The confirmation of a link between antipsychotic polypharmacy and QTc prolongation supports the current guidelines that recommend avoiding the concurrent use of two or more antipsychotic drugs, and the confirmation of a link between citalopram and QTc prolongation supports the need for routine QTc monitoring. The relatively low proportion of patients with QTc prolongation not only suggests compliance with current safety warnings issued by regulatory authorities, but also casts some doubts on the clinical relevance of QTc prolongation related to some psychotropic drugs.

Antipsychotic (AP) drugs have the potential to cause prolongation of the QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc). As this risk is dose-dependent, it may be associated with the number of AP drugs concurrently prescribed, which is known to be associated with increased cumulative equivalent AP dosage. This study analysed whether AP dose mediates the relationship between polypharmacy and QTc interval. We used data from a cross-sectional survey that investigated the prevalence of QTc lengthening among people with psychiatric illnesses in Italy. AP polypharmacy was tested for evidence of association with AP dose and QTc interval using the Baron and Kenny mediational model. A total of 725 patients were included in this analysis. Of these, 186 (26%) were treated with two or more AP drugs (AP polypharmacy). The mean cumulative AP dose was significantly higher in those receiving AP polypharmacy (prescribed daily dose/defined daily dose = 2.93, standard deviation 1.31) than monotherapy (prescribed daily dose/defined daily dose = 0.82, standard deviation 0.77) (z = −12.62, p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean QTc interval was significantly longer in those receiving AP polypharmacy (mean = 420.86 milliseconds, standard deviation 27.16) than monotherapy (mean = 413.42 milliseconds, standard deviation 31.54) (z = −2.70, p = 0.006). The Baron and Kenny mediational analysis showed that, after adjustment for confounding variables, AP dose mediates the association between polypharmacy and QTc interval. The present study found that AP polypharmacy is associated with QTc interval, and this effect is mediated by AP dose. Given the high prevalence of AP polypharmacy in real-world clinical practice, clinicians should consider not only the myriad risk factors for QTc prolongation in their patients, but also that adding a second AP drug may further increase risk as compared with monotherapy.

No abstract

Background:Whether arrhythmia risks will increase if drugs with electrocardiographic (ECG) QT-prolonging properties are combined is generally supposed but not well studied. Based on available evidence, the Arizona Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (AZCERT) classification defines the risk of QT prolongation for exposure to single drugs. We aimed to investigate how combining AZCERT drug categories impacts QT duration and how relative drug exposure affects the extent of pharmacodynamic drug–drug interactions.Methods:In a cohort of 2558 psychiatric inpatients and outpatients, we modeled whether AZCERT class and number of coprescribed QT-prolonging drugs correlates with observed rate-corrected QT duration (QTc) while also considering age, sex, inpatient status, and other QTc-prolonging risk factors. We concurrently considered administered drug doses and pharmacokinetic interactions modulating drug clearance to calculate individual weights of relative exposure with AZCERT drugs. Because QTc duration is concentration-dependent, we estimated individual drug exposure with these drugs and included this information as weights in weighted regression analyses.Results:Drugs attributing a ‘known’ risk for clinical consequences were associated with the largest QTc prolongations. However, the presence of at least two versus one QTc-prolonging drug yielded nonsignificant prolongations [exposure-weighted parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals for ‘known’ risk drugs + 0.93 ms (–8.88;10.75)]. Estimates for the ‘conditional’ risk class increased upon refinement with relative drug exposure and co-administration of a ‘known’ risk drug as a further risk factor.Conclusions:These observations indicate that indiscriminate combinations of QTc-prolonging drugs do not necessarily result in additive QTc prolongation and suggest that QT prolongation caused by drug combinations strongly depends on the nature of the combination partners and individual drug exposure. Concurrently, it stresses the value of the AZCERT classification also for the risk prediction of combination therapies with QT-prolonging drugs.

BackgroundAs lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of deliberate self-harm (DSH) in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, we designed a pragmatic randomised trial to assess its efficacy in more than 200 patients with treatment-resistant depression. However, we randomised 56 patients only. The aim of this report is therefore twofold: first, to disseminate the results of this underpowered study which may be incorporated into future meta-analytical reviews; second, to analyse some critical aspects of the study which might explain failure to reach the target sample size.MethodsWe carried out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode were allocated to add lithium to usual care (intervention arm) versus usual care alone (control arm). Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up constituted the composite primary outcome.ResultsOf 58 patients screened for inclusion, 29 were allocated to lithium plus usual care and 27 were assigned to usual care without lithium. Six patients in the lithium plus usual care group and seven in the usual care group committed acts of DSH during the follow-up phase. The survival probability did not differ between the two treatment arms (Chi2 = 0.17, p =0.676). With regard to changes in the severity of depressive symptomatology from baseline to endpoint, no significant differences were detected.ConclusionsThe present study failed to achieve the minimum sample size needed to detect a clinically meaningful difference between the two treatment arms. Consequently, the finding that lithium, in addition to usual care, did not exert a positive effect in terms of reduction of DSH after 12 months of follow-up is likely due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference, if a difference existed. The dissemination of the results of this underpowered study will inform future meta-analytical reviews on lithium and suicide-related outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550