4.3 Article

Prescription patterns of first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs in the French population

期刊

FUNDAMENTAL & CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 603-611

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/fcp.12553

关键词

antipsychotic drugs; pharmaco-epidemiology; national insurance based-study; service use

资金

  1. Deniker Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed in depth the use of first- and second-generation antipsychotic (FGAP/SGAP) drugs in France. A 1/97th random sample of beneficiaries affiliated to the French Health Insurance system-Echantillon Generaliste des Beneficiaires (EGB)-was used: (i) 621 662 persons in 2015 among which 11 319 had an antipsychotic (AP) prescription; (ii) a sample of first AP prescriptions concerning 5 935 patients in 2013 and 2014 (no AP in the last 6 months of 2012) for whom diagnosis was available in 40% of cases. In 2015, AP prevalence was 21.9/1 000. SGAP/FGAP ratio was 1.02. Long-lasting prescriptions were rare: 1.79/1 000 for FGAP and 1.38/1 000 for SGAP. FGAP first prescriptions were higher than SGAP for each age class, except for <18 aged patients; 2.85% had both generations; 50.7% of the patients had another psychotropic. GPs prescribed more FGAPs than SGAPs, psychiatrists prescribed more SGAPs and hospital-based practitioners prescribed both generations equally, and these patterns changed across age ranges: For the elderly, GPs are the more frequent prescribers. SGAP/FGAP ratio is different by diagnostic categories. In France, FGAPs are largely prescribed by GPs mainly for the elderly, but young and adult patients are concerned as well. Inappropriate antipsychotic consumption through off-label use, which adds to the co-prescription, especially in vulnerable population groups, mainly concerns FGAP prescriptions by GPs who do not have psychiatric training and limited contact with psychiatrists. Attention should then be brought to the regulatory advisory agencies in order to better inform and train the prescribers.

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

4.3
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