4.1 Article

International prescribing practices in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/hup.2541

关键词

cross-cultural study; obsessive-compulsive disorder; pharmacotherapy; medication; selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors; antipsychotics; benzodiazepines

资金

  1. Nepean Medical Research Foundation
  2. Pfizer Neuroscience Grant Programme
  3. Spanish MINECO [PSI2013-44733-R]
  4. University of Sydney
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09845, 15K09859] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo assess rates of psychotropic medication use in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in seven different countries on five continents and to compare these with international treatment guidelines. MethodsResearchers in the field of OCD were invited to contribute summary statistics on the characteristics of their patients with OCD and on their incidence of psychotropic use. Consistency of summary statistics across countries was evaluated. ResultsThe data came from Brazil (n=955), Italy (n=750), South Africa (n=555), Japan (n=382), Australia (n=213), India (n=202) and Spain (n=82). The majority (77.9%; n=2445) of the total sample of 3139 participants received a psychotropic medication. Consistent with international guidelines, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were most commonly used (73.5%, n=1796), but their use ranged from 59% in Australia to 96% in Japan. Clomipramine use varied from 5% in Japan and South Africa to 26% in India and Italy. Atypical antipsychotic use ranged from 12% in South Africa to 50% in Japan. ConclusionsPharmacotherapy for OCD varied significantly across sites. Prospective studies are required to determine the cultural, pharmacoeconomic and pharmacogenomic factors that may play a role in the variation in prescribing practices internationally and whether these variations influence treatment outcomes. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.1
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