No abstract

No abstract

Over the past 2 decades, polypharmacy has become the de-facto standard of acute treatment in psychiatry where patients with psychiatric disorders receive a multiple medication regimen. There is growing evidence for a potential link between major psychiatric disorders and inflammatory processes. Combining these two aspects aims at avoiding polypharmacy attempts among patients with inflammatory activation through alternative treatment strategies. In this study, we addressed the following questions: (1) to what extent can polypharmacy be explained through the factors "diagnosis", "previous history", "severity at baseline", "age", "gender", and "psychiatrist in charge"; (2) what are the differences between polypharmacy and monotherapy regarding efficacy and side effect profiles; and (3) what amount of between-patient variance is explainable by the natural antibody immunoglobulin M (IgM) within each diagnostic group. This naturalistic longitudinal study was comprised of 279 patients under therapy with a clinical diagnosis of depressive (ICD-10: "F3x.x"; n = 195) or schizophrenic disorders (ICD-10: "F2x.x"; n = 84). The study protocol included (1) assessment of previous history by the SADS Syndrome Check List SSCL-16 (lifetime version); (2) repeated measurements over 5 weeks assessing the time course of improvement by the Hamilton Depression Scale HAM-D and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale PANSS, along with medication and unwanted side effects through the Medication and Side Effects Inventory MEDIS; and (3) the collection of blood samples from which DNA and serum were extracted. The association between inflammatory response system and psychiatric disorders was detailed by fitting multi-layer Neural Net (NN) models to the observed data ("supervised learning"). The same approach was used to set up prediction models of side effects. Our data showed that polypharmacy was omnipresent. Yet the various polypharmacy regimens had no advantage over monotherapy: we even found slightly larger baseline score reductions under monotherapy, independent of primary diagnoses and for comparable baseline severities. Most patients experienced unwanted side effects. The close link between side effects and treatment regimen was revealed by a linear model in which the mere number of drugs explained a significant (p < 0.001) proportion of the observed variance. As to the inflammatory response system: For the F2 patients, our NN model identified a 22.5% subgroup exhibiting a significant correlation of r = 0.746 (p = 0.0004) between global schizophrenia scores and IgM levels, along with a correct prediction of response of 94.4%, thus explaining 55.7% of the observed between-patient variance. For the F3 patients, our NN model identified a 19.6% subgroup exhibiting a significant correlation of r = 0.644 (p = 0.00003) between global depression scores and IgM levels, along a correct prediction of response of 89.6%, thus explaining 41.4% of the observed between-patient variance. Polypharmacy is omnipresent in today's acute treatment of psychi...

Current treatment standards in psychiatry are oriented towards polypharmacy, that is, patients receive combinations of several antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, hypnotics, antihistamines, and anticholinergics, along with other somatic treatments. In tandem with the beneficial effects of psychopharmacological drug treatment, patients experience significant adverse reactions which appear to have become more frequent and more severe with the rise of ubiquitous polypharmacy. In this study, we aimed to assess today’s acute inpatient treatment of depressive and schizophrenic disorders with focus on therapeutic strategies, medications, adverse side effects, time course of recovery, and efficacy of treatments. Of particular interest was the weighing of the benefits and drawbacks of polypharmacy regimens. We recruited a total of 320 patients hospitalized at three residential mental health treatment centers with a diagnosis of either schizophrenic (ICD-10: “F2x.x”; n = 94; “F2 patients”) or depressive disorders (ICD-10: “F3x.x”; n = 226; “F3 patients”). The study protocol included (1) assessment of previous history by means of the SADS Syndrome Check List SSCL-16 (lifetime version); (2) repeated measurements over 5 weeks assessing the time course of improvement by the Hamilton Depression Scale HAM-D and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale PANSS, along with medications and adverse side effects through the Medication and Side Effects Inventory MEDIS; and (3) the collection of blood samples from which DNA and serum were extracted. Polypharmacy was by far the most common treatment regimen (85%) in this study. On average, patients received 4.50 ± 2.68 medications, consisting of 3.30 ± 1.84 psychotropic drugs, plus 0.79 ± 1.13 medications that alleviate adverse side effects, plus 0.41 ± 0.89 other somatic medications. The treating psychiatrists appeared to be the main determining factor in this context, while «previous history» and «severity at baseline» played a minor role, if at all. Adverse drug reactions were found to be an inherent component of polypharmacy and tended to have a 2–3 times higher incidence compared to monotherapy. Severe adverse reactions could not be attributed to a particular drug or drug combination. Rather, the empirical data suggested that severe side effects can be triggered by virtually all combinations of drugs, provided patients have a respective vulnerability. In terms of efficacy, there were no advantages of polypharmacy over monotherapy. The results of this study underlined the fact that polypharmacy regimens are not equally suited for every patient. Specifically, such regimens appeared to have a negative impact on treatment outcome and to obfuscate the “natural” time course of recovery through a multitude of interfering factors. Evidence clearly speaks against starting just every therapeutic intervention in psychiatry with a combination of psychopharmaceuticals. We think that it is time for psychiatry to reconsider its treatment strategies, which are far too one-sidedly fixated on psychopharmacology and pay far too little attention to alternative approaches, especially in mild cases where psychotherapy without concurrent medication should still be an option. Also, regular exercises and sports can definitely be an effective therapeutic means in a considerable number of cases. General practitioners (GPs) are particularly in demand here.