Do Hospital and Community SSRI Usage Patterns in Children and Adolescents Match the Evidence?

OBJECTIVES: 1) To review SSRI prescribing patterns for children and adolescents in our hospital and provincial prescription database and 2) To evaluate whether prescribing practices are consistent with expectations, based on published evidence and practice recommendations. METHODS: A PubMed online search was conducted to obtain all randomized controlled trials assessing efficacy of SSRI use in children and adolescents. The inpatient hospital pharmacy database at BC Children's Hospital (BCCH) and the BC Pharmacare database were used to identify all unique patients (under 19 years of age) seen in the inpatient department of psychiatry at BCCH or as outpatients in the province of BC receiving SSRI prescriptions between 2005-2009. RESULTS: Fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram and sertraline have evidence supporting their efficacy in the treatment of depressive disorders. Fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, paroxetine and venlafaxine have evidence for use in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Between 2005-2009, BCCH inpatient data revealed that fluoxetine is the most frequently prescribed SSRI, followed by citalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, paroxetine and escitalopram. In the community outpatients, fluoxetine was most frequently prescribed SSRI followed by citalopram, venlafaxine, sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine and escitalopram. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing patterns for SSRIs at BC Children's Hospital are consistent with the available evidence in the pediatric population. Furthermore, with the exception of citalopram, provincial outpatient and inpatient prescriptions appear to follow published national guidelines. Hospital SSRI usage more closely reflects the available literature than outpatient community usage does.

First do no harm: promoting an evidence-based approach to atypical antipsychotic use in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for efficacy and metabolic effects of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs), and to propose a metabolic monitoring protocol for AAP use in children and adolescents. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to obtain all studies related to efficacy, metabolic side-effects, and monitoring in those less than 18 years of age. RESULTS: There are no approved indications for AAP use in children and adolescents in Canada. Based on US Food and Drug Administration approvals and a review of randomized controlled trials, we identified 7 indications for AAP use that target specific symptoms in youth including schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, autism, pervasive developmental disorder, disruptive behaviour disorders (including conduct disorder and ADHD), developmental disabilities and Tourette Syndrome. A wide range of metabolic effects including weight gain, increased waist circumference, dysglycemia, dyslipidemia, hypertension, elevated hepatic transaminases and prolactin levels have been reported. We have developed a proposal for metabolic monitoring that includes anthropometric measurements and laboratory testing at baseline and appropriate intervals thereafter. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for national clinical practice guidelines that provide, not only appropriate treatment algorithms for AAP-use based on evidence, but also address metabolic monitoring and subsequent management of complications in this vulnerable population.

Priority-setting for children's mental health: clinical usefulness and validity of the priority criteria score.

OBJECTIVE: The 17-item PCS was designed for priority-setting and queue management of children and adolescents referred for mental health services. Here we assess aspects of the validity of the Children's Mental Health (CMH) Priority Criteria Score (PCS), developed by the Western Canada Waiting List Project (WCWL). The PCS was evaluated across clinical settings of increasing acuity and in terms of its relationship to two variables reflecting criteria-related validity and actual wait times. METHOD: Intake workers completed PCS forms for 497 referrals enrolled for treatment in three clinical areas over approximately two fiscal years. The completion time of the PCS form was estimated in relation to the total referral and screening process. Intake workers completed the PCS items and did not use the total score at the time of intake and form completion to triage or place clients; hence, the PCS was independent of enrollment and placement within the continuum of care. Furthermore, clinicians in the receiving programs had to accept the triage decisions for the PCS to be used in the study analysis. RESULTS: The PCS score was meaningfully related to the measures of criteria-related validity (e.g., clinician perceived urgency, clinician perceived maximum acceptable waiting times) and triage to clinical settings of increasing acuity. There was a significant mean difference in the PCS for those accepted to community, day, or inpatient settings. CONCLUSIONS: The PCS appears to be a useful, efficient measure of clinical urgency adequate for use in priority-setting for children waiting for mental health services.

Lining up for children's mental health services: a tool for prioritizing waiting lists.

OBJECTIVE: The Western Canada Waiting List Project (WCWL) is a federally funded partnership of 19 health-related organizations that was created to develop tools to manage waiting lists for five types of health services. METHOD: The children's mental health (CMH) panel developed and tested a set of standardized clinical criteria for setting priorities among patients awaiting CMH services. The criteria were applied to 817 patients by 92 mental health professionals in three western provinces. Regression analysis was used to determine the set of criteria weights that collectively best predicted clinicians' global urgency ratings. To assess reliability, raters used the criteria to score six standardized "paper cases." RESULTS: The criteria accounted for about 40% of the observed variance in overall urgency ratings (R2 = 41.7%). The panel modified the criteria on the basis of the initial empirical work. Reliability assessment of the revised tool indicated that half of the items had excellent or fair/good interrater agreement; test-retest reliability was good. CONCLUSIONS: Priority criteria were able to capture clinicians' judgments of relative urgency in the CMH setting. A number of operational challenges remain with the use of priority criteria for scheduling CMH services. Further development and testing of the tool appear warranted.