MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939823386 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz018.526

F114. THE EVOLUTION OF LONG-ACTING ANTIPSYCHOTICS USE IN QUEBEC BETWEEN 2003 AND 2017

2019· article· en· W2939823386 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc‐André Roy, Lampron Antoine

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionGuidelinePopulationMedicinePsychiatryDemographyPediatricsPsychologyEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are recommended to decrease relapse in SZ and their relevance is acknowledged in every treatment guideline available internationally. Yet their rate of use is reported to be very low (6%) in Canada, based on a paper by Williams et al. It could be hypothesized that the fact that second generation LAIs (SGA-LAIs) had just become available might have accounted for these modest rates of use, given the strong inclination of clinicians to prefer prescribing SGAs, that had been previously available only in an oral form. However, this paper dates were published in 2006, and we are unaware from any other data on possible changes in LAI used that could have occurred following the increasing availability of new second-generation LAIs or after the publication of Québec and Canada recommendations of experts. The present report examines the changes in rates of LAIs in Québec from 2003 until 2017. We obtained from the number of LAIs prescriptions reimbursed for each month from 2003 to 2017 by the provincial public insurance system that provides coverage to more than 90% of people suffering from a psychotic disorder. As this data set was obtained from a commercial entity (IMS), it did not include any information on the individuals receiving this LAIs. Hence, we computed their rate of use per 1000,000 people, taking into account the increase in Québec population over that period. In the absence of any diagnostic information, change in number of prescription might reflect changes in their use in diagnostic categories other that SZ and related psychotic disorder. To address this, we performed sensitivity analyses that will be detailed below. Over the studied period, the rate of use of LAIs more than tripled, going from 32,4/100 000 in 2003 to 99,6 per 100 000 in 2016. The use of first-generation LAIs decreased from 33,6 per 100 000 in 2003 to 24,5 per 100 000 in 2017. The use of second-generation LAIs (SGA-LAIs), first introduced in 2003 (Risperidone-Consta), reached 75,1/100,000 in 2017. Further analyses of changes in rates of use started in 2004, a few months after the introduction of the first SGA-LAI and increased in a linear pattern over the period of the study, without any significant inflection point over that period. These data show that LAI use in Québec has increased steadily since 2004, and that this use seems to coincide with the introduction of the first SGA-LAI, without further increase co-occurring with the publication and dissemination of expert recommendations. This supports the hypothesis that the modest rates of use of LAIs that was previously reported in Québec and Canada might have resulted from the fact that only FGA were available in the LAI form while SGAs had become the mainstay in pharmacological treatment of psychotic disorders. However, the lack of diagnostic information on the persons who have used these LAIs prevent concluding about their current rates of use in people suffering from SZ and related psychotic disorders as well as on the variations of these rates over the study period. To address these limitations, we are currently planning further analyses based on the public health care system that will combine information of medication use and diagnostic information on the people with whom these medications are used.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207