Overdose and off-label psychotropic prescribing in patients with borderline personality disorder: A retrospective series.

OBJECTIVE: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is common and poses many clinical challenges. Despite limited evidence of effectiveness, psychotropic medications are often prescribed. We aimed to characterise overdose presentations in patients with BPD. METHOD: This is a retrospective observational series of patients with BPD presenting to a tertiary hospital following an overdose from January 2019 to December 2020. Medical records were reviewed to determine baseline characteristics, overdose details, clinical features, treatment, and disposition. RESULTS: There were 608 presentations in 370 people (76% female), median age 28 years (range 16-75 years). The majority (331[89%]) of patients were prescribed at least one psychotropic medication, with 129 (35%) being prescribed three or more different psychotropic agents. Of the total prescribed psychotropics, 520/1459 (36%) were for off-label indications. The majority of agents (860/1487[58%]) taken in overdose were prescribed. The commonest drug classes taken in overdose were benzodiazepines (241[16%]) and antipsychotics (229[15%]). Severe toxicity occurred in 99 (16%) cases with either coma (GCS<9) or hypotension (systolic BP <90 mmHg). The commonest agent associated with severe toxicity was quetiapine 39/99 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic polypharmacy is common in BPD, often with off-label indications. Prescribed medications are commonly taken in overdose. Quetiapine is over-represented both in off-label prescribing and associated harm.

Psychotropic medication use in people living with severe and persistent mental illness in the Australian community: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Psychotropic polypharmacy and high-dose prescribing may play a role in therapy, however, with associated risks. The aim of this study was to describe current prescribing practices and use of four psychotropic medication groups (antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilisers and benzodiazepines), focusing on polypharmacy (across and within groups) and high-dose prescribing in adults experiencing severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI) in the Australian community. METHODS: 318 people taking psychotropic medication for SPMI had a medication review undertaken by a community pharmacist. Participants were recruited as part of an RCT from three Australian states/territories between September 2020-July 2021. All psychotropic medication and daily doses were recorded and reviewed for alignment with current clinical guidelines. Univariate and multiple logistic regression models investigated factors associated with antipsychotic, antidepressant, and mood stabiliser polypharmacy, and antipsychotic and antidepressant high-dose therapy. Variables included age, gender, geographic location, self- reported mental illness(es), hospital admission(s) in previous 6-months and prescriber type. RESULTS: 806 psychotropic medications were prescribed for the 318 participants. Mood stabiliser polypharmacy was recorded in 19.0% of participants prescribed mood stabilisers; antipsychotic polypharmacy in 18.4% of participants prescribed antipsychotics; antidepressant polypharmacy in 11.3% of those prescribed antidepressants; and three participants (5.1%) were prescribed two benzodiazepines concurrently. Almost 18.6% of the cohort was receiving high-dose treatment; 18 participants were prescribed high-dose antipsychotics and 39 high-dose antidepressants, with two participants prescribed both. Adjusted logistic regression for polypharmacy found male gender, psychiatrist as sole prescriber, or multiple prescribers, were associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy. The adjusted model for high-dose therapy found psychiatrist as sole prescriber was significantly associated with antipsychotic and antidepressant high-dose prescribing. CONCLUSION: Psychotropic polypharmacy was common in this community cohort experiencing SPMI. Whilst polypharmacy is not always inappropriate, it is a complex construct with potential benefits alongside potential risks. Benefits and harms need to be balanced however this practice is not supported by clear guidance to assist health practitioners. This study highlights the important need for regular medication reviews and strengthened communication between consumers and all healthcare professionals involved in community mental health care, to support safe and effective use of psychotropic medications.

Is higher psychotropic medication burden associated with involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act? A four-year Australian cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary treatment for individuals who lack sufficient capacity to make informed decisions regarding treatment has been associated with increased rates of injectable antipsychotics, antipsychotic polytherapy, and/or high doses. However, little is known about non-antipsychotic psychotropic prescription, or psychotropic medication burden as a more encompassing approach for people treated involuntarily. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between Mental Health Act (MHA) status and psychotropic polypharmacy and/or high-dose medication prescribing practices in an Australian inpatient mental health unit. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 800 adults discharged from a large metropolitan Queensland mental health unit was undertaken. Data was collected for 200 individuals, discharged on at least one psychotropic medicine, at four time periods; Cohort 1 (on or before 31st January 2014), Cohort 2 (2015), Cohort 3 (2016) and Cohort 4 (2017). The number of prescribed medicines and total daily doses were recorded and reviewed for alignment with current clinical guidelines. Participant demographics and clinical characteristics were compared by individual MHA status using chi-square test for categorical variables and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Associations between MHA status and prescribing practices (psychotropic polypharmacy and/or high-dose prescribing) were assessed using bivariate and multivariate binomial logistic regression models. Age, gender, birth country, year of admission, admissions in previous 12 months, primary diagnosis, ECT/clozapine treatment, and other psychotropic medications were adjusted as covariates. RESULTS: Regression analysis found that compared to their voluntary counterparts, individuals treated involuntarily were 2.7 times more likely to be prescribed an antipsychotic at discharge, 8.8 times more likely to be prescribed more than one antipsychotic at discharge and 1.65 times more likely to be prescribed high-dose antipsychotic treatment at discharge. The adjusted model also found that they were half as likely to be prescribed an antidepressant at discharge. CONCLUSION: Implicit review of justifications for increased psychotropic medication burden (antipsychotic polypharmacy and high-doses) in those treated involuntarily is required to ensure clinical outcomes and overall quality of life are improved in this vulnerable group. Clearly documented medication histories, reconciliation at discharge and directions for medication management after discharge are necessary to ensure quality use of medicines.

High-dose antipsychotic therapy and reflective prescribing: development of an online tool for rapid, easy calculation of antipsychotic total daily dose.

OBJECTIVE: Safe and effective antipsychotic prescribing is a fundamental skill in psychiatric practice; however, antipsychotic medications are not without risk. These risks are increased when antipsychotics are prescribed in high doses, with or without polypharmacy. Decision-making regarding antipsychotic prescribing can be hampered by a lack of readily available or easily approachable tools for calculating and interpreting total daily doses, especially when antipsychotic polypharmacy is involved. Our objective was to create an accessible method for calculating antipsychotic total daily dosing. METHODS: We have developed an online calculator for determining antipsychotic total daily dose using information on recommended maximum total daily dosing based on the British National Formulary. RESULTS: This calculator is free, easy to implement and allows for users to input a large variety of possible antipsychotic dosing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that this tool will allow clinicians to readily review their prescribing practice, inform decision-making and improve patient safety outcomes. Further research may be appropriate to determine the impact of this tool on these intended goals.