The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×

Abstract

Objective

Antipsychotic drug therapy is the cornerstone of treatment of persons with schizophrenia. Because most antipsychotics are metabolized by the hepatic cytochrome P450 system, concomitant use of an antipsychotic and medications that are competitively metabolized by the same system may cause a potentially harmful drug-drug interaction. This study used a large state's Medicaid claims database to examine the proportion of patients exposed to such interactions and the risk factors associated with exposure.

Methods

Claims from January 2000 through December 2003 for adult patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and at least one prescription for an antipsychotic (N=27,909) were examined for pairs of medications identified as potentially causing moderate or severe adverse drug effects. Logistic regression models were estimated to determine potential risk factors associated with exposure to the interaction pairs.

Results

A total of 6,417 (23%) patients were exposed to 14,213 potentially harmful interactions; 4,725 patients had at least one exposure from the same pharmacy, and 4,032 patients were exposed by the same physician. The greatest number of exposures (N=1,353) to potentially harmful combinations involved olanzapine and haloperidol. Patients prescribed risperidone were most likely to be exposed to an interaction (13.1%), followed by patients prescribed olanzapine (10.3%), quetiapine (3.3%), and clozapine (3.2%). A higher risk of exposure was associated with being female (odds ratio [OR]=.94), being white (OR=1.43), having depression (OR=1.21), or having impulse-control disorder (OR=1.98).

Conclusions

Interventions by physicians and pharmacies to reduce the prescribing and dispensing of potentially harmful pairs of medications to patients with schizophrenia are recommended.

Drug-related morbidity and mortality are major medical issues with significant costs. Each year an estimated $177.4 billion is spent to address the treatment failures and new medical problems that are generated by adverse drug events (1,2). Such events occur in up to 40% of patients on five or more medications (35). It has been estimated that 6% to 10% of adverse events are drug-drug interactions and that 50% to 84% of adverse events are preventable through proper identification and surveillance (6,7).

The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia, a serious and chronic psychotic disorder requiring medication, has been estimated at approximately 1% of the U.S. population (8), although the prevalence is higher in lower-income groups, such as the Medicaid population. In fact, Medicaid programs represent the nation’s dominant payers for mental health services (9). In the United States, the treatment of schizophrenia consumes 2.5% of annual adult health care costs, or about $16 to $19 billion (10). The indirect costs of this disorder are far more substantial. Loss of productivity and family burden totaled $46 billion in 1995 (11). Unemployment rates for patients with schizophrenia reach 70% to 80% (12), and it is estimated that patients with schizophrenia constitute 10% of the totally and permanently disabled. Schizophrenia is also associated with an increased incidence of general medical illnesses and increased mortality, especially from suicide. Up to 10% of patients with schizophrenia take their own lives (13).

Since conventional antipsychotics were introduced in the 1950s, antipsychotic drug therapy has been the cornerstone of treatment of persons with schizophrenia. These first-generation antipsychotics are effective in the management of the positive symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations and delusions (14). However, their use may cause debilitating side effects, such as extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia (15,16). The pharmacologic profiles of newer, second-generation antipsychotics have a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms and are somewhat more effective in the management of negative symptoms of schizophrenia, such as lack of emotion, flattened affect, and low energy (1719).

Between 1989 and 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved six second-generation antipsychotics: clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole. Adverse events associated specifically with second-generation antipsychotics include weight gain and metabolic-syndrome side effects (18,2022). Adverse events associated with all antipsychotic use include seizures (2326) and arrhythmias associated with QT prolongation and torsade de pointes (27,28).

Moreover, the risk of these events occurring from the use of antipsychotics may be heightened by concomitant drug therapy and exposure to potentially harmful drug-drug-interactions of medication pairs. Patients with schizophrenia commonly receive multiple medications. Chwastiak and others (29) reported that 53% of patients with schizophrenia who used antipsychotic medication also received drug therapy for a comorbid chronic condition, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, depression, infections, asthma, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (29).

Potentially harmful drug-drug interactions are often listed on labels for antipsychotic medications. For example, given the potential for QT prolongation, ziprasidone is contraindicated for concomitant use with haloperidol, bupropion, and antiarrhythmics (30,31). Risperidone may interact with a 5-HT6 antagonist, leading to an increase of electroencephalogram alpha and beta bands (32). An interaction between quetiapine and atazanavir or ritonavir may lead to rapid, severe weight gain and increased sedation and mental confusion (33). Substantially reduced serum concentrations of quetiapine occur after lamotrigine exposure (34). Additional evidence of potentially harmful interactions was reported in the recent literature (3537).

Most antipsychotics are metabolized by the hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP450) system. CYP450 enzymes CYP1A2, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4 are of particular importance to the metabolism of antipsychotics (38). Concomitant use of an antipsychotic and another drug may competitively inhibit an enzyme that metabolizes the antipsychotic or, alternatively, may induce the action of that enzyme. The result of metabolic inhibition may be a higher plasma level of an antipsychotic, which may result in the adverse events discussed above (3841). Inducing the enzyme action may result in these or other adverse events, although scant evidence of this possibility has been gathered to date.

