Assessing and Reporting the Adverse Effects of Antipsychotic Medication: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies, and Prospective, Retrospective, and Cross-Sectional Research

Objective: Adverse effects (AEs) of antipsychotic medication have important implications for patients and prescribers in terms of wellbeing, treatment adherence and quality of life. This review summarises strategies for collecting and reporting AE data across a representative literature sample to ascertain their rigour and comprehensiveness. Methods: A PsycINFO search, following PRISMA Statement guidelines, was conducted in English-language journals (1980–July 2014) using the following search string: (antipsychotic* OR neuroleptic*) AND (subjective effect OR subjective experience OR subjective response OR subjective mental alterations OR subjective tolerability OR subjective wellbeing OR patient perspective OR self-rated effects OR adverse effects OR side-effects). Of 7,825 articles, 384 were retained that reported quantified results for AEs of typical or atypical antipsychotics amongst transdiagnostic adult, adolescent, and child populations. Information extracted included: types of AEs reported; how AEs were assessed; assessment duration; assessment of the global impact of antipsychotic consumption on wellbeing; and conflict of interest due to industry sponsorship. Results: Neurological, metabolic, and sedation-related cognitive effects were reported most systematically relative to affective, anticholinergic, autonomic, cutaneous, hormonal, miscellaneous, and non-sedative cognitive effects. The impact of AEs on patient wellbeing was poorly assessed. Cross-sectional and prospective research designs yielded more comprehensive data about AE severity and prevalence than clinical or observational retrospective studies. 3 Conclusions: AE detection and classification can be improved through the use of standardised assessment instruments and consideration of subjective patient impact. Observational research can supplement information from clinical trials to improve the ecological validity of AE data.

Substance use and misuse in burn patients: testing the classical hypotheses of the interaction between posttraumatic symptomatology and substance use

Background: We aimed to test whether the three classical hypotheses of the interaction between posttraumatic symptomatology and substance use (high risk of trauma exposure, susceptibility for posttraumatic symptomatology, and self-medication of symptoms), may be useful in the understanding of substance use among burn patients. Methods: We analysed substance use data (nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, cocaine, opiates, and tranquilizers) and psychopathology measures among burn patients admitted to a Burns Unit and enrolled in a longitudinal observational study. Lifetime substance use information (n = 246) was incorporated to analyses aiming to test the high risk hypothesis. Only patients assessed for psychopathology in a six months follow-up (n = 183) were included in prospective analyses testing the susceptibility and self-medication hypotheses. Results: Regarding the high risk hypothesis, results show a higher proportion of heroin and tranquilizer users compared to the general population. Furthermore, in line with the susceptibility hypothesis, higher levels of symptomatology were found in lifetime alcohol, tobacco and drug users during recovery. The self-medication hypothesis could be tested partially due to the hospital stay “cleaning” effect, but severity of symptoms was linked to caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and cannabis use after discharge. Conclusions: We found that the three classical hypotheses could be used to understand the link between traumatic experiences and substance use explaining different patterns of burn patient’s risk for trauma exposure and emergence of symptomatology.

Conspicuous by their abstinence: the limited engagement of heroin users in English and Welsh Drug Recovery Wings

Background In recent years, an abstinence-focused, ‘recovery’ agenda has emerged in UK drug policy, largely in response to the perception that many opioid users had been ‘parked indefinitely’ on Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST). The introduction of ten pilot ‘Drug Recovery Wings’ (DRWs) in 2011 represents the application of this recovery agenda to prisons. This paper describes the DRWs’ operational models, the place of opiate dependent prisoners within them, and the challenges of delivering ‘recovery’ in prison. Methods In 2013, the implementation and operational models of all ten pilot DRWs were rapidly assessed. Up to three days were spent in each DRW, undertaking semi-structured interviews with a sample of 94 DRW staff and 102 DRW residents. Interviews were fully transcribed, and coded using grounded theory. Findings from the nine adult prisons are presented here. Results Four types of DRW were identified, distinguished by their size and selection criteria. Strikingly, no mid- or large-sized units regularly supported OST recipients through detoxification. Type A were large units whose residents were mostly on OST with long criminal records and few social or personal resources. Detoxification was rare, and medication reduction slow. Type B's mid-sized DRW was developed as a psychosocial support service for OST clients seeking detoxification. However, staff struggled to find such prisoners, and detoxification again proved rare. Type C DRWs focused on abstinence from all drugs, including OST. Though OST clients were not intentionally excluded, very few applied to these wings. Only Type D DRWs, offering intensive treatment on very small wings, regularly recruited OST recipients into abstinence-focused interventions. Conclusion Prison units wishing to support OST recipients in making greater progress towards abstinence may need to be small, intensive and take a stepped approach based on preparatory motivational work and extensive preparation for release. However, concerns about post-release deaths will remain.