Extrapyramidal syndromes associated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a case-control study using spontaneous reports.

The aim of this study was to assess whether use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is associated with extrapyramidal syndromes (EPS). We analysed the spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) collected by The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Foundation Lareb in the period 1985-99 (n = 24,263). The study population comprised all patients using an antidepressant drug at the time the ADR occurred. We calculated ADR-reporting odds ratios (ADR-OR) to estimate the association between SSRI-use and EPS, relative to other antidepressants. We identified 61 patients with EPS. SSRI-use was associated with spontaneous reporting of EPS compared to other antidepressants (adjusted ADR-OR 2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.2-3.9). This risk estimate appeared to be higher in patients concurrently using antipsychotic medication (6.9, 0.7-68.0), although the confidence interval was very wide. In conclusion, SSRI-use seems only to be moderately associated with EPS compared to other antidepressants. However, those concurrently using antipsychotic drugs or presenting with other risk factors may be more susceptible and should be closely monitored.

Antipsychotic-induced extrapyramidal syndromes in psychiatric practice: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: While several clinical trials showed that atypical antipsychotics have a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS), this observation is not undisputed. This study compared the risk of EPS between specific subgroups of antipsychotics. METHODS: Using the automated dispensing records of a large psychiatric hospital in The Netherlands, we defined cases as first-time users of anticholinergic antiparkinson drugs. Controls were all patients with no recorded use of such medication. Cases and controls were compared with regard to previous use of antipsychotics and relevant co-factors. RESULTS: Out of 1403 patients, we identified 105 cases and 330 controls. Compared to non-users, antipsychotic-users were 10 times more likely to start with anticholinergic antiparkinson medication (adjusted odds ratio: 10.1; 95 CI 4.6-22.3). Depot and non-depot antipsychotics had similar adjusted odds ratios of 10.9 (95 CI 3.7-32.6) and 8.8 (95% CI 3.8-20.4) respectively. Low and high potency antipsychotics gave odds ratios of 3.0 (95% CI 0.9-10.3) versus 10.8 (95% CI 4.7-25.1). Classical and atypical antipsychotics showed comparable odds ratios: 10.0 (95% CI: 4.4-22.5) versus 8.0 (95% CI: 2.6-24.5). Applied doses of classical and atypical antipsychotic drugs were much lower and more equivalent than those used in previous clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Low potency antipsychotics had a much lower risk of EPS than other antipsychotics. However, we did not corroborate the reduced risk with atypical antipsychotics observed in several clinical trials. This discrepancy may result from the high and non-equivalent doses of classical antipsychotics used in many of these trials.

Antipsychotic-induced extrapyramidal syndromes. Risperidone compared with low- and high-potency conventional antipsychotic drugs.

AIM: To compare the risk of extrapyramidal syndromes (EPS) between patients using risperidone and those using low-potency conventional antipsychotic drugs (APDs) in outpatient clinical practice, as measured by the use of anticholinergic medication. We tried to replicate results from previous clinical trials that compared risperidone with high-potency APDs. METHOD: Data was obtained from the PHARMO database containing filled prescriptions of 450,000 community-dwelling people in The Netherlands from 1986 to 1998. From the patients aged 15-54 years who had been newly treated with APDs, we defined mutually exclusive cohorts according to the APD first prescribed to a patient. APD exposure was followed until the first prescription of anticholinergic medication and was censored when APD prescribing was interrupted or switched. We estimated relative risks between risperidone and commonly used low-potency and high-potency APDs using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age, gender, dose and other potential confounders. RESULTS: In 4094 patients who had been newly prescribed antipsychotic drugs, the overall incidence rate of anticholinergic drug therapy was 556 per 1000 person-years, which was dose dependent. Prescribed doses of all antipsychotics were low. While, in accordance with previous trials, risperidone showed a lower risk of EPS than the high potency APDs such as haloperidol (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.64), we did not observe a lower EPS rate than low-potency APDs (risperidone vs thioridazine RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.49-6.13; risperidone vs pipamperone RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.78-8.04). CONCLUSION: The reduced EPS rates observed when comparing risperidone with high-potency antipsychotics such as haloperidol may not apply to comparisons with low-potency drugs.

Risk of extrapyramidal syndromes with haloperidol, risperidone, or olanzapine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of extrapyramidal syndrome (EPS) between risperidone, olanzapine, and haloperidol, taking into account patients' past antipsychotic drug use and past EPS. METHODS: Data were obtained from the PHARMO-database, containing filled prescriptions of 450,000 community-dwelling people in the Netherlands from 1986 through 1999. We defined cohorts of first-time users of haloperidol, risperidone, or olanzapine aged 15 to 54 years. In the first 90 days of treatment, we assessed the occurrence of EPS, defined as first use of any antiparkinsonian agent. We estimated relative risks of EPS for risperidone and olanzapine versus haloperidol using a Cox proportional hazards model. Patients were subdivided according to prior use of antipsychotic and antiparkinsonian drugs. RESULTS: We identified 424 patients starting treatment with haloperidol, 243 with risperidone, and 181 with olanzapine. Prior use of antipsychotic plus antiparkinsonian medication was significantly more frequent among users of risperidone and olanzapine than in those using haloperidol (36.2%, 40.3%, and 4.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Within most subgroups of comparable treatment history, patients using risperidone and olanzapine showed reduced risks of EPS compared with haloperidol, although some of these findings did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.03-0.22). However, this was not observed for patients using risperidone who had experienced EPS in the past (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 7.18). CONCLUSIONS: In general, we observed reduced risks of EPS for risperidone and olanzapine compared with haloperidol within subgroups of patients with a similar treatment history. However, the added value of risperidone in patients who have experienced EPS in the past needs further study.