4.6 Article

Dose Equivalents for Antipsychotic Drugs: The DDD Method

Journal

SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
Volume 42, Issue -, Pages S90-S94

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbv167

Keywords

dosage; equivalency; schizophrenia; antipsychotic drugs; olanzapine; risperidone; quetiapine

Categories

Funding

  1. Janssen-Cilag
  2. Sanofi-Aventis
  3. Johnson Johnson
  4. Pfizer
  5. Bristol-Myers-Squibb
  6. AstraZeneca
  7. Lundbeck
  8. Novartis
  9. Eli Lilly
  10. Janssen Cilag
  11. Otsuka
  12. Servier
  13. Pierre Fabre
  14. Organon
  15. Roche
  16. Merck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Dose equivalents of antipsychotics are an important but difficult to define concept, because all methods have weaknesses and strongholds. Methods: We calculated dose equivalents based on defined daily doses (DDDs) presented by the World Health Organisation's Collaborative Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. Doses equivalent to 1 mg olanzapine, 1 mg risperidone, 1 mg haloperidol, and 100 mg chlorpromazine were presented and compared with the results of 3 other methods to define dose equivalence (the minimum effective dose method, the classical mean dose method, and an international consensus statement). Results: We presented dose equivalents for 57 first-generation and second-generation antipsychotic drugs, available as oral, parenteral, or depot formulations. Overall, the identified equivalent doses were comparable with those of the other methods, but there were also outliers. Conclusions: The major strength of this method to define dose response is that DDDs are available for most drugs, including old antipsychotics, that they are based on a variety of sources, and that DDDs are an internationally accepted measure. The major limitations are that the information used to estimate DDDS is likely to differ between the drugs. Moreover, this information is not publicly available, so that it cannot be reviewed. The WHO stresses that DDDs are mainly a standardized measure of drug consumption, and their use as a measure of dose equivalence can therefore be misleading. We, therefore, recommend that if alternative, more scientific dose equivalence methods are available for a drug they should be preferred to DDDs. Moreover, our summary can be a useful resource for pharmacovigilance studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available