Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:35:11.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Association Between Prior Antipsychotic Adherence and Adherence Three Years After Clozapine Initiation: A Real-World Observational Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Sébastien Brodeur*
Affiliation:
Laval University, Faculty of Medicine, Quebec City, Canada Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Josiane Courteau
Affiliation:
PRIMUS Group, Sherbrooke, Canada CHUS Research Center, Sherbrooke, Canada
Alain Vanasse
Affiliation:
Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Canada
Marc-André Roy
Affiliation:
Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
Mireille Courteau
Affiliation:
CHUS Research Center, Sherbrooke, Canada
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Our previous findings challenged the widely held view among a large proportion of psychiatrists (41% to 82%) that previous non-adherence to antipsychotics is a major barrier to the introduction of clozapine (Brodeur et al. 2022 BJPsych). Indeed, our previous work showed that most patients, even those with the poorest adherence profiles, remained on their treatment after clozapine initiation (>68% for clozapine and >84% for all antipsychotics combined) after one year of follow-up. Because of this, the study extended the follow-up period to three years to assess whether patterns of adherence were sustained over time. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether poor adherence prior to initiating clozapine predicted poor adherence to clozapine or any other antipsychotic (including clozapine) three years after initiation.

Methods

This cohort study included 2,258 patients living in Quebec (Canada) with a diagnosis of SCZ who initiated oral clozapine between 2009 and 2016 (index date). Adherence to AP was measured by the medication possession ratio (MPR) over a 1-year period before and a 3-year period after the index date. Five groups of patients were formed based on their prior MPR level (independent variable), and two dependent variables were defined after clozapine initiation (good adherence (MPR ≥ 0.8) to any APs and to clozapine only). In addition to multiple logistic regression, state sequence analysis was used to visualise the trajectories of AP use over time, before and after clozapine initiation, for each group.

Results

The graphical representation of the SSA immediately showed that AP adherence was significantly improved in all groups, regardless of the level of previous adherence to AP treatment. On the other hand, logistic regression showed that poorer adherence to APs before the index date was significantly associated with an increased risk of poor adherence to any AP treatment 3 years after the index date (adjusted ORs ranging from 2.2 to 3.0). However, the majority of patients (ranging from 80.8% to 92.4%) had good adherence to any APs and to oral clozapine (ranging from 57.7% to 73.8%), regardless of previous adherence level.

Conclusion

These results add to previous findings and demonstrate that initiation of clozapine leads to improved adherence over a 3-year period. Although widely recognised by clinicians as a barrier to clozapine use, previous poor adherence does not appear to justify avoiding clozapine treatment in patients who would otherwise be considered eligible.

Type
7 Psychopharmacology
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.