TY - JOUR
T1 - Trends in the use of typical and atypical antipsychotics in children and adolescents
AU - Patel, Nick C.
AU - Crismon, M. Lynn
AU - Hoagwood, Kimberly
AU - Johnsrud, Michael T.
AU - Rascati, Karen L.
AU - Wilson, James P.
AU - Jensen, Peter S.
N1 - Funding Information:
Disclosure: Dr. Patel has research funding from Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN). Dr. Crismon has research funding from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals (Wilmington, DE), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (Princeton, NJ), Eli Lilly and Company, Forest Laboratories, and Janssen Pharmaceutica (Titusville, NJ); he serves on an advisory board or speaker's bureau for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, Forest Laboratories, Janssen Pharmaceutica, McNeil Consumer and Specialty Pharmaceuticals (Fort Washington, PA), and Pfizer Inc. (New York). Dr. Johnsrud has funding from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Pfizer Inc. and serves as a consultant to Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Rascati has research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, and GlaxoSmithKline (Research Triangle Park, NC); she serves on the speaker's bureau or as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Wilson has an unrestricted educational grant from Novartis Pharmaceuticals (East Hanover, NJ). Dr. Jensen has research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutica and McNeil Consumer and Specialty Pharmaceuticals; he serves on the speaker's bureau or as a consultant for Celltech Pharmaceuticals (Rochester, NY), CME Outfitters (Bethesda, MD), Janssen Pharmaceutica, McNeil Consumer and Specialty Pharmaceuticals, MPE Communications (Parsippany, NJ), Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc., Phase V Communications (New York), and Shire Richwood Pharmaceuticals (Florence, KY). He is a shareholder of Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, NJ) and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Hoagwood has no financial relationships to disclose.
Funding Information:
This study was supported by funding from National Institute of Mental Health, Eli Lilly and Company, and Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The authors thank Douglas Biber, Jeff McCombs, Terry West, Merle Habermann, Amy Solis, Edli Colberg, and Bertha Castro-Ugalde.
PY - 2005/6
Y1 - 2005/6
N2 - Objective: To estimate prevalence rates of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 in three state Medicaid programs (midwestern [MM], southern [SM], and western [WM]) and one private managed care organization (MCO). Method: Prescription claims were used to evaluate antipsychotic prevalence, defined as the number of children and adolescents up to the age of 19 years with at least one prescription claim for an antipsychotic per 1,000 enrolled youths. Results: From 1996 to 2001, the prevalence of total antipsychotic use increased in each program (MM: 4.7 to 14.3 per 1,000; SM: 6.3 to 15.5; WM: 4.5 to 6.9; and MCO: 1.5 to 3.4). Typical antipsychotic use decreased (MM: 3.7 to 2.0 per 1,000; SM: 4.6 to 1.5; WM: 4.4 to 1.3; and MCO: 1.2 to 0.9), while atypical antipsychotic use dramatically increased (MM: 1.4 to 13.1 per 1,000; SM: 2.5 to 14.9; WM: 0.3 to 6.2; and MCO: 0.4 to 2.7). Conclusions: The increased prevalence of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 was attributed to increased use of atypical antipsychotics. Given the limited data with atypical antipsychotics in youths, this emphasizes the need for additional studies of these agents and other treatment modalities in this population.
AB - Objective: To estimate prevalence rates of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 in three state Medicaid programs (midwestern [MM], southern [SM], and western [WM]) and one private managed care organization (MCO). Method: Prescription claims were used to evaluate antipsychotic prevalence, defined as the number of children and adolescents up to the age of 19 years with at least one prescription claim for an antipsychotic per 1,000 enrolled youths. Results: From 1996 to 2001, the prevalence of total antipsychotic use increased in each program (MM: 4.7 to 14.3 per 1,000; SM: 6.3 to 15.5; WM: 4.5 to 6.9; and MCO: 1.5 to 3.4). Typical antipsychotic use decreased (MM: 3.7 to 2.0 per 1,000; SM: 4.6 to 1.5; WM: 4.4 to 1.3; and MCO: 1.2 to 0.9), while atypical antipsychotic use dramatically increased (MM: 1.4 to 13.1 per 1,000; SM: 2.5 to 14.9; WM: 0.3 to 6.2; and MCO: 0.4 to 2.7). Conclusions: The increased prevalence of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 was attributed to increased use of atypical antipsychotics. Given the limited data with atypical antipsychotics in youths, this emphasizes the need for additional studies of these agents and other treatment modalities in this population.
KW - Antipsychotics
KW - Pharmacoepidemiology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=19344378756&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=19344378756&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/01.chi.0000157543.74509.c8
DO - 10.1097/01.chi.0000157543.74509.c8
M3 - Article
C2 - 15908837
AN - SCOPUS:19344378756
SN - 0890-8567
VL - 44
SP - 548
EP - 556
JO - Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
JF - Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
IS - 6
ER -