology and the use of the ICD.