Documentation and quantification of exposure of patients with schizophrenia to potentially harmful drug-drug interactions are very limited. This study attempted to identify the proportion of patients with schizophrenia who concomitantly received antipsychotics and other medications that are metabolized by the liver and to estimate the effect of various risk factors on exposure to a potentially harmful interaction. Investigating relationships between such exposures and adverse events was beyond the scope of this study.

Methods

Study design and cohort selection

A retrospective, population-based cohort design was used. The study period was January 2000 to December 2003 (four calendar years). Adult patients aged 18 or older with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who had received at least one prescription for an antipsychotic were selected from a large state's Medicaid claims database. The database includes medical, institutional, and pharmacy claims along with a patient enrollment file. A diagnosis of schizophrenia was indicated by ICD-9 codes 295.xx. Diagnoses were found in either institutional or medical claims. The use of claims databases to identify potentially harmful drug-drug-interaction pairs and adverse events in populations has been well documented (4246).

A total of 33,567 patients were identified. We excluded 458 patients with ≤90 days of continuous enrollment and 5,200 patients who were aged 65 or older. The final cohort included 27,909 patients. [A figure depicting the selection of study patients is available in an online appendix to this report at ps.psychiatryonline.org.]

To protect patient confidentiality, names, addresses, Medicaid-recipient identification numbers, and other patient identifiers were deleted from the database. A randomized patient number was used as the unique identification. All research data were stored in a stand-alone server with password protection. Only the principal investigator, the data analysis programmer, and the statistician for the project were able to access the patient-level data sets. The research protocol was approved by the University of Cincinnati Medical Center Institutional Review Board.

Drug-drug interaction pairs

Using information from Facts and Comparisons 4.0, we developed systematically a list of clinically significant, potentially harmful pairs of antipsychotics and other medications (47). Because we found in a previous study that second-generation antipsychotics account for a majority of prescriptions for antipsychotics in the Medicaid system (48), we focused on interaction pairs that involved a second-generation drug. However, we considered as well three widely used first-generation antipsychotics: haloperidol, perphenazine, and chlorpromazine (48). Drug-drug interactions can be further categorized by their effects on CYP450 enzymes CYP1A2, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4 and by the type of interaction (enzyme inducers versus enzyme inhibitors) (48).

On the basis of Facts and Comparisons 4.0, potentially harmful interactions are classified into five levels of significance: 1, major; 2, moderate; 3, minor; 4, major or moderate; and 5, minor or any. For the purposes of this study, we examined only major (potentially severe or life threatening) and moderate (less severe but still clinically significant) interactions (significance levels 1, 2, and 4). Focusing on severe and moderate interactions only makes sense given the problem of “alert fatigue” during medication prescribing and dispensing (43,49,50). Some drugs, such as cisapride and troglitazone, were excluded from the study because they were withdrawn from the market prior to the study period. [Potentially harmful interaction pairs investigated are listed in an online appendix to this report.]

Concomitant prescriptions for antipsychotic medications and contraindicated medications were identified from computerized Medicaid pharmacy claims files. All prescriptions (as opposed to only new prescriptions) for these medications were included. Concomitant exposure was defined as an overlap of one or more days in the days of supply of an antipsychotic prescription and a contraindicated medication (47). For example, if a patient had a 20-day prescription for ziprasidone starting on October 29, 2002, and a 30-day prescription for ketoconazole starting on November 18, 2002, one overlap was counted. We decided on the one-day overlap after determining that results and conclusions were not substantially altered with a five- or ten-day overlap requirement. A one-day overlap is consistent with the literature on drug-drug interactions involving hepatic metabolism (43,44). Interaction exposures were further stratified by significance level (severe or moderate), interaction type (inhibitor or inducer), and enzyme type (CYP2D6, CYP1A2, or CYP3A4).

Covariates and confounding factors

The Medicaid recipient eligibility file provided information about the patient’s age, age upon first receiving an antipsychotic medication included in the study, race, and sex. Race was identified as Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, or other. Sex was defined by a dichotomous variable (male=1 and female=0). The file also provided information about other potentially important confounding factors that have gained a lot of interest in recent years (20,5157). These included alcohol use disorder (ICD-9 code 303.xx), substance use disorders (304.xx), anxiety disorders (300.xx), impulse-control disorders (312.xx), personality disorders (301.xx), and eating disorders (307.5x). Key medical comorbidities included cerebrovascular diseases (433.xx–438.xx), ischemic heart diseases (411.xx–414.xx), neoplasm or cancer (140.xx–208.xx, except 173.xx, 211.5x, 230.xx, 235.xx, and 239.0x), arthritis (711.xx–716.xx), obesity (278.xx), diabetes mellitus (250.xx), hypertension (401.xx), and COPD (496.xx).

