Factors Influencing the Use of Second-Generation Antipsychotics in Children with Psychosis.

Abstract

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter to state Medicaid directors explaining the need for oversight of psychiatric prescriptions for children with mental health disorders. The National Committee for Quality Alliance proposed 3 quality measures for rating managed care organizations (MCOs) that involve use of second-generation or atypical antipsychotics in children. In order to ensure appropriate use and to effectively manage the use of second-generation antipsychotics in children, MCOs need to better understand the factors that influence medication treatment decisions for children. To (a) determine how patient-level and physician-level factors influence decisions to prescribe second-generation antipsychotics to children (aged under 18 years) diagnosed with psychosis and (b) evaluate how the influence of these factors may differ between primary care providers and psychiatrists. This study employed a cross-sectional survey of 193 primary care providers and psychiatrists. A web-based patient simulation survey using a fractional factorial design was administered via a commercial vendor. Respondents were presented with simulated patient profiles described by various levels of factors considered to be essential to decision making. Respondents were asked to make treatment recommendations for each profile evaluated. In addition to treatment recommendations, demographics and beliefs about products were measured. Modified Poisson regression accounting for multilevel data was used to identify the factors that significantly affect treatment recommendations. Psychiatrists were more likely to recommend second-generation antipsychotics than primary care practitioners (unadjusted RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.23-1.51). Social factors such as foster status or parental concern were not found to be significant predictors of prescribing second-generation antipsychotics. The percentage of a provider's patients using second-generation antipsychotics (RR = 1.002, 95% CI = 1.0002-1.003), patient age (aged 4 years: RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.68-0.84; aged 10 years: RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.91-0.99; reference group: aged 15 years), and patient disease severity (severe: RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.04-1.18; moderate: RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.05-1.17; reference group: mild) significantly predicted prescription behavior among primary care providers and psychiatrists. Primary care providers were about twice as likely to recommend antipsychotics if they believed the use of antipsychotics was a labeled indication (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.56-2.98) or a medically accepted use (RR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.33-2.67), when compared with physicians who believed there was no evidence available. This effect was not significant among psychiatrists. Primary care providers, but not psychiatrists, were also significantly influenced by patient white blood cell (WBC) count. Patients with healthy WBC counts were 1.11 times as likely (95% CI = 1.05-1.17) to receive antipsychotics from primary care providers compared with those with low WBC count. Patient body mass index (BMI) was not found to significantly influence prescribing behavior. Nearly 50% of patients did not receive recommendations for psychosocial care. Primary care providers recommended antipsychotic polypharmacy in 23% of the patient profiles, while psychiatrists did so in 42% of the profiles. This study provides valuable insight into physician-prescribing practices for antipsychotics. The lack of significance of foster status and parental concern, after controlling for other factors, shows that physicians base their decisions on clinical factors more than social factors. Results for patient BMI and frequency of recommendations of polypharmacy are concerning. The general lack of awareness of evidence supporting use of antipsychotics is also highly concerning. The effects of patient BMI, beliefs about evidence supporting use, and prescribing practices with regard to psychosocial care and antipsychotic polypharmacy provide actionable results for managed care programs looking to improve their quality metrics. The results of this study further demonstrate the need for the immediate implementation of the various proposed quality metrics in this area and for new practice guidelines to raise the current standard of care. No outside funding supported this research. Bentley reports the receipt of grants from PQA and the NACDS Foundation. Patel is employed by Medical Marketing Economics. The authors report no other conflicting interests, potential or otherwise. Study concept and design were contributed by Ramachandran, Banahan, West-Strum, and Bentley. Ramachandran, Banahan, and Patel collected data; data interpretation was performed primarily by Ramachandran, Banahan, and Patel, along with Bentley and West-Strum. The manuscript was primarily written by Ramachandran, along with Banahan and Bentley, and revised by Banahan, Bentley, West-Strum, and Patel.