Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:51:09.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The jury is still out!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Chandan Sehgal
Affiliation:
South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, email: chandan.sehgal@swyt.nhs.uk
Paul A. Hardy
Affiliation:
Fieldhead Hospital, Wakefield
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010

Lepping & Harborne Reference Lepping and Harbone1 highlight the unfortunate conflation of ‘psychotropic polypharmacy’ and ‘antipsychotic polypharmacy’, which is seen in the study by Tungaraza et al Reference Tungaraza, Gupta, Jones, Poole and Slegg2 and which may confuse the reader. Their response falls foul of this issue when they refer to the statement that ‘only a third of [patients] were on one psychotropic medication’, and draw an implication of a shortfall in compliance with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence schizophrenia guideline. 3 The guideline advocates sequential use of antipsychotic monotherapy, but does not discuss polypharmacy involving other psychotropic medication. Lepping & Harborne rightly point out that both Taylor Reference Taylor4 and Tungaraza et al have made assessments about the temporal change of incidence of antipsychotic polypharmacy without references, but later they mention studies of clozapine-amisulpride and clozapine-quetiapine combinations which are unreferenced.

An internal in-patient survey of antipsychotic polypharmacy in our own trust demonstrated an incidence broadly similar to that found in the literature at the time, but that antipsychotic polypharmacy regimes were not centred around attempts to optimise clozapine treatment. Rather, a variety of regimes involving diverse antipsychotics was seen. It is perhaps speculative to presume that in the Wrexham cohort Reference Tungaraza, Gupta, Jones, Poole and Slegg2 most people on two or more antipsychotics were taking clozapine. In the forensic setting, complexity and diagnostic plurality is the norm, so antipsychotic polypharmacy is perhaps unavoidable at times. It is our concern that procedural aspects, such as preconditions for assured concordance before transfer to step-down services, may sometimes colour the prescribing decisions and drive the co-administration of depot antipsychotics with oral atypicals. We could not find reference to non-medical prescribers in Taylor's article. Indeed, we feel that Tungaraza et al suggest that the emergence of new groups of prescribers points out the urgency of resolving issues around antipsychotic polypharmacy, broadly anticipating the concerns of Lepping & Harborne. Finally, we respectfully suggest that the word polypharmacy be reconsidered, since pharmacy is seldom the originator of the plan!

References

1 Lepping, P, Harbone, GC. Polypharmacy: how bad are we really? Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 208–9.Google Scholar
2 Tungaraza, TE, Gupta, S, Jones, J, Poole, R, Slegg, G. Polypharmacy and high-dose antipsychotic regimes in the community. Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 44–6.Google Scholar
3 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Schizophrenia: Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Primary and Secondary Care (Update) (CG82). NICE, 2009.Google Scholar
4 Taylor, D. Antipsychotic polypharmacy – confusion reigns. Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 41–3.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.