Patterns and predictors of oral antipsychotic prescribing in adult patients with schizophrenia.

Background: Evidence increasingly suggests minimal differences in efficacy between oral antipsychotics for the pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia. As a result, newer treatment guidelines avoid an algorithmic approach to antipsychotic selection and recommend treatment be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Objective: To determine patterns and predictors of oral antipsychotic prescribing for adults diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Methods: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Survey (NAMCS) from 2005 to 2016 and 2018. Treatment options were defined as a first-generation antipsychotic (FGA), second-generation antipsychotic (SGA), or no antipsychotic. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of antipsychotic treatment, adjusting for predisposing, enabling, and need factors.
Results: The final study sample consisted of visits by 38,403 adults (unweighted n = 1932; age ≥ 18) diagnosed with schizophrenia in the United States. Risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine were the most prescribed antipsychotics. Patients ≥65 years old were half as likely to be prescribed an SGA versus no antipsychotic (OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.31, 0.61]). Patients with a higher number of chronic conditions also had lower odds of being prescribed an SGA or FGA versus no antipsychotic (OR 0.98 [0.97, 0.99]; OR [0.96 [0.96, 0.99]), while patients prescribed a higher number of medications had higher odds of being prescribed an SGA versus no antipsychotic (OR 1.2, 95% CI [1.1, 1.4]).
Conclusions: Multiple factors were associated with prescribing an SGA or FGA versus no antipsychotic, but no factors were associated with prescribing an SGA versus FGA. Future studies are needed to determine the reasoning behind differences in antipsychotic prescribing.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(© 2022 The Authors.)