practitioner versus medication-expert opinion on psychiatric pharmacotherapy of mentally retarded...
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
1/8
www.medscape.com
Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
The agreement of practicing psychiatrists with medication experts regarding how psychotropic drugs should be used to
treat behavioral and psychiatric problems in patients with mental retardation was studied.
The medication survey used in developing guidelines on the treatment of behavioral and psychiatric problems in mental
retardation was sent to 85 psychiatrists who had been identified as caring for the mentally retarded in the Texas public
mental health system. The comparison of these practitioners with the medication experts included first-line and second-
line treatment choices. Survey analysis was based on using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the type of
rating. If the 95% CIs for the practitioners' responses overlapped the 95% CIs for experts, the two groups were judged
to be in agreement. Thirty-seven practitioners (43.5%) completed and returned the survey. Few differences between
the practitioners and the medication experts were found with respect to treatments for specific mental-illness
diagnoses. However, the practitioners rated venlafaxine and mirtazapine higher than the medication experts. Lithium
augmentation of therapy with selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors for non-psychotic depression was rated first-line by
the practitioners and second-line by the medication experts.
Practicing psychiatrists and medication experts generally agreed about the use of psychotropic drugs for mental illness
in patients with mental retardation.
Introduction
Most believe that "mental retardation" refers specifically to a developmental disorder characterized by a deficit in
general intellectual and adaptive functioning. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition
(DSM-IV) describes mentally retarded individuals as having "an IQ of approximately 70 or below" and limitations in at
least two of the following skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social and interpersonal skills, use of
community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety.[1] To be classified as
mentally retarded, a person must show intellectual impairment before the age of 18 years. In earlier decades, many
incorrectly believed that mentally retarded people do not have the psychological processes necessary to foster the
onset of mental illness.[2] In fact, people with mental retardation can develop the same mental disorders as individuals
with normal intellectual functioning, and the prevalence of these comorbid conditions in the mentally retarded is
increasing.[3]
A number of studies have been conducted to determine the prevalence of mental illness among the mentally retarded;
most of these focused on institutionalized rather than community-based patients. Singh et al.[4] reviewed prevalence
studies conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s and concluded that (1) 8-10% of individuals with mental
retardation have a severe mental disorder requiring treatment, (2) about 50% of institutionalized patients with mental
retardation are likely to have at least one mental disorder, (3) about 60% of mentally retarded adults in institutions have
at least one severe or minor mental disorder, (4) 20-30% of mentally retarded children in institutions have a mental
disorder, and (5) 20-35% of mentally retarded children in the community have a diagnosable mental disorder. In
addition, mental illness is four to five times as frequent in the mentally retarded as in the general population.[1] Mentally
From American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on PsychiatricPharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients with Mental
DisordersNick C. Patel, M. Lynn Crismon, A. John Rush, and Allen Frances
Published: 10/01/2001
Page 1 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)
10/28/2009http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/407003_print
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
2/8
retarded people show the full range of psychiatric disorders, including most frequently schizophrenia, adjustment
disorders, personality disorders, and anxiety disorders.[5]
The increased prevalence of co-morbid conditions in mentally retarded people is associated with an increased use of
psychotropic medications. Spreat et al.[6] reported that 22% of mentally retarded adults were prescribed antipsychotics;
9.3%, anxiolytics; and 5.9%, antidepressants. Pharmacologic treatment is indicated to suppress the abnormal thought
processes and behavior associated with psychotic disorders and to treat the morbidity associated with depression and
other mood disorders. Aggression, stereotypy, hyperactivity, and self-injurious behavior are relatively commonsymptoms and can result in harm to the mentally retarded patient, other patients, and the caregiver. Thus, all of these
symptoms indicate a need for guidelines regarding the appropriate use of psychotropic medications in individuals with
mental retardation. We studied the extent to which practicing psychiatrists agreed with a set of such guidelines.
Background
The Expert Consensus Guideline Series is a series of practical clinical guidelines for treating major psychiatric
disorders: schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bi-polar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, agitation in
older persons with dementia, and psychiatric and behavioral problems in mental retardation. [7-12] Each set of
guidelines is based on a survey of expert opinion and provides various strategies for treatment. The survey itself is
based on evidence from the scientific and professional literature and is constructed by an editorial board consisting ofexperts in the discipline being surveyed and in scientific methodology. The main purpose of the series is to aid in the
decision-making of physicians, pharmacists, and other health care providers when confronted with these psychiatric
disorders.
