ABSTRACT
In a retrospective chart review, efficacy and drug costs were compared in 91 consecutive outpatients receiving risperidone (n=70) or olanzapine (n=21) at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Syracuse, NY. Between-group differences in background characteristics, diagnoses (schizophrenia in more than half of each group) and antipsychotic efficacy [Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale scores] were not significant. The mean doses were 3.6+/-2.4 mg/day of risperidone and 10.7+/-7.6 mg/day of olanzapine. The VA costs of these mean doses were S3.32/day for risperidone and $6.67/day for olanzapine. Mean duration of treatment was significantly longer for risperidone (21 months) than for olanzapine (13 months). Incidence of parkinsonian symptoms (14% of both risperidone and olanzapine patients) and tardive dyskinesia (3% of risperidone patients and 5% of olanzapine patients) was similar in the two groups. Akathisia tended to occur more often in patients receiving olanzapine than risperidone (14% versus 3%, P=.08). The results of this retrospective survey indicate that, in comparable VA populations of patients with psychotic and other disorders, risperidone and olanzapine are equally efficacious but olanzapine may be more likely to produce akathisia and is twice as expensive as risperidone.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Pirenzepine/analogs & derivatives , Antipsychotic Agents/adverse effects , Antipsychotic Agents/economics , Benzodiazepines , Drug Utilization , Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced/epidemiology , Female , Hospitals, Veterans , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Olanzapine , Outpatients , Pirenzepine/adverse effects , Pirenzepine/economics , Pirenzepine/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Risperidone/adverse effects , Risperidone/economics , Risperidone/therapeutic use , United States , United States Department of Veterans AffairsABSTRACT
The goal of this study was to ascertain why patients are maintained on conventional antipsychotics and whether the risks/benefits and alternative treatments with novel antipsychotics are discussed with these patients. We reviewed the charts of 117 outpatients maintained on conventional antipsychotics at three New York hospitals: Hutchings Psychiatric Center (HPC), Syracuse Veterans Affairs Medical Center (SVA), and the Continuing Day Treatment Program (CDT). The major reasons for maintaining patients on conventional antipsychotics were good response (50%), patient choice (45%), and physician choice (36%). Despite the high incidence of tardive dyskinesia at all three hospitals (range: 12%-50%), physicians often did not discuss the risks/benefits of continuing conventional antipsychotics with the patients. The treating psychiatrist discussed alternative treatments with 37% of patients at SVA, 58% at HPC, and 68% at CDT (P = 0.066, df = 2, Pearson chi(2) test). For patients who are receiving any antipsychotic therapy, discussions about the risks/benefits of treatments are integral for optimal treatment and medicolegal purposes.