ABSTRACT
Background: Nearly 3% of the population is treated by antipsychotic. The aim of this study was to assess the conformity of monitoring with guidelines to prevent Metabolic Syndrome. Research design and method: The analysis was conducted using SNIIRAM data (2013 to 2017) on a cohort of patients who received at least eight antipsychotic dispensings in the first year. Glucose and lipid testings were recorded according to refunds at initiation [between -3 and 0.5 months], 3 months [between 2 and 4 months], and 12 months [between 11 and 13 months] after, and assuming optimal testing during hospitalization (exclusive of psychiatric unit). Descriptive and comparative analysis, «chi-squared test or Student's t-test¼, were performed as well as multivariate analysis with logistic regression. Results: 18 760 patients were selected, 14 421 were still alive and monitored at the end of the follow up. In the recommended period, only 2.89% of patients had three complete testings and 50.6% one or two complete testings Non-optimal testing was more likely to occur in children and adults (vs elderly), in patients with less than 3 prescribers, and with universal medical coverage. Conclusion: Monitoring remains dramatically insufficient. New actions involving patients, practitioners, and authorities are warranted.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/administration & dosage , Blood Glucose/analysis , Drug Monitoring/methods , Lipids/blood , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Antipsychotic Agents/adverse effects , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Databases, Factual , Female , Follow-Up Studies , France , Hospitalization , Humans , Infant , Insurance, Health , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Advocacy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recent studies analysing the trends in antipsychotic (AP) prescriptions for children and adolescents have raised concerns regarding the influence of socioeconomic status. Previous findings have also shown variable prescription rates for first-generation (FG) and second-generation (SG) APs. METHOD: Our objectives were to assess the proportion of patients from low-income families receiving APs and the most commonly prescribed APs in France. We conducted a descriptive analysis of AP drugs dispensed during a 1-year period (July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014) in a northwestern region of France with 941,857 subjects less than 18 years old. All data were extracted from an exhaustive, individual and anonymous social security database. We obtained each subject's socioeconomic status (by identifying their affiliation with a specific social security program) and also collected sociodemographic data, drug type, prescribing and dispensing dates and amount, and prescriber type (e.g., hospital physician, general practitioner, psychiatrist, paediatrician). RESULTS: There were two main novel findings. First, we found that the proportion of patients with AP prescriptions was nearly ten times higher in low-income families than in the general population: 35.9% of CMU-C patients compared to 3.7% in all of Pays de la Loire (X 2 = 7875.1, p < 0.001). Additionally, we found a higher rate of FGAP than SGAP prescriptions (65% vs. 57%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests two types of AP misuse that could provide interesting targets for public healthcare interventions. First, our results strongly suggest an over-representation of patients from low-income families. Low-income families primarily resided in areas with low physician density and appeared to receive drugs to treat their conditions more frequently than other individuals. This increased prescription rate is a public health issue, potentially requiring political action. Second, the use of FGAPs did not adhere to the latest recommendations for drug use in this population, and this discrepancy should be addressed with informational campaigns targeted to medical practitioners.