There is a great need for clinical guidelines on the pharmacotherapy of mental illness in the mentally retarded.
Research and experience are lacking in this specific field. With the emergence of new psychotropic medications, the
confusion only increases. The "Expert Consensus Guideline Series: Treatment of Psychiatric and Behavioral Problems
in Mental Retardation" (hereafter called PBPMR guidelines) provides practitioners with appropriate clinical guidelines
and algorithms for the treatment of mental illness in the mentally retarded.[12]
The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TXMHMR) operates 11 regional state schools and
contracts for out-patient care through 42 community centers statewide. The state schools are intermediate carefacilities for the mentally retarded, and patients' medical needs are placed in the hands of general and family practice
physicians. Psychiatrists are consulted when a mentally retarded patient manifests a psychiatric disorder or behavioral
disturbance. In the community center setting, mentally retarded clients receive a variety of services intended to improve
their adaptive functioning, and they are seen by a psychiatrist only if a psychiatric disorder or behavioral problem
occurs. Although behavioral programs are used as interventions to stabilize pathological behavior, pharmacologic
treatment may be necessary. This is largely agreed upon if a patient's symptoms meet DSM-IV criteria for a given
disorder. Even then, there are difficulties with respect to patient assessment and monitoring, and no uniform guidelines
previously existed regarding the preferred pharmacologic approach. The situation is even more difficult for patients with
symptoms and behavior that interfere with daily functioning but do not meet DSM-IV criteria for a psychiatric disorder.
Until the publication of the PBPMR guidelines, there was no clear consensus on the best methods for patient
assessment, when to use medications, and the preferred medication strategies. Our study examined how closelyTXMHMR psychiatrists agreed with the PBPMR guidelines.
Methods
PBPMR guidelines
The editors of the PBPMR guidelines first created a skeleton document based on the standard literature to identify key
decision points in the everyday treatment of behavioral and psychiatric problems in mental retardation.[12] They
highlighted points on which the literature was indefinite and then developed a written questionnaire concerning these
Page 2 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)
10/28/2009http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/407003_print
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
3/8
treatment issues. The questionnaire used a 9-point scale slightly modified from a survey format developed by the
RAND Corporation for ascertaining expert consensus. Scores in the range of 7-9 were used to indicate the degree of
appropriateness; 4-6, the degree of equivocal opinion; and 1-3, the degree of inappropriateness. Anchor points were
also provided to further distinguish the 9-point rating scale.[13,14] The experts were asked not to consider cost when
making their ratings.
The editors asked questions about 40 clinical situations. [12] The questionnaire was sent in the spring of 1999 to 51
leading U.S. experts on pharmacotherapy of mental illness in mental retardation, who were identified from recentresearch publications, recipients of research grants, presenters at the Nisonger International Consensus Conference,
and College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists members.
In analyzing the survey results, the editors first calculated the mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval
(CI) for each item. The 95% CI is a statistically calculated range that tells the reader that, if the survey were repeated
with a similar group of experts, there is a 95% chance the mean score would fall within that range.[15] The editors
designated a rating of first-line, second-line, or third-line treatments for each item for which there was consensus. This
rating was determined by the category in which the 95% CI of its mean score fell.
First-line treatments were those strategies the expert panel believed were usually appropriate as initial treatments for a
given situation. "Treatment of choice," when it appeared, was an especially strong first-line recommendation (having
been rated a 9 by at least half the experts). In choosing among several first-line recommendations, or in deciding
whether to use a first-line treatment at all, practitioners should consider the overall clinical situation, including the
patient's prior response to treatment, adverse effects, general medical problems, and patient preferences.
Second-line treatments were reasonable choices for patients who could not tolerate or did not respond to the first-line
choices. Alternatively, practitioners could select a second-line choice as initial treatment if the first-line options were
deemed unsuitable for a particular patient.