Statistical data analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted with SAS for Windows, version 9.1. Descriptive statistics for the study cohort were produced. We calculated the cumulative frequency of clinically significant, potentially harmful interaction pairs among the cohort patients during the study period. Two logistic regression models to determine the potential risk factors associated with exposure to the drug-drug interaction pairs were estimated. The first model included only psychiatric comorbidities, and the second model included psychiatric as well as medical comorbidities.

Results

A total of 6,417 (23%) patients were exposed to potentially harmful interaction pairs (Table 1). (A total of 5,949 and 5,021 patients were exposed if overlaps of five and ten days, respectively, were imposed). The average age of patients who were and were not exposed was 42.5 and 42.2 years, respectively. Compared with patients who were not exposed to potentially harmful interaction pairs, patients who were exposed had significantly higher rates of depression, anxiety disorder, hypertension, obesity, and hyperlipidemia. The proportion of white patients was higher among individuals exposed to potentially harmful interactions than among individuals with no interaction ex-posure.

Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were or were not exposed to potentially dangerous drug-drug interactionsa
Not exposed (N=21,492)
Exposed (N=6,417)
CharacteristicN%N%
Age (M±SD years)b42.2±11.242.5±11.1
Femaleb10,35648.23,23350.4
White13,79264.24,63572.2
Age groupb
 18–344,98923.21,46122.8
 35–4910,52349.03,08948.1
 50–655,98027.81,86729.1
Deceasedb6493.02564.0
Any medication treatment > 12 monthsb15,80573.54,66272.6
Second-generation antipsychotic
 Clozapine20.0166210.3
 Olanzapine24.012,00933.3
 Quetiapine13.016149.6
 Risperidone34.022,54339.6
 Ziprasidone025.4
 Aripiprazole1.0039.6
Key comorbidityc
 Psychiatric
  Depressionb2,61912.297115.1
  Substance use disorderb5,05723.51,45722.7
  Anxiety disorderb2,48511.686613.5
  Impulse-control disorderb181.81141.8
  Personality disorderb1,6867.85668.8
  Eating disorderb26.1218.3
  Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder49.2317.3
Medical
  Diabetes mellitus2,21216.075511.8
  Hypertensionb3,44616.01,13417.7
  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease1,1685.44627.2
  Cerebral vascular diseaseb2431.1931.5
  Ischemic heart diseaseb5532.61842.9
  Arthritisb6983.22333.6
  Obesityb1,1085.23725.8
  Neoplasmb2131.0831.3
  Hyperlipidemiab1,1635.44016.2
  Kidney disease3041.41011.6
  Liver diseaseb2041.0671.0

a Chi square tests were used to compare patients who were and were not exposed to a potentially dangerous drug-drug interaction for all variables except age and length of treatment, which were compared with Student’s t tests.

b p<.001, except for p<.05 for comparison of anxiety disorder

c A patient may have more than one comorbidity.

Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were or were not exposed to potentially dangerous drug-drug interactionsa
Enlarge table

There were 14,213 interaction exposures among the 6,417 exposed patients (Table 2). The most common pair was the combination of the antipsychotics olanzapine and haloperidol (N=1,353, 9.5%). The next most common combinations were risperidone and sertraline, fluoxetine, paroxetine, and carbamazepine. The combination of quetiapine and ritonavir was not among the top 50 interaction pairs, but ritonavir was prescribed with risperidone or olanzapine. The vast majority of the interactions were of the inhibitor type. The top five interactions involved the enzyme type CYP2D6.

