Psychopharmacological treatment of 2195 in-patients with borderline personality disorder: A comparison with other psychiatric disorders.

Patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are usually prescribed a variety of psychotropic drugs; however, none is recommended in the guidelines nor has any been approved for this indication. As data on drug prescriptions for BPD are sparse, cross-sectional data from the European Drug Safety Project AMSP were used to analyse drug prescriptions of 2195 in-patients with BPD between 2001 and 2011, and the mean values, confidence intervals and regression analyses were calculated. 70% of all BPD patients were medicated with antipsychotics and/or antidepressants, 33% with anticonvulsants, 30% with benzodiazepines, and 4% with lithium; 90% received at least one, 80%≥2, and 54%≥3 psychotropic drugs concomitantly (mean: 2.8). Prescription rates for quetiapine, the single drug most often used in BPD (22%), increased significantly over time. In view of the high percentage of young females with BPD, 18-40 year-old female patients with BPD were compared with patients of the same age but with depression (unipolar and bipolar) and schizophrenia. Typical sedative antipsychotics and anticonvulsants were prescribed more often in BPD than in the other diagnostic groups, with the exception of bipolar depression; this was true for the single substances quetiapine, levomepromazine, chlorprothixene, carbamazepine, and valproate. A limitation of the study was the use of clinical data without verifying the diagnoses by structured interviews. Contrary to the guidelines, about 90% of in-patients with BPD received psychotropic drugs. Polypharmacy was common, and antipsychotics with sedative profiles such as quetiapine and mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants such as valproate appear to be preferred.

Age and adverse drug reactions from psychopharmacological treatment: data from the AMSP drug surveillance programme in Switzerland.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The frequency of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from psychotropic drugs was investigated in hospitalised psychiatric patients in relation to their age. Specifically, the incidence of ADRs in patients up to 60 years was compared to that of patients older than 60 years. METHODS: Prescription rates of psychotropic drugs and reports of severe ADRs were collected in psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland between 2001 and 2010. The data stem from the drug surveillance programme AMSP. RESULTS: A total of 699 patients exhibited severe ADRs: 517 out of 28,282 patients up to 60 years (1.8%); 182 out of 11,446 elderly patients (1.6%, ns). Logistic regression analyses showed a significantly negative relationship between the incidence of ADRs and patients' age in general and in particular for weight gain, extrapyramidal motor system (EPMS) symptoms, increased liver enzymes and galactorrhoea. A significantly negative relationship was observed for age and the dosages of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproic acid and lamotrigine. When comparing age groups, frequency of ADRs was lower in general for antipsychotic drugs and anticonvulsants, in particular for valproic acid in the elderly. Weight gain was found to be lower in the elderly for antipsychotic drugs, in particular for olanzapine. For the group of mood-stabilising anticonvulsants (carbamazepine, lamotrigine and valproic acid) the elderly exhibited a lower incidence of reported allergic skin reactions. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that for psychiatric inpatients the incidence of common severe ADRs (e.g., weight gain or EPMS symptoms) arising from psychotropic medication decreases with the age of patients.

Pharmacotherapeutic trends in 2231 psychiatric inpatients with bipolar depression from the International AMSP Project between 1994 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatment of bipolar depression is a complex and controversial issue, and its real-world practice remains largely unknown. METHOD: Observational analysis of the pharmacotherapy of 2231 psychiatric inpatients with a current episode of bipolar depression. The study was based on cross-sectional prescription data from European psychiatric hospitals that had been repeatedly collected between 1994 and 2009 through the collaborative Drug Safety in Psychiatry (AMSP) program. RESULTS: Overall 81.3% of patients received antidepressants (AD) (7.8% monotherapy), 57.9% antipsychotics (AP), 50.1% anticonvulsants (AC), 47.5% tranquilizers, and 34.6% lithium (Li). Use over time was stable for AD, decreased for Li, and increased for AC, AP and tranquilizers. Pronounced increases were specifically observed for quetiapine, lamotrigine and valproate. Use of tricyclic AD decreased but its prevalence was still 11.8% in 2009. Venlafaxine was used by 19.5% in 2009. We also observed an increase of polypharmacy combining AD, AP, AC and Li. From 2006 to 2009 37.0% received concomitant treatment with three, and 6.4% even with all four of those drug classes. LIMITATIONS: Observational cross-sectional study without follow-up or additional clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with antidepressants and any use of tricyclic AD and venlafaxine still has a considerable prevalence in bipolar depression, but this is controversial due to the reported risk of treatment emergent affective switches. Triple and quadruple therapy is not evidence-based but increasingly used in clinical practice. This may reflect an attempt to overcome treatment failure, and further studies should evaluate efficacy and safety of this common practice.

Ideomotor action in cooperative and competitive settings.

Ideomotor movements may arise in observers while they watch other people's actions. Previous studies have shown that ideomotor movements are guided by both perceptual and intentional characteristics of the actions being observed (perceptual induction and intentional induction, respectively; cf. Knuf, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001; de Maeght & Prinz, 2004). In the present study we explore the functional basis of intentional induction. More specifically we raise the issue of whose intentions count for intentional induction: observers' own intentions or observees' (implied) intentions? We studied ideomotor movements in a cooperative and a competitive task setting. In the cooperative setting observers' and observees' intentions were identical, but in the competitive setting they were different. Results indicate that ideomotor movements are guided by the observers' own intentions, not the observees' implied intentions. Our findings suggest that, though observers understand the intentions of others, their ideomotor movements are guided by their own intentions, expressing what they themselves wish to see the other is doing.