For some questions, second-line ratings dominated, especially when the experts did not reach any consensus on first-
line options. In such cases, to differentiate within the group, the editors labeled items whose 95% CIs overlapped those
of the first-line category as "high second-line."
Third-line treatments were usually inappropriate or were used only when preferred alternatives were not effective.
For each item in the survey, the editors used a chi-square test to determine whether the experts' distribution of
responses differed from a chance distribution and to find some items for which there was no convergence of expert
opinion.
After survey analysis and assignment of ratings, the experts' recommendations were translated into clinical guidelines.
TXMHMR Survey
The survey used in developing the PBPMR guidelines was sent in the fall of 1999 to psychiatric consultants at the
TXMHMR state schools and to psychiatrists identified by their medical directors as spending a significant amount of
their time treating mentally retarded clients with mental disorders in community centers. A $75 honorarium was paid to
the psychiatrists for completing and returning the survey.
Survey analyses and ratings were conducted in the same manner as the PBPMR guidelines and then compared with
those guidelines.
Comparison of PBPMR guideline experts with TXMHMR practitioners
Results from the PBPMR guideline survey and the TXMHMR survey were compared by using the following approach.
First-line treatment choices and high second-line choices in the PBPMR guideline survey were compared with
Page 3 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)
10/28/2009http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/407003_print
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
4/8
responses to the same item from the TXMHMR practitioner survey. If the 95% CIs for the responses of the TXMHMR
practitioners (hereafter called the practitioners) overlapped with those of the PBPMR guideline experts (hereafter called
the medication experts), the responses were judged to be in agreement.
Results
Thirty-seven (43.5%) of 85 practitioners completed and returned the medication survey. The responding practitioners
ranged in age from 36 to 74 years (mean S.D., 53.2 9.1 years), and 83% were men. All 37 practitioners specializedin psychiatry, with 18.3 9.8 years having passed since terminal training. Seventy-one percent were board-certified in
psychiatry. Their practice with mentally retarded patients was 20.0% 36.3% inpatient and 63.0% 42.3% outpatient.
Agreement between practitioners and medication experts
Practitioners and medication experts generally agreed regarding the preferred pharmacologic treatments for specific
DSM-IV diagnoses and target symptoms in patients not meeting criteria for a DSM-IV diagnosis. Valproate was
considered the treatment of choice for patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder, manic episode. Both medication
experts and practitioners rated newer atypical antipsychotics as treatments of choice for schizophrenic patients who
are compliant with oral medications. Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were the treatments of choice for
obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depressive disorder. Psychostimulants were the treatments of choice for
patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Newer atypical antipsychotics were considered first-line therapy for
self-injurious behavior. For patients with nonaggressive agitation, anticonvulsants-mood stabilizers were rated first-line
by both groups. Antidepressants were the treatments of choice for patients with suicidal ideation or behavior.
Agreement between the practitioners and the medication experts was further evident in their choices of preferred
medications within different classes for the treatment of target symptoms in patients not meeting the criteria for a DSM-
IV diagnosis. Risperidone was preferred among antipsychotics for treating self-injurious behavior and aggressive or
destructive behavior. Divalproex and valproate were preferred anticonvulsants-mood stabilizers for the treatment of
self-injurious behavior, aggressive or destructive behavior, and psychiatric or behavioral problems in patients with co-
morbid epilepsy. SSRIs (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline) were preferred by both groups
when an antidepressant was indicated for depressive symptoms, self-injurious behavior, aggressive or destructive
behavior, nonaggressive agitation, or anxiety. SSRIs were also the preferred anxiolytics for treating anxiety, self-injurious behavior, and aggressive or destructive behavior.
Differences between practitioners and medication experts
Significant differences between practitioners and medication experts were apparent in the recommendations regarding
uses of venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and lithium (Table 1). The practitioners considered venlafaxine a first-line agent for
major depressive episodes and the target symptom of depression. The medication experts rated it high second-line
therapy for these clinical presentations. The practitioners also considered venlafaxine first-line as an alternative agent
when no response was seen with SSRIs in patients with nonpsychotic depression, whereas the medication experts
rated it high second-line.