Table 2 Potentially dangerous drug-drug interactions (N=14,213) encountered by patients using an antipsychotic, by frequency of exposure
FrequencyN%AntipsychoticInteracting drugSignificanceaInteraction typeEnzyme type
11,3539.5OlanzapineHaloperidol4Inhibitor2D6
21,2178.6RisperidoneSertraline1Inhibitor2D6
31,1608.2RisperidoneFluoxetine1Inhibitor2D6
41,0467.4RisperidoneParoxetine1Inhibitor2D6
59286.5Risperidone ECarbamazepine4Inducer2D6
69216.5OlanzapineFluoxetine4Inhibitor1A2
78175.8ClozapineSertraline1Inhibitor2D6
87955.6OlanzapineCarbamazepine4Inducer1A2
96744.7ClozapineFluoxetine1Inhibitor2D6
105343.8ClozapineCitalopram1Inhibitor2D6
114243.0RisperidoneKetoconazole2Inhibitor3A4
124162.9QuetiapineCarbamazepine4Inducer3A4
133962.8HaloperidolCarbamazepine2Inducer3A4
143112.2OlanzapineFluvoxamine4Inhibitor1A2
153112.2QuetiapinePhenytoin2Inducer3A4
162952.1ClozapinePhenytoin4Inhibitor3A4
172671.9OlanzapineCiprofloxacin4Inhibitor1A2
182261.6ClozapineCiprofloxacin4Inhibitor1A2
192191.5RisperidoneThioridazine4Inhibitor2D6
201791.3QuetiapineFluvoxamine4Inhibitor3A4
211581.1QuetiapineKetoconazole2Inhibitor3A4
22126.9QuetiapineErythromycin4Inhibitor3A4
23109.8ClozapineFluvoxamine1Inhibitor3A4
2498.7QuetiapineClarithromycin4Inhibitor3A4
2583.6HaloperidolKetoconazole2Inhibitor3A4
2670.5PerphenazineParoxetine2Inhibitor2D6
2769.5ClozapineCarbamazepine4Inducer3A4
2867.5RisperidoneFluconazole2Inhibitor3A4
2967.5ChlorpromazineTrazodone4Inhibitor2D6
3057.4OlanzapineClomipramine4Inhibitor2D6
3156.4QuetiapineFluconazole2Inhibitor3A4
3250.4OlanzapineRitonavir2Inhibitor1A2
3349.4PerphenazinePhenytoin4Inducer3A4
3448.4HaloperidolFluphenazine4Inhibitor2D6
3547.3ChlorpromazinePhenytoin4Inhibitor3A4
3642.3AripiprazoleFluoxetine4Inhibitor2D6
3738.3ChlorpromazineFluoxetine1Inhibitor2D6
3836.3ChlorpromazineHaloperidol4Inhibitor2D6
3935.3RisperidoneItraconazole2Inhibitor3A4
4034.2AripiprazoleCarbamazepine2Inducer3A4
4134.2HaloperidolThioridazine4Inhibitor2D6
4234.2HaloperidolFluvoxamine4Inhibitor1A2
4331.2ChlorpromazineParoxetine2Inhibitor2D6
4429.2RisperidoneNelfinavir4Inhibitor3A4
4528.2ClozapineCimetidine4Inhibitor1A2
4622.2ZiprasidoneCarbamazepine2Inducer3A4
4721.2ChlorpromazinePropranolol1Inhibitor1A2
4819.1RisperidoneRitonavir4Inhibitor3A4
4917.1ClozapinePhenobarbital2Inducer3A4
5016.1PerphenazineHaloperidol4Inhibitor2D6
Other134.9

a Potentially harmful drug-drug interactions are classified by Facts and Comparisons 4.0 (47) into five levels of significance: 1, major; 2, moderate; 3, minor, 4, major or moderate; and 5, minor or any; interactions classified as level 1, 2, or 4 are the subject of this study.

Table 2 Potentially dangerous drug-drug interactions (N=14,213) encountered by patients using an antipsychotic, by frequency of exposure
Enlarge table

Most patients who were exposed to potentially harmful drug-drug interactions were not exposed through multiple physicians and pharmacies. In fact, 4,725 patients had at least one exposure from the same pharmacy, and 4,032 patients were exposed by the same physician (Table 3). Same-day exposures were not uncommon. Again, 2,645 patients were exposed by the same pharmacy on the same day, and 2,447 patients were exposed by the same prescriber on the same day.

Table 3 Exposures to a potentially dangerous drug-drug interaction by the same prescriber or the same pharmacy among patients (N=27,909) who were or were not exposed on the same day
Any exposure
Same-day exposure
VariableN%N%
Same prescriber4,03214.42,4478.8
Same pharmacy4,72516.92,6459.5
Table 3 Exposures to a potentially dangerous drug-drug interaction by the same prescriber or the same pharmacy among patients (N=27,909) who were or were not exposed on the same day
Enlarge table

Table 4 shows patients exposed to interactions stratified by the antipsychotic taken, the significance of the interaction, the interaction type (inhibitor or inducer), and the enzyme type. Patients taking risperidone were the most likely to be exposed to an interaction—13.1% of the cohort was exposed to a potentially harmful medication pair involving risperidone. The next most common combinations involved olanzapine (10.3% of patients), quetiapine (3.3%), and clozapine (3.2%). The percentage of patients exposed to interaction pairs was highest for category 4 (major or moderate) interactions and lowest for category 2 (moderate) interactions. The percentage of patients exposed to enzyme type CYP2D6 (14.7%) was higher than the percentage exposed to either CYP3A4 (5.4%) or CYP1A2 (5.2%).

Table 4 Exposures to a potentially dangerous drug-drug interaction among patients (N=27,909) who were or were not exposed on the same daya
Any exposure
Same-day exposure
VariableN%N%
Significanceb
 12,5829.31,5665.6
 29633.5251.9
 43,50512.61,7156.2
Enzyme for metabolism
 1A21,4655.27422.7
 2D64,10814.72,3698.5
 3A41,4965.44111.5
Antipsychotic
 Aripiprazole76.332.1
 Clozapine8993.2262.9
 Olanzapine2,88210.31,4535.2
 Quetiapine9313.32731.0
 Risperidone3,65113.12,0747.4
 Ziprasidone32.113.1
 Chlorpromazine211.894.3
 Haloperidol4301.5135.5
 Perphenazine119.450.2

a Patients may be exposed to more than one potentially dangerous drug-drug interaction.

b Potentially harmful drug-drug interactions are classified by Facts and Comparisons 4.0 (47) into five levels of significance: 1, major; 2, moderate; 3, minor; 4, major or moderate; and 5, minor or any; interactions classified as level 1, 2, or 4 are the subject of this study.

