4.5 Article

Trends in utilization and dosing of antipsychotic drugs in Scandinavia: Comparison of 2006 and 2016

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 85, 期 7, 页码 1598-1606

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13945

关键词

antipsychotics; drug utilization; pharmacoepidemiology; psychopharmacology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The aim of this study was to investigate time trends in dosing and prevalence of antipsychotic prescriptions in Scandinavia. Methods We retrieved data on antipsychotic use between 2006 and 2016 from Danish, Norwegian and Swedish national prescription registers. For each antipsychotic, we calculated prevalence of use and mean doses, overall and for specific age groups (young, adults and elderly). Results Antipsychotic use in Scandinavia increased from 16.5 to 17.2 users/1000 inhabitants between 2006 and 2016 (+2.4%, annual change: 0.07 users/1000 inhabitants/year, 95% CI: 0.02-0.20, P = 0.02). In 2006, chlorprothixene and levomepromazine were the most commonly used antipsychotics. By 2016, quetiapine was the most used antipsychotic in all three countries and across all age groups, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 4.05-9.97 users/1000 inhabitants (annual change: 0.57 users/1000 inhabitants/year, 95% CI: 0.54-0.60, P < 0.001). Quetiapine showed a marked decrease in mean doses during the 11-year study period (0.46-0.28 defined daily doses (DDD)/user/day: 39.1%, -0.02 DDD/user/day/year, 95% CI: -0.020 to -0.015, P < 0.001). In 2016, the highest mean doses were seen for clozapine (0.90-1.07 DDD/user/day) and olanzapine (0.66-0.88 DDD/user/day). Conclusions There is an increased prevalence of antipsychotic prescriptions that coincides with low and/or decreasing mean doses of the majority of commonly used antipsychotics in Scandinavia. Of all antipsychotics, this development was most pronounced for quetiapine. Reasons for and consequences of increased antipsychotic use that lasts shorter periods of time requires further study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据