The practitioners favored mirtazapine more than the medication experts when treating the target symptoms ofdepression, self-injurious behavior, and aggressive or destructive behavior. The practitioners considered mirtazapine
first-line as an alternative agent when no response was seen with SSRIs in patients with nonpsychotic depression.
Assuming a partial response to an adequate trial of an SSRI for nonpsychotic depression, the practitioners considered
lithium augmentation first-line adjunctive therapy, whereas the medication experts rated lithium second-line.
The practitioners rated the following medications higher than the medication experts in terms of long-term safety and
adverse-effect profiles (if maintained at a steady dosage and with minimal monitoring): "other newer
antidepressants" (bupropion, venlafaxine), "newer atypical antipsychotics" (olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone), and
Page 4 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)
10/28/2009http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/407003_print
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
5/8
"newer sedating antidepressants" (mirtazapine, nefazodone).
The practitioners were more inclined than the medication experts to initially treat self-injurious behavior and other
symptoms disruptive to the patient's family and caregivers with a psychotropic medication. In addition, the practitioners
were more apt than the medication experts to continue pharmacologic treatment for the clinical factors of nonresponse
to psychosocial interventions and symptoms disruptive to the patient's family and caregivers.
Discussion
The psychiatrists treating mentally retarded patients in the TXMHMR system were largely in agreement on
pharmacologic treatments and strategies for mental illness in the mentally retarded (as indicated by the narrowness of
the 95% CIs for their responses). The practitioners agreed with each other regarding the initial treatments of choice for
specific DSM-IV psychiatric disorders and some of the severe and persistent psychiatric and behavioral target
symptoms for which reliable diagnoses cannot be made (physical aggression toward people or property, anxiety, and
suicidal ideation or behavior). Although guidelines for the treatment of mental illness in mentally retarded patients have
not been implemented in the TXMHMR facilities, the overall consensus among the practitioners is noteworthy.
Practitioners have been criticized as not basing their daily practice on solid scientific evidence. [16] But realistically, they
cannot both evaluate all the current data on treatment that might affect their daily practice decisions and care for
patients. Thus, the overall agreement in the survey findings between the practitioners and medication experts is
encouraging. In addition, the concordance between the two groups provides face validity to the PBPMR guidelines.
The practitioners were more inclined than the medication experts to use the newer antidepressants venlafaxine and
mirtazapine for the treatment of specific DSM-IV psychiatric disorders and some of the severe and persistent target
symptoms for which reliable diagnoses cannot be made. Several possible reasons exist for this finding. First,
practitioners are susceptible to the pharmaceutical industry's marketing strategies, especially the influence of sales
representatives. Up to 87% of physicians and 51% of medical residents have interactions with pharmaceutical
company representatives several times per month.[17] The passage of time (six to seven months) between publication
of the PBPMR guidelines and this study may have allowed for more contact between the practitioners and sales
representatives. These interactions can influence physicians and residents to prescribe new drugs preferentially. [18]
Venlafaxine and mirtazapine -- recent additions to the market -- are marketed as first-line alternatives to moreestablished antidepressants, such as SSRIs.
Second, the medication experts may have been more likely than the practitioners to base their decisions on scientific
evidence. Efficacy and adverse-effect studies of newer anti-depressants used in mentally retarded people are few, and
medication experts could conceivably be more cautious in using these medications as first-line agents. This is most
obvious in the use of mirtazapine for the target symptom of aggressive or destructive behavior. Despite there being no
published reports of mirtazapine's efficacy for this problem, the practitioners rated it as high second-line to first-line
therapy. The medication experts, on the other hand, considered mirtazapine to be second-line.
Third, the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) has rated these newer antidepressants as first-line alternatives
in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the non-developmentally impaired population. [19] These guidelines and
treatment algorithms have been widely disseminated throughout Texas, and some community mental health and
mental retardation centers had received training on the treatment algorithm for major depressive disorder at the time of
the survey. Even though the TMAP recommendations apply only to treatment of major depressive disorder, this may
have influenced the practitioners' responses. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine have shown some superiority in efficacy for
severe depression compared with SSRIs, and they have desirable safety profiles in the event of overdose and few
documented drug interactions.[20-23] Mirtazapine has sedative effects that theoretically may be beneficial in the
treatment of behavioral or aggressive target symptoms.[22] Even in the absence of conclusive data, these potential
advantages of the newer antidepressants may promote their use by clinicians for patients who are severely depressed,
suicidal, taking multiple medications, or showing behavioral or aggressive target symptoms.