Table 4 Exposures to a potentially dangerous drug-drug interaction among patients (N=27,909) who were or were not exposed on the same daya
Enlarge table

The results of a logistic regression that predicted exposure to a potentially harmful interaction pair are shown in Table 5. A higher risk of exposure was associated with being female (odds ratio [OR]=.94), being white (OR=1.43), having depression (OR=1.21), having impulse-control disorder (OR=1.99), or having an eating disorder (OR=2.16). COPD was the only medical comorbidity estimated to have a statistically significant effect on exposure (OR=1.20).

Table 5 Exposure to potentially harmful drug-drug interactions among patients with schizophrenia (N=27,909), by patient characteristica
Model 1
Model 2
CharacteristicOR95% CIOR95% CI
Sex (reference: female).929.877–.984.935.882–.991
Race (reference: other)1.4251.339–1.5171.4301.343–1.523
Age1.001.999–1.004.999.997–1.002
Deceased (reference: not deceased)1.2951.114–1.5051.2461.069–1.453
Any medication treatment >12 months (reference: <12 months).965.905–1.030.946.886–1.010
Key comorbidity (reference: not present)
 Psychiatric
  Depression1.2361.134–1.3461.2061.106–1.315
  Substance use disorder.958.892–1.029.936.870–1.006
Anxiety disorder1.0961.002–1.2001.076.983–1.178
  Impulse-control disorder2.0141.586–2.5571.9861.564–2.522
  Personality disorder1.013.911–1.126.994.893–1.105
  Eating disorder2.0891.139–3.8342.1581.176–3.958
  Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder1.087.624–1.8941.091.626–1.901
General medical
  Diabetes mellitus1.095.996–1.204
  Hypertension1.083.996–1.177
  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease1.2011.066–1.353
  Cerebrovascular disease1.138.889–1.456
  Ischemic heart disease.953.798–1.138
  Arthritis1.011.865–1.182
  Obesity1.035.912–1.176
  Cancer or tumor1.120.862–1.456
  Hyperlipidemia1.062.940–1.200
  Kidney disease1.073.851–1.352
  Liver disease1.076.813–1.425

a Goodness of fit for both models was significant (χ2=245.37, −2 log likelihood=29,851, p<.001, model 1, and χ2=273.45, −2 log likelihood=29,823, p<.001, model 2).

Table 5 Exposure to potentially harmful drug-drug interactions among patients with schizophrenia (N=27,909), by patient characteristica
Enlarge table

Discussion

This study was a longitudinal, retrospective analysis of a large state's Medicaid claims database that quantified the proportion of patients with schizophrenia exposed to potentially harmful drug-drug interactions involving antipsychotic medication. Nearly one-quarter of patients (N=6,417) with schizophrenia were exposed to clinically significant interaction pairs with a risk of adverse events such as seizures or QT prolongation. A majority of patients who were exposed to a potentially harmful drug-drug interaction were prescribed the drugs by the same physician (N=4,032) or the same pharmacy (N=4,725). This finding is consistent with the findings of a similar study conducted by Howe and colleagues (58) with a PHARMetrics database. Frois and others (59) reported that only 9.2% of psychiatrists considered themselves well-informed about antipsychotic drug-drug interactions, and only 19.8% tracked antipsychotic-related drug-drug interactions in their practices.

Interestingly, the results of this study were similar to those of a study by Jones and others (43) of cisapride and contraindicated medications metabolized by enzyme type CPY3A4. Of all the potentially harmful interaction pairs, 50% were found to be prescribed by the same physician for the same patient, 89% were dispensed by the same pharmacy for the same patient, and 17% were dispensed on the same day for the same patient (43,44).

Our study suggests that both prescribing and pharmacy-based dispensing may represent important intervention points for preventing potentially harmful interactions. Moreover, much intervention may be accomplished without involving complicated communications among different physicians or pharmacies. The results from this study indicate that certain comorbidities, such as depression and COPD, are associated with a higher risk of a potentially harmful interaction. Prescribers need to be aware of these higher risks and monitor their prescribing habits for patients suffering from multiple diseases.

The literature suggests that although most pharmacies have computer-based warning systems, these systems do not consistently prevent the dispensing of contraindicated drugs. Possible reasons for such inconsistent prevention include pharmacy-based drug information systems that embed contraindications in a large volume of other material, making them difficult to find; warning systems that do not present current information in a rationally prioritized layout; and pharmacists’ concerns about questioning the prescribing physicians’ decisions (21,43).

Regardless of potentially harmful drug-drug interactions, choosing a specific antipsychotic is nontrivial. Recent studies have associated metabolic effects, such as weight gain, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, with some of the second-generation antipsychotics, such as olanzapine and risperidone (46,60). First-generation antipsychotic drugs carry high risks of parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia (48). Risks and benefits of the various pharmacologic treatments available must be carefully analyzed.