Page 5 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)
10/28/2009http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/407003_print
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
6/8
Fourth, these response differences might reflect more rapid adoption of new treatments by practitioners than by
medication experts.
The practitioners, but not the medication experts, rated lithium augmentation as first-line adjunctive therapy for a partial
response to SSRIs for nonpsychotic depression. Again, a possible explanation for this difference may be the TMAP
recommendations, which advise lithium augmentation as a first-line option in patients demonstrating no response or a
partial response to antidepressant monotherapy.[19] Lithium has been widely studied as augmentation treatment in
depressed patients who respond partially to antidepressants. Favorable responses to lithium augmentation have been
seen in controlled studies involving several classes of antidepressants, including SSRIs, tricyclic antidepressants, and
monoamine oxidase inhibitors.[24,25]
Other differences between the practitioners' and the medication experts' opinions may have been influenced by the
treatment environment. When symptoms were disruptive to patients, their families, or caregivers, the practitioners
tended to prefer drug therapy management. On the other hand, the medication experts were more inclined to
recommend psychosocial and behavioral therapy before initiating drug therapy. In the clinical setting, the safety of the
patient, the family, caregivers, and other patients is of great importance, and practitioners are often encouraged to "do
something" immediately. Psychosocial and behavioral interventions require time to work, but in some circumstances
rapid control of symptoms is of the essence. Although research evidence supports the use of behavioral therapy, the
availability of consistent behavioral therapy in the community is often inadequate. Behavioral treatment is not often wellreceived in mental health care settings and meets resistance in the form of organizational barriers, lack of knowledge, a
tendency to punish patients, and staff opposition.[26,27] Staff members sometime believe that behavioral therapy is
"common sense," and as a result this pessimistic attitude can have negative effects on patients' behavior.
This study has limitations. The number of responding practitioners (n = 37) was smaller than the number of medication
experts (n = 51). Possible explanations include practitioner relocation, lost surveys in the mail, and unwillingness to
complete and return the survey. Another limitation is that practitioner responses may or may not reflect actual practice
behavior. Several studies suggest that practitioners' behavior may not be consistent with their opinions about certain
clinical circumstances and treatment guidelines. For example, Pathman et al.[28] found that only 30.1% of physicians
followed the hepatitis B vaccination recommendation for infants, even though 98.4% were aware of it. Christakis and
Rivara [29] found that, although 66% of pediatricians were familiar with the American Academy of Pediatrics
hyperbilirubinemia guidelines, only 28% adhered to them. Follow-up studies are needed to determine if physicians'
practice behavior is consistent with their responses in this survey.
Conclusion
Practicing psychiatrists and medication experts were in general agreement regarding the use of psychotropic
medications for mental illness in patients with mental retardation.
References
1. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association; 1994.2. Sovner R, Hurley AD. Do the mentally retarded suffer from affective illness? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993; 40:61-
7.
3. Reiss S, Aman MG, eds. Psychotropic medication and developmental disabilities: the international consensus
handbook. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Nisonger Center; 1998.
4. Singh NN, Sood A, Sonenklar N et al. Assessment and diagnosis of mental illness in persons with mental
retardation. Behav Modif. 1991; 15:419-41.
5. Stark JA, Menolascino FJ, Albarelli MH et al. Mental retardation and mental health. New York: Springer-Verlag;
1988.
6. Spreat S, Conroy JW, Jones JC. Use of psychotropic medication in Oklahoma: a statewide survey. Am J Ment
Page 6 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)
10/28/2009http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/407003_print
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
7/8
Authors and Disclosures
Nick C. Patel, Pharm.D., is a graduate student and psychiatric pharmacy resident, College of Pharmacy, The
Retard. 1997; 102:80-5.
7. McEvoy JP, Scheifler PL, Frances A. The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of schizophrenia 1999.
J Clin Psychiatry. 1999; 60(suppl 11):1-80.
8. March JS, Frances A, Carpenter D et al. The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of obsessive-
compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1997; 58(suppl 4):1-72.
9. Sachs GS, Printz DJ, Kahn DA et al. The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: medication treatment of bipolar
disorder
10. Postgrad Med Spec Rep. 2000; Apr:1-104.11. Foa EB, Davidson JRT, Frances A. The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of posttraumatic stress
disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999; 60(suppl 16):1-76.
12. Alexopoulos GS, Silver JM, Kahn DA et al. The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of agitation in
older persons with dementia. Postgrad Med Spec Rep. 1998; Apr:1-88.
13. Rush AJ, Frances A, eds. Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of psychiatric and behavioral problems
in mental retardation. Am J Ment Retard. 2000; 105:159-226.
14. Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A et al. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical
technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986; 2:53-63.
15. Kahn DA, Docherty JP, Carpenter D et al. Consensus methods in practice guideline development: a review and
description of a new method. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997; 33(4):631-9.
16. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Boston: HoughtonMifflin; 1994.
17. Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Crismon ML et al. Treatment guidelines and algorithms. In: Dunner DL, Rosenbaum JF,
eds. Psychiatric Clinics of North America annual review of drug therapy 2000. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2000:1-
22.
18. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000; 283:373-80.
19. Peay MY, Peay ER. The role of commercial sources in the adoption of a new drug. Soc Sci Med. 1988;
26:1183-9.
20. Crismon ML, Trivedi M, Pigott TA et al. The Texas Medication Algorithm Project: report of the Texas Consensus
Conference Panel on Medication Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999; 60:142-56.
21. Hirschfield RM. Efficacy of SSRIs and newer antidepressants in severe depression: comparison with TCAs. J
Clin Psychiatry. 1999; 60:326-35.
22. Schatzberg AF. Antidepressant effectiveness in severe depression and melancholia. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999; 60
(suppl 4): 14-21.
23. Nelson JC. Safety and tolerability of the new antidepressants. J Clin Psychiatry. 1997; 58(suppl 6):26-31.
24. Ereshefsky L, Riesenman C, Lam YW. Antidepressant drug interactions and the cytochrome P450 system: the
role of cytochrome P450 2D6. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1995; 29(suppl 1):10-8.
25. Rouillon F, Gorwood P. The use of lithium to augment antidepressant medication. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998; 59
(suppl 5): 32-9.
26. Nelson JC. Augmentation strategies in depression 2000. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000; 61(suppl 2):13-9.
27. Hilton NZ, Simmons JL. Adverse effects of poor behavior management of an inpatient's difficult behaviors.
Psychiatr Serv. 1999; 50:964-6.
28. Corrigan PW, McCracken SG, Edwards M et al. Staff training to improve implementation and impact of
behavioral rehabilitation programs. Psychiatr Serv. 1997; 48:1336-8.
29. Pathman DE, Konrad TR, Freed GL et al. The awareness-to-adherence model of the steps to clinical guideline
compliance. The case of pediatric vaccine recommendations. Med Care. 1996; 34:873-89.
30. Christakis DA, Rivara FP. Pediatricians' awareness of and attitudes about four clinical practice guidelines.
Pediatrics. 1998; 101:825-30.
Page 7 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)
10/28/2009http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/407003_print
-
8/6/2019 Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion on Psychiatric Pharmacotherapy of Mentally Retarded Patients With M
8/8
Acknowledgments The assistance of Ruth Ross, M.A., and David Ross, M.A., M.C.E., of Ross Editorial Services is acknowledged.
Funding InformationSupported in part by educational grants from Pfizer, Inc., and by the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.Submitted to the College of Pharmacy, UTA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctor of pharmacy degree (honors program).
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 2001;58(19) 2001 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
University of Texas at Austin (UTA). M. Lynn Crismon, Pharm.D., is Professor and Southwestern Drug Corporation
Centennial Fellow in Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, UTA, and Clinical Psychopharmacologist, Office of the Medical
Director, Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Austin. A. John Rush, M.D., is Professor and
Vice Chairman for Research, Betty Jo Hay Distinguished Chair in Mental Health and Rosewood Corporation Chair in
Biomedical Science, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Allen
Frances, M.D., is Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Page 8 of 8Practitioner Versus Medication-Expert Opinion (printer-friendly)