Jing and colleagues (48) reported that utilization of antipsychotic medication in state Medicaid programs increased dramatically in recent years because second-generation antipsychotic agents are now used to manage conditions other than schizophrenia. These drugs, except for clozapine, have been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for bipolar disorder and are often prescribed for that condition. They are also often prescribed, off label, for obsessive-compulsive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and autism. A black box warning by the FDA in 2005 slowed their use by elderly patients for treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (61). Identification and quantification of potentially harmful drug-drug interactions are clearly important for these additional populations and will require further study.

Of course, finding that patients with comorbidities are at a greater risk of potentially harmful drug-drug interactions is not particularly surprising. After all, taking more prescription medications automatically puts patients at greater risk. However, not all comorbidities were associated with a higher risk, so this explanation is not generally satisfying. White patients and female patients experienced a significantly higher risk of a potentially harmful interaction. The use of antidepressants to treat major depressive disorder, impulse-control disorder, and eating disorders and the relationship between the incidence of these comorbidities with gender and race may involve a complicated interaction that increases the risk among a certain group of patients. In fact, estimates of a statistically significant association between death and potentially harmful interactions do not indicate the direction of causation. Although it is possible that the interaction led to the patient’s death, it is also possible, given our study design, that sicker patients were both more likely to die as well as to experience a drug-drug interaction (Table 5).

The results of this study may not be generalizable to other managed-care populations or to other diseases because the study population was limited to a state's Medicaid patients with schizophrenia. The design of the study limits the ability to infer the impact of potentially harmful drug pairs on resource use and cost. Further research with a prospective design is needed to explore these relationships. There were limited clinical data to validate exposure to potentially harmful interactions.

Because this study was based on claims from pharmacies and medical offices, we were unable to determine how often physicians chose to avoid or pharmacists chose not to dispense contraindicated medication pairs or how often pharmacists called physicians to question the prescriptions. We also could not determine how often pharmacists dispensed overlapping prescriptions for an antipsychotic and a contraindicated medication but instructed the patient to discontinue one of the medications while taking the other.

Moreover, regardless of whether physicians are well aware of the literature on potentially harmful effects of combining some drugs, the perceived benefit of the treatment regimen may outweigh the risks, especially for some patients with severe mental illness. The physicians may be cautious and carefully monitor patient response in order to minimize the risk of an adverse event. Unfortunately, this type of detail cannot be captured by a study of such a large database.

Conclusions

One-fourth of patients with schizophrenia were exposed to potentially harmful drug-drug interactions. Because many of these patients were exposed by the same prescriber or the same pharmacy, and even on the same day, simple interventions by both physicians and pharmacies are recommended. Practitioners should be aware of the possible clinical consequences stemming from certain pairs of antipsychotics and other drugs. Meanwhile, pharmacies need good systems in place to catch prescriptions for two contraindicated medications.

Dr. Guo is affiliated with the Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 3225 Eden Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45267 (e-mail: ).
Dr. Wu is with the Department of Epidemiology and Drug Safety, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey.
Dr. Kelton is with the College of Business, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dr. Jing is with the Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Mr. Fan is with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Keck is with the Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Patel is with LifeSynch, Fort Worth, Texas.

This study was presented at the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., May 3–8, 2008, and of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 3–7, 2008.

Acknowledgments and disclosures

This project received educational grant support from Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, L.L.C. The authors thank William H. Olson, C.V. Damaraju, Steve Ascher, Riad Dirani, Jessica M. Panish, and George Wong for their invaluable suggestions and support regarding research design and data analysis techniques, and they appreciate the comments of colleagues at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.

Dr. Wu was employed by Johnson & Johnson at the time of this research . Dr. Jing, a graduate student at the time of this research, is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb and owns stock in the company. Dr. Keck is a paid consultant to the advisory board of Bristol-Myers Squibb and to Pamlab and is a coinventor (U.S. patent 6,387,956) of a method of tramadol administration for treatment of obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder. He has received no financial gain from this patent. Dr. Patel receives grant support or is under contract to AstraZeneca, Janssen Scientific Affairs, and Pfizer, Inc. The other authors report no competing interests.

References

1 Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ: Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association 41:192–199, 2001Google Scholar

2 Johnson JA, Bootman JL: Drug-related morbidity and mortality: a cost-of-illness model. Archives of Internal Medicine 155:1949–1956, 1995Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

3 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds): To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1999Google Scholar

4 Chrischilles EA, Segar ET, Wallace RB: Self-reported adverse drug reactions and related resource use: a study of community-dwelling persons 65 years of age and older. Annals of Internal Medicine 117:634–640, 1992Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

5 Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, Samsa GP, et al.: A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. American Journal of Medicine 100:428–437, 1996Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

6 Kelly WN: Potential risks and prevention, part 2: drug-induced permanent disabilities. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 58:1325–1329, 2001Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

7 Marcellino K, Kelly WN: Potential risks and prevention, part 3: Drug-induced threats to life. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 58:1399–1405, 2001Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

8 McCombs JS, Nichol MB, Stimmel GL, et al.: Use patterns for antipsychotic medications in Medicaid patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 60(suppl 19):5–11, 1999Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

9 Koyanagi C, Forquer S, Alfano E: Medicaid policies to contain psychiatric drug costs. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 24:536–544, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

10 Rupp A, Keith SJ: The cost of schizophrenia: assessing the burden. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 16:413–423, 1993Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

11 Wyatt RJ, Henter I, Leary MC, et al.: An economic evaluation of schizophrenia–1991. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 30:196–205, 1995MedlineGoogle Scholar

12 Attkisson C, Cook J, Karno M, et al.: Clinical services research. Schizophrenia Bulletin 18:561–626, 1992Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

13 Tsuang MT: Suicide in schizophrenics, manics, depressives, and surgical controls: a comparison with general population suicide mortality. Archives of General Psychiatry 35:153–155, 1978Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

14 Stroup AL, Manderscheid RW: The development of the state mental hospital system in the United States. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 78:59–68, 1988Google Scholar

15 Lyu RR, McCombs JS, Johnstone BM, et al.: Use of conventional antipsychotics and the cost of treating schizophrenia. Health Care Financing Review 23:83–99, 2001MedlineGoogle Scholar

16 Worrel JA, Marken PA, Beckman SE, et al.: Atypical antipsychotic agents: a critical review. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 57:238–255, 2000Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

17 Kane J, Honigfeld G, Singer J, et al.: Clozapine for the treatment-resistant schizophrenic: a double-blind comparison with chlorpromazine. Archives of General Psychiatry 45:789–796, 1988Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

18 Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, et al.: Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. New England Journal of Medicine 353:1209–1223, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

19 Nasrallah HA: Focus on lower risk of tardive dyskinesia with atypical antipsychotics. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 18:57–62, 2006Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

20 Guo JJ, Keck PE, Corey-Lisle PK, et al.: Risk of diabetes mellitus associated with atypical antipsychotic use among patients with bipolar disorder: a retrospective, population-based, case-control study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67:1055–1061, 2006Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

21 Koro CE, Fedder DO, L’Italien GJ, et al.: Assessment of independent effect of olanzapine and risperidone on risk of diabetes among patients with schizophrenia: population based nested case-control study. British Medical Journal 325:243–248, 2002Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

22 Keck PE, Marcus R, Tourkodimitris S, et al.: A placebo-controlled, double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in patients with acute bipolar mania. American Journal of Psychiatry 160:1651–1658, 2003LinkGoogle Scholar

23 Bonelli RM: Olanzapine-associated seizure. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 37:149–150, 2003Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

24 Dogu O, Sevim S, Kaleagasi HS: Seizures associated with quetiapine treatment. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 37:1224–1227, 2003Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

25 Balit CR, Isbister GK, Hackett LP, et al.: Quetiapine poisoning: a case series. Annals of Emergency Medicine 42:751–758, 2003Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

26 Malik AR, Ravasia S: Aripiprazole-induced seizure. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 50:186, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

27 Liperoti R, Gambassi G, Lapane KL, et al.: Conventional and atypical antipsychotics and the risk of hospitalization for ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest. Archives of Internal Medicine 165:696–701, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

28 Rettenbacher MA, Eder-Ischia U, Bader A, et al.: QTc variability in schizophrenia patients treated with antipsychotics and healthy controls. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 25:206–210, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

29 Chwastiak L, Rosenheck R, Leslie D: Impact of medical comorbidity on the quality of schizophrenia pharmacotherapy in a national VA sample. Medical Care 44:55–61, 2006Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

30 Miceli JJ, Tensfeldt TG, Shiovitz T, et al.: Effects of high-dose ziprasidone and haloperidol on the QTc interval after intramuscular administration: a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Clinical Therapeutics 32:472–491, 2010Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

31 Biswas AK, Zabrocki LA, Mayes KL, et al.: Cardiotoxicity associated with intentional ziprasidone and bupropion overdose. Journal of Toxicology and Clinical Toxicology 41:101–104, 2003Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

32 Liem-Moolenaar M, Rad M, Zamuner S, et al.: Central nervous system effects of the interaction between risperidone (single dose) and the 5-HT6 antagonist SB742457 (repeated doses) in healthy men. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 71:907–916, 2011Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

33 Pollack TM, McCoy C, Stead W: Clinically significant adverse events from a drug interaction between quetiapine and atazanavir-ritonavir in two patients. Pharmacotherapy 29:1386–1391, 2009Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

34 Andersson ML, Björkhem-Bergman L, Lindh JD: Possible drug-drug interaction between quetiapine and lamotrigine—evidence from a Swedish TDM database. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 72:153–156, 2011Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

35 Kumar D, Muppa M, Kablinger A: A cytochrome P450 inhibitor in a stable schizophrenic patient: a drug interaction. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 31:670–671, 2011Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

36 De Dios C, Fudio S, Lorenzo A: Reversible parkinsonism and cognitive decline due to a possible interaction of valproic acid and quetiapine. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 36:430–432, 2011Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

37 Huang CC, Wei IH: Unexpected interaction between quetiapine and valproate in patients with bipolar disorder. General Hospital Psychiatry 32:446e1–446e2, 2010Google Scholar

38 Sandson NB, Armstrong SC, Cozza KL: Med-psych drug-drug interactions update: an overview of psychotropic drug-drug interactions. Psychosomatics 46: 464–494, 2005Google Scholar

39 Davies SJC, Eayrs S, Pratt P, et al.: Potential for drug interactions involving cytochromes P450 2D6 and 3A4 on general adult psychiatric and functional elderly psychiatric wards. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 57:464–472, 2004Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

40 Chadwick B, Waller DG, Edwards JG: Potentially hazardous drug interactions with psychotropics. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 11:440–449, 2005CrossrefGoogle Scholar

41 Sharif ZA: Pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and drug-drug interactions of atypical antipsychotics in special populations. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 5(suppl 6):22–25, 2003Google Scholar

42 Miwa LJ, Jones JK, Pathiyal A, et al.: Value of epidemiologic studies in determining the true incidence of adverse events: the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug story. Archives of Internal Medicine 157:2129–2136, 1997Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

43 Jones JK, Fife D, Curkendall S, et al.: Coprescribing and codispensing of cisapride and contraindicated drugs. JAMA 286:1607–1609, 2001Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

44 Guo JJ, Curkendall S, Jones JK, et al.: Impact of cisapride label changes on codispensing of contraindicated medications. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 12:295–301, 2003Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

45 Guo JJ, Jang R, Louder A, et al.: Acute pancreatitis associated with different drug therapies among patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Pharmacotherapy 25:1044–1054, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

46 Guo JJ, Keck PE, Li H, et al.: Bipolar-related and comorbidity treatment costs for patients with bipolar disorder in Medicaid. Psychiatric Services 58:1073–1078, 2007LinkGoogle Scholar

47 Facts and Comparisons 4.0: Drug Interaction Facts. St. Louis, Mo, Wolters Kluwer, 2006Google Scholar

48 Jing Y, Kelton CML, Guo JJ, et al.: Price, utilization, and spending for antipsychotic medications in the Medicaid program. Drug Benefit Trends 19:27–41, 2007Google Scholar

49 Malone DC, Abarca J, Hansten PD, et al.: Identification of serious drug-drug interactions: results of the partnership to prevent drug-drug interactions. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association 44:142–151, 2004CrossrefGoogle Scholar

50 Malone DC, Hutchins DS, Haupert H, et al.: Assessment of potential drug-drug interactions with a prescription claims database. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 62:1983–1991, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

51 Keck PE, Buffenstein A, Ferguson J, et al.: Ziprasidone 40 and 120 mg/day in the acute exacerbation of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: a 4-week placebo-controlled trail. Psychopharmacology 140:173–184, 1998Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

52 Lora A, Conti V, Leoni O, et al.: Adequacy of treatment for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and affective disorders in Lombardy, Italy. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.) 62:1079–1084, 2011LinkGoogle Scholar

53 Aschbrenner KA, Cai S, Grabowski DC, et al.: Medical comorbidity and functional status among adults with major mental illness newly admitted to nursing homes. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.) 62:1098–1100, 2011LinkGoogle Scholar

54 Lan CC, Su TP, Chen YS, et al: Treatment dilemma in comorbidity of schizophrenia and idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. General Hospital Psychiatry 33:411e3–411e5, 2011Google Scholar

55 Hus JH, Chien IC, Lin CH, et al.: Incidence of diabetes in patients with schizophrenia: a population-based study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 56:19–26, 2011Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

56 Felmet K, Zisook S, Kasckow JW: Elderly patients with schizophrenia and depression: diagnosis and treatment. Clinical Schizophrenia and Related Psychoses 4:239–250, 2011Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

57 Guo JJ, Keck PE, Li H, et al.: Diabetes associated with antipsychotic use among Medicaid patients with bipolar disorders: a nested case-control study. Pharmacotherapy 27:27–35, 2007Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

58 Howe AM, Kozma C, Russo P, et al: The prevalence of potential antipsychotic drug-drug interactions in a large US national managed care database. Presented at the Annual US Psychiatric and Mental Health Congress, New Orleans, La, Nov 15–19, 2006Google Scholar

59 Frois C, Guerin A, Saraogi A, et al.: Perceptions and prescribing considerations among US psychiatrists regarding drug-drug interactions associated with oral atypical antipsychotics. Current Medical Research and Opinion 26:2735–2744, 2010Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

60 Cavuto NJ, Woosley RL, Sale M: Pharmacies and prevention of potentially fatal drug interactions. JAMA 275:1086–1087, 1996Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

61 Dorsey ER, Rabbani A, Gallagher SA, et al.: Impact of FDA black box advisory on antipsychotic medication use. Archives of Internal Medicine 170:96–103, 2010Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar