**Rational Polypharmacy in Psychiatry**

S. Haque Nizamie and Sai Krishna Tikka

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/59004

## **1. Introduction**

Dimensional approach in clinical psychopharmacology conceptualizes a disorder under multiple dimensions that are affected at a particular time. Impairments in multiple domains is a major factor leading to the fact that significant proportion of patients with various major psychiatric disorders does not achieve remission (McEvoy et al., 2006; Perlis et al., 2006; Rush et al., 2006). This model proposes to tackle each dimension independently as the interaction between the various dimensions remains to be accurately understood (Baruch et al., 1992). Such an approach has lead to use of several molecules in the treatment of a single condition, a situation that we often refer to as polypharmacy. Increasing frequency of polypharmacy (Mojtabai and Olfson, 2010) suggests that the major approach in pharmacological treatment of psychiatric disorders is the dimensional one.

Psychiatry being one of the most complex specialties among medicine, psychiatric diagnosis is based on subjective personal history and specifically constructed clinical criteria. There is a certain lack of empirical data and more so for objective laboratory tests. Moreover, with the increasing identification of comorbid conditions and evidence-based guidelines recommend‐ ing an array of molecules in the treatment of a single disorder, without the emphasis on, preference has escalated the strategy of polypharmacy. The reported overall prevalence rates of polypharmacy in psychiatry vary between 13% to an alluring 90% (Kukreja et al., 2013).

## **2. Definition and classification**

Although the term polypharmacy has been in use and has evolved for a very long time, a proper definition is still lacking. Majority of studies in psychiatry have used the criteria of "2

© 2015 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

or more medications of the same chemical class or with the same or similar pharmacological actions to treat the same condition" (Kukreja et al., 2013). Apart from a trendy yet justifiable classification of polypharmacy into-"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (Kingsbury and Lotito, 2007), several other classifications have been proposed to describe various types of polyphar‐ macy (Table 1). Multiclass Polypharmacy is the most common type with prevalence of 20.9% among which combination of SSRI with a benzodiazepine is the most common. In the same class polypharmacy, treatment with several benzodiazepines is the most common (De las Cuevas and Sanz, 2004).

The basis for these classifications is discrete and hence there would be significant overlap when considering them together i.e. combination of lithium and fluoxetine in treating resistant depression is an example of therapeutic, multiclass, minor and rational polypharmacy. As positive outcome is the foundation for evidence based treatment, contra-therapeutic and rational polypharmacy are mutually exclusive. However, with wide inter-individual hetero‐ geneity, one may consider none of the classes to be exclusively inseparable i.e. rational strategy of clozapine augmentation with olanzapine might result in worsening of metabolic status, resulting in contra-therapeutic polypharmacy.


**Table 1.** Polypharmacy-several classifications

This narrative review considers various rational polypharmacy strategies in treating psychi‐ atric disorders. Evidence base for polypharmacy strategies in individual disorders is high‐ lighted with an emphasis on special settings.

#### **3. Depression**

or more medications of the same chemical class or with the same or similar pharmacological actions to treat the same condition" (Kukreja et al., 2013). Apart from a trendy yet justifiable classification of polypharmacy into-"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (Kingsbury and Lotito, 2007), several other classifications have been proposed to describe various types of polyphar‐ macy (Table 1). Multiclass Polypharmacy is the most common type with prevalence of 20.9% among which combination of SSRI with a benzodiazepine is the most common. In the same class polypharmacy, treatment with several benzodiazepines is the most common (De las

74 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

The basis for these classifications is discrete and hence there would be significant overlap when considering them together i.e. combination of lithium and fluoxetine in treating resistant depression is an example of therapeutic, multiclass, minor and rational polypharmacy. As positive outcome is the foundation for evidence based treatment, contra-therapeutic and rational polypharmacy are mutually exclusive. However, with wide inter-individual hetero‐ geneity, one may consider none of the classes to be exclusively inseparable i.e. rational strategy of clozapine augmentation with olanzapine might result in worsening of metabolic status,

Pharmacological class and

appropriateness

• Irrational Rationality/ evidence base Kingsbury et al., 2001

This narrative review considers various rational polypharmacy strategies in treating psychi‐ atric disorders. Evidence base for polypharmacy strategies in individual disorders is high‐

Outcome Werder and Preskorn, 2003

Number of drugs Veehof et al., 2000

National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, 2001

Cuevas and Sanz, 2004).

<sup>1</sup> • Therapeutic

2

3

4

• Contra-therapeutic

• Same class • Multiclass • Adjunctive • Augmentative • Total

• Minor • Moderate • Major

• Rational

**Table 1.** Polypharmacy-several classifications

lighted with an emphasis on special settings.

resulting in contra-therapeutic polypharmacy.

**Sl.no Classification Basis Proposed by**

Polypharmacy in the treatment of depression has an increasing trend. While 3.3% of depression patients received 3 or more drugs in 1970s, in 1990s the rate increased to 43.8% in an NIMH hospital (Frye et al., 2000). Although the exact share of rational polypharmacy could not be ascertained, evidence base for polypharmacy in depression management is satisfactory.

With a number of molecules with different mechanisms of action available, combination of any two compounds has a potential for an impressive strategy to treat depression that does not respond to antidepressant monotherapy (Moret, 2005). Combinations of certain antide‐ pressants-mirtazapine combined with venlafaxine, fluoxetine and bupropion (in the order of highest response) have been shown to have better response rate than anti depressant mono‐ therapy (fluoxetine plus placebo) (Blier et al., 2010). Blier and colleagues had also found that a combination of mirtazapine and paroxetine showed significantly higher response rates than either drug alone (Blier et al., 2009). There has been another study (Carpenter et al., 2002) that studied a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) combined with mirtazapine and found the combination to be better. Nelson et al. (2004) found a combination of fluoxetine and desipramine to be better than either drug alone. Recently, Sung et al. (2012) compared escitalopram monotherapy with bupropion+escilatoplram and velnafaxine+mirtazapine and found that there was no significant difference in the adverse effect profile in both chronic and non chronic depression patients. However, they found no significant difference in either response or remission rates between the different treatment groups. Positive data from controlled trials on antidepressant combinations are restricted to mirtazapine as the combi‐ nation drug questioning the generalizability of the findings to other combinations. Also these trials are not free of limitations: insufficient duration, lower doses of monotherapy agents, etc. (Rush, 2010). Trials including other agents like SAM (S-adenosyl-l-methionine) are not randomized controlled (Alpert et al., 2004).

Various augmentation drugs used in the treatment of depression in combination with an antidepressant are-atypical antipsychotics, lithium, hormonal drugs like thyroxine, estrogen and mifepristone, 5HT1A antagonists like pindolol, buspirone, and, stimulants like methyl‐ phenidate. Augmentation with atypical antipsychotics has been shown to be significantly more effective than placebo for response and remission. Although aripiprazole is the first pharma‐ cologic agent of any type to be approved by the U.S. FDA for use as an augmentation agent in major depressive disorder, other agents have also been used. Among atypical antipsychotics, evidence is available for olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine, quetiapine and aripipra‐ zole in combination with either SSRI or an SNRI and risperidone with various antidepressants (Nelson and Papakostas, 2009). While the meta-Analysis by Nelson and Papakostas (2009) conclude no significant differences in efficacy among the different agents, Connolly and Thase (2011) in their review give a preference to quetiapine and aripiprazole. Bauer et al. (2010) in their meta-analysis found significantly greater mean response rate in the lithium group than the placebo group. Apart from stating augmentation of antidepressants with lithium as the best-evidenced augmentation therapy in the treatment of depression, they also suggested a predictive role of the –50T/C single nucleotide polymorphism of the GSK3-beta gene (Bauer et al., 2010). However, Connolly and Thase (2011) question its generalizability stating lithium is only effective for use in combination with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and that these trials included less treatment-resistant subjects than those who typically receive TCAs in current clinical settings. Triiodothyronine augmentation seems to offer better benefit/risk ratio for augmentation of modern antidepressants (Connolly and Thase, 2011). While trials on pindolol have failed to replicate positive effects, there is no clear consensus of the role of buspirone, mifepristone and methylphenidate (Moret, 2005). Although estrogen augmentation is effective, the response seems to be more restricted to menopausal women (Liu et al., 2004).

Surprisingly however, data from trials on combination of conventional antidepressants like tricyclic agents and MAO inhibitors or augmentation with first generation antipsychotics is sparse.

#### **4. Bipolar disorder**

#### **4.1. Acute mania**

In reality, less than 10% of acutely manic patients receive monotherapy. Clinical routine appears to be based on polypharmacy in bipolar patients (Peh and Tay 2008). In line with this clinical practice, RCT's suggest that addition of an antipsychotic to patients with persistent manic symptoms despite treatment with lithium or valproate has shown greater rates of acute efficacy than has continuation of lithium or valproate alone (Vieta et al., 2008). As to the important clinical question whether de novo combinations are better, there is very limited data. A greater efficacy of combination treatment is also supported by a meta-analysis of Smith et al. (2007) which showed that significantly more participants on co-therapy met the response criterion reductions. Such effects were demonstrated for haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine when administered as co-therapy compared with monotherapy with lithium or valproate. Taken together, there is not enough unambiguous evidence that supports combination therapy as a general first line treatment (Grunze et al., 2009).

#### **4.2. Acute bipolar depression**

In the case of acute bipolar depression, the categories of evidence and grades of recommen‐ dation for pharmacological treatment are mentioned in table 2. Olanzapine+fluoxetine (Tohen et al. 2003; Brown et al. 2009), Lamotrigine+Lithium (van der Loos et al. 2009), Modafinil +ongoing treatment (Frye et al. 2007) and N-acetylcysteine+Lithium or Valproate (Berk et al. 2008) have been investigated in controlled studies and have positive evidence. Other combi‐ nations are either not studied under controlled conditions or have shown inconsistent results (Grunze et al., 2010).

#### **4.3. Bipolar disorder prophylaxis**

In routine practice, combination treatments are regularly employed to enhance efficacy of maintenance treatment and to address sub-syndromal symptoms or functional impairment.


et al., 2010). However, Connolly and Thase (2011) question its generalizability stating lithium is only effective for use in combination with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and that these trials included less treatment-resistant subjects than those who typically receive TCAs in current clinical settings. Triiodothyronine augmentation seems to offer better benefit/risk ratio for augmentation of modern antidepressants (Connolly and Thase, 2011). While trials on pindolol have failed to replicate positive effects, there is no clear consensus of the role of buspirone, mifepristone and methylphenidate (Moret, 2005). Although estrogen augmentation is effective, the response seems to be more restricted to menopausal women (Liu et al., 2004).

76 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

Surprisingly however, data from trials on combination of conventional antidepressants like tricyclic agents and MAO inhibitors or augmentation with first generation antipsychotics is

In reality, less than 10% of acutely manic patients receive monotherapy. Clinical routine appears to be based on polypharmacy in bipolar patients (Peh and Tay 2008). In line with this clinical practice, RCT's suggest that addition of an antipsychotic to patients with persistent manic symptoms despite treatment with lithium or valproate has shown greater rates of acute efficacy than has continuation of lithium or valproate alone (Vieta et al., 2008). As to the important clinical question whether de novo combinations are better, there is very limited data. A greater efficacy of combination treatment is also supported by a meta-analysis of Smith et al. (2007) which showed that significantly more participants on co-therapy met the response criterion reductions. Such effects were demonstrated for haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine when administered as co-therapy compared with monotherapy with lithium or valproate. Taken together, there is not enough unambiguous evidence that supports

In the case of acute bipolar depression, the categories of evidence and grades of recommen‐ dation for pharmacological treatment are mentioned in table 2. Olanzapine+fluoxetine (Tohen et al. 2003; Brown et al. 2009), Lamotrigine+Lithium (van der Loos et al. 2009), Modafinil +ongoing treatment (Frye et al. 2007) and N-acetylcysteine+Lithium or Valproate (Berk et al. 2008) have been investigated in controlled studies and have positive evidence. Other combi‐ nations are either not studied under controlled conditions or have shown inconsistent results

In routine practice, combination treatments are regularly employed to enhance efficacy of maintenance treatment and to address sub-syndromal symptoms or functional impairment.

combination therapy as a general first line treatment (Grunze et al., 2009).

sparse.

**4. Bipolar disorder**

**4.2. Acute bipolar depression**

**4.3. Bipolar disorder prophylaxis**

(Grunze et al., 2010).

**4.1. Acute mania**

**Table 2.** Categories of evidence and grades of recommendation for acute bipolar depression (Adapted from Grunze et al.(2010))

For example, prospective data of the Stanley Foundation Bipolar Network showed that over 55% of bipolar patients were on two or three medications, 31.8% required four or more drugs and 13.8% requiring five or more medications, but still it took a mean time of 1.5 years to achieve a sustained remission (Post et al., 2010). Positive placebo-controlled RCTs exist for combination treatments of mood stabilizers-valproate+lithium (Geddes et al., 2010), valproate or lithium, with all atypical antipsychotics that have a license for bipolar maintenance treatment – aripiprazole (Marcus et al., 2011), quetiapine (Vieta et al.,2008; Suppes et al., 2009), risperidone (Yatham et al., 2003) and ziprasidone (Bowden et al., 2010). The treatment of bipolar disorder patients may also change frequently in response to side effects, emerging comorbidities including physical health issues and other needs to be specifically tailored for each patient. These needs in real world patients are virtually impossible to capture in a guideline whose focus is the efficacy of a given combination treatment over a limited time period and in a fair proportion of patients. These limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting data of randomized controlled combination maintenance studies. For this reason, various guidelines do not make a special note or recommendation for specific combination treatments (Grunze et al., 2013).

#### **5. Anxiety disorder**

Benzodiazepines are used in combination with serotonergic drugs during the initial phase-a week or two, before the onset of anti-anxiety effect, either to hasten its efficacy or to suppress the activating side effects that are seen when serotonergic therapy has been started. In the treatment of panic disorder, there is persistent positive evidence from randomized controlled studies for the combination of antidepressants and benzodiazepines (clonazepam plus paroxetine or sertraline) (Pollack et al. 2003; Goddard et al. 2001). But evidence for other combinations is only from uncontrolled studies or case reports. Combination of antidepres‐ sants and benzodiazepines also has positive results from controlled data in the management of generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder. Combination of SSRI and atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder too has positive evidence from controlled trials (Bandelow et al., 2008). Although an array of combination, adjuvant, aug‐ mentation strategies are proposed for the treatment of OCD and PTSD, especially treatment resistance, only augmentation of SSRI with antipsychotics has positive evidence from control‐ led studies (Bandelow et al., 2008). Rest of the evidence is from uncontrolled data. Table 3 shows various combination regimens in the treatment of anxiety disorders with the recom‐ mendation grades.



**Table 3.** Categories of evidence and grades of recommendation for anxiety disorders (Adapted from Bandelow et al. (2008))

#### **6. Schizophrenia**

**5. Anxiety disorder**

mendation grades.

**PANIC DISORDER**

**GAD**

**SOCIAL PHOBIA**

**OCD**

Benzodiazepines are used in combination with serotonergic drugs during the initial phase-a week or two, before the onset of anti-anxiety effect, either to hasten its efficacy or to suppress the activating side effects that are seen when serotonergic therapy has been started. In the treatment of panic disorder, there is persistent positive evidence from randomized controlled studies for the combination of antidepressants and benzodiazepines (clonazepam plus paroxetine or sertraline) (Pollack et al. 2003; Goddard et al. 2001). But evidence for other combinations is only from uncontrolled studies or case reports. Combination of antidepres‐ sants and benzodiazepines also has positive results from controlled data in the management of generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder. Combination of SSRI and atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder too has positive evidence from controlled trials (Bandelow et al., 2008). Although an array of combination, adjuvant, aug‐ mentation strategies are proposed for the treatment of OCD and PTSD, especially treatment resistance, only augmentation of SSRI with antipsychotics has positive evidence from control‐ led studies (Bandelow et al., 2008). Rest of the evidence is from uncontrolled data. Table 3 shows various combination regimens in the treatment of anxiety disorders with the recom‐

78 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

**Recommendation Grade**

2

4

4

2

3

3

4

3

4

Full evidence from controlled studies

Evidence from uncontrolled studies

Evidence from case

Full evidence from controlled studies

Limited positive evidence from controlled studies

from controlled studies

Limited positive evidence from controlled studies

Evidence from uncontrolled studies

Evidence from uncontrolled studies

reports

**Diagnosis Combination and Augmentation Treatments Category of Evidence**

1. Antidepressants + Benzodiazepines

1. Antidepressants+ Benzodiazepines

2. SSRI+atypical antipsychotics (risperidone or

1. SSRI+antipsychotics(haloperidol, quetiapine,

1. Antidepressants+ Benzodiazepines Limited positive evidence

2. SSRIs+TCAs 3. SSRI+Olanzapine 4. SSRI+Pindolol or TCAs 5. Valproate+Clonazepam

olanzapine)

2. SSRI+Buspirone

olanzapine and risperidone)

2. Citalopram+Reboxetine 3. SSRI+Clomipramine 4. Clomipramine+Lithium

6. Lithium+Clomipramine

Even on antipsychotic therapy patients with schizophrenia achieving full remission are only about 30% (Hert et al., 2007). Although clozapine has significantly greater efficacy compared to other antipsychotics when unresponsive to either typical or an atypical antipsychotic when used first, its use is associated with significant adverse effects (Kane et al., 1988). Combination therapy is one of the strategies to manage such unresponsiveness. Polypharmacy therapy in the treatment of schizophrenia might be either antipsychotics' combination or an antipsychotic combined with an agent not used primarily for treatment of psychosis but has an augmentative effect. It was observed that at baseline, many schizophrenia patients included in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) trial were on poly-pharmacother‐ apy-4% taking lithium, 15% other mood stabilizers, 38% antidepressants, 22% anxiolytics and 6% two antipsychotics (Chakos et al., 2006).

Mood stabilizers like lithium, carbamazepine and valproate have been used as adjuvants to antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia. While randomized trial-based evidence is available for valproate and carbamazepine, no randomized controlled trials have investigated the effect of lithium in patients with schizophrenia. Patients receiving lithium augmentation showed clinically significant response; this significance was however lost when only patients with non affective symptoms were included (Leucht et al., 2007a). Data based on randomised trials suggests that there is no conclusive evidence to recommend either valproate or carbamazepine is useful as an adjunctive therapy in schizophrenia treatment. However in patients with schizophrenia, positive effects on aggression and tardive dyskinesia with valproate and on violence and EEG abnormalities with carbamazepine have been found (Leucht et al., 2007b; Schwarz et al., 2008).

None of the studies investigating the effect of other augmentation strategies like benzodiaze‐ pines, beta-blockers, antidepressants, anti-inflammatory agents, glutamatergic agents, and electroconvulsive therapy have been able to demonstrate significant improvement in patients with schizophrenia (Correll et al., 2009). Correll et al. (2009) identified certain clinical situations where antipsychotic co-treatment i.e. combining two antipsychotics are superior to antipsy‐ chotic monotherapy. Both acute exacerbations and chronically continuous course, co-starting second antipsychotic when compared to augmentation and, co-treatment including clozapine when compared to a strategy not including clozapine, have been found significant improve‐ ments in clinical symptomatology when managed with antipsychotic co-treatment than with monotherapy. Among the types of combinations: co-treatment with a typical agent and an atypical agent has been found to be better than a combination of either two typical or atypical agents. In a recent review, Ballon and Stroup (2013) question the generalizability of these findings by commenting that these significant effects would disappear with exclusion of studies from China. We agree to their remark on doubtfulness of replicating the in-vitro model that presumes modulating the schizophrenia pathophysiology at a receptor level citing the limitations in conducting proper clinical trials. Moreover, no guidelines suggest comparative evidence of individual molecules.

Moreover, evidence for efficacy of clozapine augmentation is also currently sparse. Efficacy of adjunctive AEDs like lamotrigine and topiramate, SSRIs like citalopram and co-treatment with other antipsychotics like sulpiride is based on single studies, that too with inconsistent findings (Sommer et al., 2012). Despite their popularity, pharmacological augmentations of clozapine are yet to be demonstrated to be superior to placebo. However, a recent metaanalysis, supports clozapine augmentation with amisulpride and aripiprazole, mirtazapine and ethyl eicosapen‐ taenoic acid (Porcelli et al., 2012).

#### **7. Substance use disorders**

#### **7.1. Alcohol use disorders**

Antipsychotics, especially haloperidol, have been used in combination with a BZD for treatment of severe agitation in alcohol withdrawal delirium (Mayo-Smith et al. 2004); however there are no placebo-controlled trials available. Carbamazepine in combination with tiapride has also been found to be effective in treatment of this condition (Soyka et al., 2006). Although, minimal amount of evidence is available, antipsychotic treatment in combination with benzodiazepines is warranted in the treatment of alcohol related psychosis (Soyka et al., 2011). For relapse prevention, disulfiram is considered a second-line medication that can be combined with either naltrexone or acamprosate (Soyka et al., 2011). Although positive open trials are present (Feeney et al. 2006), a recent controlled trial, COMBINE failed to show that acamprosate is effective in relapse prevention, either alone, or in combination with naltrexone (Anton et al. 2006). Ait-Daoudet al. (2001) found combination of ondansetron and naltrexone reduces craving.

#### **7.2. Opioid use disorders**

electroconvulsive therapy have been able to demonstrate significant improvement in patients with schizophrenia (Correll et al., 2009). Correll et al. (2009) identified certain clinical situations where antipsychotic co-treatment i.e. combining two antipsychotics are superior to antipsy‐ chotic monotherapy. Both acute exacerbations and chronically continuous course, co-starting second antipsychotic when compared to augmentation and, co-treatment including clozapine when compared to a strategy not including clozapine, have been found significant improve‐ ments in clinical symptomatology when managed with antipsychotic co-treatment than with monotherapy. Among the types of combinations: co-treatment with a typical agent and an atypical agent has been found to be better than a combination of either two typical or atypical agents. In a recent review, Ballon and Stroup (2013) question the generalizability of these findings by commenting that these significant effects would disappear with exclusion of studies from China. We agree to their remark on doubtfulness of replicating the in-vitro model that presumes modulating the schizophrenia pathophysiology at a receptor level citing the limitations in conducting proper clinical trials. Moreover, no guidelines suggest comparative

80 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

Moreover, evidence for efficacy of clozapine augmentation is also currently sparse. Efficacy of adjunctive AEDs like lamotrigine and topiramate, SSRIs like citalopram and co-treatment with other antipsychotics like sulpiride is based on single studies, that too with inconsistent findings (Sommer et al., 2012). Despite their popularity, pharmacological augmentations of clozapine are yet to be demonstrated to be superior to placebo. However, a recent metaanalysis, supports clozapine augmentation with amisulpride and aripiprazole, mirtazapine and ethyl eicosapen‐

Antipsychotics, especially haloperidol, have been used in combination with a BZD for treatment of severe agitation in alcohol withdrawal delirium (Mayo-Smith et al. 2004); however there are no placebo-controlled trials available. Carbamazepine in combination with tiapride has also been found to be effective in treatment of this condition (Soyka et al., 2006). Although, minimal amount of evidence is available, antipsychotic treatment in combination with benzodiazepines is warranted in the treatment of alcohol related psychosis (Soyka et al., 2011). For relapse prevention, disulfiram is considered a second-line medication that can be combined with either naltrexone or acamprosate (Soyka et al., 2011). Although positive open trials are present (Feeney et al. 2006), a recent controlled trial, COMBINE failed to show that acamprosate is effective in relapse prevention, either alone, or in combination with naltrexone (Anton et al. 2006). Ait-Daoudet al. (2001) found combination of ondansetron and naltrexone

evidence of individual molecules.

taenoic acid (Porcelli et al., 2012).

**7. Substance use disorders**

**7.1. Alcohol use disorders**

reduces craving.

A combination of naloxone and flumazenil has been shown to be significantly effective in treating opioid intoxication with additional benzodiazepine use (Megarbane et al., 2010). Commonly used combination of clonidine and naltrexone has been regarded as safe and effective for rapid detoxification (Kleber et al. 2007). More importantly, combination of buprenorphine and naloxone has excellent evidence in the treatment of opioid withdrawal. Evidence also supports the use of clonidine and lofexidine as adjunctive medications (Soyka et al., 2011).

#### **8. Epilepsy**

Initial treatment of epilepsies is usually a single antiepileptic drug. However in resistant cases, strategies like alternate monotherapy or polytherapy are suggested. As alternative monother‐ apy is less common because of the limited efficacy and possible side effects of drugs, poly‐ therapy is commonly initiated when monotherapy fails to control seizures (Bauer et al., 1998). Although there is satisfactory evidence on initial monotherapy, data on long term effectiveness or subsequent polypharmacy regimens is lacking; more so with older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Trials have shown that adjunctive therapy with newer AEDs (levetiracetam, oxcar‐ bazepine and topiramate) was favorable than when compared to placebo (Wilby et al., 2005). Costa et al (2011) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing a new add-on antiepileptic drug treatment with placebo or drug, found a relatively small magnitude to allow a definitive conclusion about which new antiepileptic drug has superior effectiveness. However these trials are of short duration and often fail to limit inclusion to either partial or generalised seizures. Adjunctive treatment with benzodiazepines also has a poor fund of evidence.

### **9. Child and geriatric populations**

One third of pharmacologically treated mentally ill children and adolescents receive poly‐ pharmacy, with a remarkable increase in the number of children receiving two or more medications in the past decade (McIntyre and Jerell, 2009)

Psychiatric polypharmacy is common in child and adolescent and geriatric population as well. With a prevalence of multi-class polypharmacy in child and adolescent population to be 19%, antidepressants are the most commonly co-prescribed drugs followed by attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers and benzodia‐ zepines (Comer et al., 2010). Except for a few open label studies (Kowatch et al., 2003), data from randomized controlled trials is lacking in this group. Interactions between the various molecules in childhood disorders are remarkable. While methylphenidate did not improve symptoms of ADHD compared to placebo in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder stabilized on aripiprazole, this agent could improve ADHD symptoms in those taking lithium and valproate (Zigman and Blier, 2012). Such noteworthy interactions suggest empirical rational polypharmacy rather than evidence based polypharmacy.

Similar comment on geriatric population also can be made. Psychiatric polypharmacy in this population is very common (Loyola et al., 2008) and the major reason for such an approach is the presence of medical comorbidities, where evidence base is intricate to build.

#### **9.1. Dementia**

Polypharmacy in the treatment of dementia has some evidence base. The rational is that combination therapy of drugs with different modes of action might have a synergistic effect (Ihl et al., 2011). There are randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of combination of memantine with various cholinesterase inhibitors and galantamine. However, there is no conclusive evidence as these studies report both positive and negative results (Dantoine et al., 2006, Ihl et al., 2011, Kornhuber et al., 2009, Porsteinsson et al., 2008). There is some evidence from uncontrolled open studies on the effect of donepezil and gingko biloba combination, but negative (Yancheva et al., 2007).

#### **10. Medical comorbidity**

Polypharmacy in patients with medical comorbidity is a rule, however, evidence based pharmacological treatment in such conditions is very scarce, in fact less applicable. One important reason is that these subjects are not eligible for most clinical trials (Zimmerman et al., 2002). It is difficult to conduct randomized controlled trials on these subjects as there would be obvious complicatedness in setting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is recommended that clinicians should opt for individualized or empirical polypharmacy.

#### **11. Individualized rational polypharmacy**

Kingsbury et al. (2001) divided rational polypharmacy into two types: validated and empirical. Validation or evidence base is based on results from controlled trials or meta-analyses. These results guide treatment presuming homogeneity in the illnesses, which hardly exists. Empir‐ ical rational polypharmacy is more individualized. Hence empirically this classification can be restated into "standardized" and "individualized" rational polypharmacy. Standardized rational polypharmacy refers to the validated strategies that have been discussed so far. Individualized rational polypharmacy is based on a complete evaluation of the index patienttiming and characterization of various manifestations, a proper evaluation of response to drugs in other affected family members and conducting mini investigations in the background of adequate knowledge of pharmacogenomics, receptor profiles and rating of psychopathology. Clinicians with proper training and motivation only could go ahead with this strategy; otherwise these tactics would end up in contra-therapeutic polypharmacy.

### **12. Causes of irrational polypharmacy and ways to tackle them**

Apart from practicing rational polypharmacy, clinicians need to understand various reasons and ways to tackle irrational polypharmacy. Several different causes of irrational polyphar‐ macy have been identified (Kingsbury et al., 2001):


and valproate (Zigman and Blier, 2012). Such noteworthy interactions suggest empirical

Similar comment on geriatric population also can be made. Psychiatric polypharmacy in this population is very common (Loyola et al., 2008) and the major reason for such an approach is

Polypharmacy in the treatment of dementia has some evidence base. The rational is that combination therapy of drugs with different modes of action might have a synergistic effect (Ihl et al., 2011). There are randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of combination of memantine with various cholinesterase inhibitors and galantamine. However, there is no conclusive evidence as these studies report both positive and negative results (Dantoine et al., 2006, Ihl et al., 2011, Kornhuber et al., 2009, Porsteinsson et al., 2008). There is some evidence from uncontrolled open studies on the effect of donepezil and gingko biloba

Polypharmacy in patients with medical comorbidity is a rule, however, evidence based pharmacological treatment in such conditions is very scarce, in fact less applicable. One important reason is that these subjects are not eligible for most clinical trials (Zimmerman et al., 2002). It is difficult to conduct randomized controlled trials on these subjects as there would be obvious complicatedness in setting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is recommended

Kingsbury et al. (2001) divided rational polypharmacy into two types: validated and empirical. Validation or evidence base is based on results from controlled trials or meta-analyses. These results guide treatment presuming homogeneity in the illnesses, which hardly exists. Empir‐ ical rational polypharmacy is more individualized. Hence empirically this classification can be restated into "standardized" and "individualized" rational polypharmacy. Standardized rational polypharmacy refers to the validated strategies that have been discussed so far. Individualized rational polypharmacy is based on a complete evaluation of the index patienttiming and characterization of various manifestations, a proper evaluation of response to drugs in other affected family members and conducting mini investigations in the background of adequate knowledge of pharmacogenomics, receptor profiles and rating of psychopathology. Clinicians with proper training and motivation only could go ahead with this strategy;

that clinicians should opt for individualized or empirical polypharmacy.

otherwise these tactics would end up in contra-therapeutic polypharmacy.

the presence of medical comorbidities, where evidence base is intricate to build.

rational polypharmacy rather than evidence based polypharmacy.

82 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

combination, but negative (Yancheva et al., 2007).

**11. Individualized rational polypharmacy**

**10. Medical comorbidity**

**9.1. Dementia**

**8.** Magical beliefs/ using methods based on word of mouth.

Apart from these causes, industry driven pressure leading to unethical practice and improper monitoring of drug compliance are also equally responsible for irrational polypharmacy. Zigman and Blier (2012) consider pharmacological characteristics like redundancy (two or more drugs have similar/overlapping mechanism of action), pharmacodynamic and pharma‐ cokinetic interactions also as causes of irrational polypharmacy. Zigman and Blier (2012) also provide certain strategies to tackle irrational polypharmacy.

Firstly, to consider selectively active or multifunctional medications wherever appropriate. Two medications selectively active at two different receptors can be chosen when their action at these receptors is known to improve the clinical condition, whereas two multifunctional medications having more or less similar profile at the target receptor should be avoided in combination. Secondly, to consider various pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interac‐ tions of the molecules in use. An acetylcholinesterase inhibitor should be avoided in combi‐ nation with a drug with potent anticholinergic side effects, whereas using a drug in combination with a cytochrome p450 enzyme inducer reduces the efficacy of the drug and lead to irrational polypharmacy. Another strategy is to allow for adequate dose and duration before considering adjunctive or augmentative strategies. Such strategies although scientific, when used without the adequate trial of a previous drug, would be labeled irrational. The last strategy is to regularly reassess the efficacy of the ongoing combination treatment. Moreover, a trial of tapering one of the drugs in the combination should be given when the response is adequate and has sustained for a period of time.

Niculescu and Hulvershorn (2010) suggest a personalized tri-dimensional treatment (i.e., concurrent treatment of anxiety, mood, and cognitive abnormalities) plus modulation of environmental factors (e.g., stress). Such an approach involves rational polypharmacy—the combination of three or more medications, each acting primarily on anxiety, mood, or cognition, respectively. Depending on the major pathology, one of these medications is used at a higher dose and the others at lower doses. For example, in schizophrenia, an antipsychotic may be primary at a higher dose, with an anxiolytic and/or mood stabilizer secondary at lower doses. Similarly for mood abnormalities such as bipolar disorder, a mood stabilizer at a higher dose would be the primary approach and an anxiolytic and antipsychotic secondary at lower doses.

Apart from these measures, thorough evaluation of the patient's clinical symptoms and medication history along with assessment of drug compliance is of utmost importance in managing irrational polypharmacy. Obtaining drug levels where applicable and a thorough evaluation of reasons for treatment resistance including ruling out general medical causes is another important action to avoid irrational polypharmacy and provide maximum patient care.

Although not validated, polypharmacy justification checklist, not only to justify rational polypharmacy but also to curb irrational polypharmacy, has been generated by Dr. Clif Tennison, Helen Ross McNabb Center, East Tennessee. It is a 38 item checklist targeting 9 domains (Appendix).

#### **13. Indian context**

There is some epidemiological data available on psychiatric polypharmacy from India. Polypharmacy is common in India and its prevalence rates range from 9-73% (Padmini et al., 2007; Sawhney et al., 2004). Ramadas et al. (2010) found that antipsychotic polypharmacy is more related to typical than with atypical agents. However recently, Shrivastava et al. (2012) found almost 30% of first episode schizophrenia patients receiving more than one atypical antipsychotic. These studies were limited to a section of geographical area and it would be difficult to generalize these findings to other parts of India. Indian studies that have compared the efficacy of rational polypharmacy with mono-therapies are however lacking. However, the Indian psychiatric society has formulated certain guidelines for combination therapies in various disorders. Although no direct recommendation is available, various comments are made on these regimens (Table 4).


used without the adequate trial of a previous drug, would be labeled irrational. The last strategy is to regularly reassess the efficacy of the ongoing combination treatment. Moreover, a trial of tapering one of the drugs in the combination should be given when the response is

84 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

Niculescu and Hulvershorn (2010) suggest a personalized tri-dimensional treatment (i.e., concurrent treatment of anxiety, mood, and cognitive abnormalities) plus modulation of environmental factors (e.g., stress). Such an approach involves rational polypharmacy—the combination of three or more medications, each acting primarily on anxiety, mood, or cognition, respectively. Depending on the major pathology, one of these medications is used at a higher dose and the others at lower doses. For example, in schizophrenia, an antipsychotic may be primary at a higher dose, with an anxiolytic and/or mood stabilizer secondary at lower doses. Similarly for mood abnormalities such as bipolar disorder, a mood stabilizer at a higher dose would be the primary approach and an anxiolytic and antipsychotic secondary at lower

Apart from these measures, thorough evaluation of the patient's clinical symptoms and medication history along with assessment of drug compliance is of utmost importance in managing irrational polypharmacy. Obtaining drug levels where applicable and a thorough evaluation of reasons for treatment resistance including ruling out general medical causes is another important action to avoid irrational polypharmacy and provide maximum patient

Although not validated, polypharmacy justification checklist, not only to justify rational polypharmacy but also to curb irrational polypharmacy, has been generated by Dr. Clif Tennison, Helen Ross McNabb Center, East Tennessee. It is a 38 item checklist targeting 9

There is some epidemiological data available on psychiatric polypharmacy from India. Polypharmacy is common in India and its prevalence rates range from 9-73% (Padmini et al., 2007; Sawhney et al., 2004). Ramadas et al. (2010) found that antipsychotic polypharmacy is more related to typical than with atypical agents. However recently, Shrivastava et al. (2012) found almost 30% of first episode schizophrenia patients receiving more than one atypical antipsychotic. These studies were limited to a section of geographical area and it would be difficult to generalize these findings to other parts of India. Indian studies that have compared the efficacy of rational polypharmacy with mono-therapies are however lacking. However, the Indian psychiatric society has formulated certain guidelines for combination therapies in various disorders. Although no direct recommendation is available, various comments are

adequate and has sustained for a period of time.

doses.

care.

domains (Appendix).

**13. Indian context**

made on these regimens (Table 4).


**Table 4.** Data on polypharmacy regimens in the Indian Psychiatric society treatment guidelines

#### **14. Summary, conclusions and recommendations**


## **Abbreviations**

**Year Disorder Available evidence for polypharmacy regimens and comments**

86 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

antidepressant and antipsychotic medications

dexamethasone plus any antidepressant may be indicated

methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) have failed.

**Table 4.** Data on polypharmacy regimens in the Indian Psychiatric society treatment guidelines

**14. Summary, conclusions and recommendations**

specifically, multiclass polypharmacy is very common.

**•** Depression (add on)-mirtazapine in combination with SSRI

(aripiprazole, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone).

combination of SSRI and atypical antipsychotics

**•** OCD & PTSD-augmentation of SSRI with antipsychotics

**•** Depression (augment)-SSRI s with atypical antipsychotics/lithium

of antipsychotic+mood stabilizer as a general first line treatment.

**•** Acute bipolar depression-olanzapine+fluoxetine and lamotrigine+lithium

**•** Panic disorder-combination of clonazepam plus paroxetine or sertraline.

**•** Social anxiety disorder-combination of antidepressants and benzodiazepines

**•** Alcohol withdrawal delirium-haloperidol used in combination with a BZD

• Recommendation for adults with TRD may be applicable to youth

<sup>2008</sup> ADHD • Combined pharmacotherapy only to be used when at least two individual agents (initially

**•** Following the dimensional approach in treating psychiatric disorders, polypharmacy,

**•** However, rationality in the approach determines whether the outcome is therapeutic or

**•** Acute mania-there is not enough unambiguous evidence that supports combination therapy

**•** Bipolar prophylaxis-valproate+lithium, valproate or lithium, with atypical antipsychotics

**•** Generalized anxiety disorder-combination of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and

**•** Schizophrenia-valproate and carbamazepine adjuvant treatment; clozapine augmentation

with amisulpride and aripiprazole, mirtazapine and ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid

**•** A positive evidence base from controlled trials for polypharmacy is highest for-

• Patients with major depression with psychotic features require combined use of

• Lithium augmentation, citalopram+methylphenidate, modafinil+floxetine or mirtazapine,

• Refractory cases may be tried on a combination of clozapine + Amisulpride.

<sup>2007</sup> Elderly

2008

<sup>2007</sup> Psychosis in elderly

depression

Depression in children and Adolescents

contra therapeutic.


## **Appendix**


#### **Author details**

**Appendix**

88 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

S. Haque Nizamie\* and Sai Krishna Tikka

\*Address all correspondence to: sh.nizamie@gmail.com

Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi, India

#### **References**


[23] Correll CU, Rummel-Kluge C, Corves C, Kane JM, Leucht S. Antipsychotic combina‐ tions vs monotherapy in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled tri‐ als. Schizophr Bull 2009;35(2):443-57.

[10] Baruch P, Filteau MJ, Bouchard RH, Pourcher E, Vincent P, Jouvent R. The dimen‐ sional approach to clinical psychopharmacology: a polysemous concept. J Psychiatry

[11] Basan A, Kissling W, Leucht S. Valproate as an adjunct to antipsychotics for schizo‐ phrenia: a systematic review of randomized trials. Schizophr Res. 2004;70(1):33–37.

[12] Bauer J. Anticonvulsant combination therapy: rational concepts versus real effective‐

[13] Bauer M, Adli M, Bschor T (2010) Lithium's emerging role in the treatment of refrac‐ tory major depressive episodes: augmentation of antidepressants. Neuropsychobiol‐

[14] Berk M, Copolov DL, Dean O, Lu K, Jeavons S, Schapkaitz I,et al. 2008. N-Acetyl cys‐ teine for depressive symptoms in bipolardisorder– a double-blind randomized place‐

[15] Blier P, Gobbi G, Turcotte JE, de Montigny C, Boucher N, Hébert C, Debonnel G. Mirtazapine and paroxetine in major depression: a comparison of monotherapy ver‐ sus their combination from treatment initiation. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2009;

[16] Blier P, Ward HE, Tremblay P, Laberge L, Hébert C, Bergeron R. Combination of an‐ tidepressant medications from treatment initiation for major depressive disorder: a

[17] Bowden CL, Vieta E, Ice KS, Schwartz JH, Wang PP, Versavel M. Ziprasidone plus a mood stabilizer in subjects with bipolar I disorder: a 6-month, randomized, placebo-

[18] Brown E, Dunner DL, McElroy SL, Keck PE, Adams DH,Degenhardt E, et al. 2009. Olanzapine/fluoxetine combinationvs. lamotrigine in the 6-month treatment of bipo‐

[19] Carpenter LL, Yasmin S, Price LH. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of anti‐ depressant augmentation with mirtazapine. Biol Psychiatry 2002; 51:183–188.

[20] Chakos MH, Glick ID, Miller AL, Hamner MB, Miller DD, Patel JK, et al. Baseline use of concomitant psychotropic medications to treat schizophrenia in the CATIE trial.

[21] Comer JS, Olfson M, Mojtabai R. National trends in child and adolescent psychotrop‐ ic polypharmacy in office-based practice, 1996-2007. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psy‐

[22] Connolly KR, Thase ME. If at first you don't succeed: a review of the evidence for antidepressant augmentation, combination and switching strategies. Drugs

double-blind randomized study. Am J Psychiatry 2010; 167:281–288.

controlled, double-blind trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2010;71:130–7.

lar I depression.Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 12(6):773–782.

Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57:1094–101.

chiatry 2010;49:1001–10.

2011;71(1):43-64.

Neurosci. 1992;17(2):55-60.

ogy 62: 36–42.

19:457–465.

ness. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 1998;66:414-426.

90 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

bo-controlledtrial. Biol Psychiatry 64:468–475.


[48] Kleber HD, Weiss RD, Anton RF Jr, George TP, Greenfi eld SF, Kosten TR, et al. 2007. Treatment of patients with substance use disorders, second edition. Am J Psychiatry 164:5 – 123.

[36] Gautam S, Gupta ID, Nijhawan A, Gaur V. Clinical practice guidelines for manage‐ ment of opioid dependence. Indian psychiatric society treatment guidelines 2006. [37] Geddes JR, Goodwin GM, Rendell J, et al. (2010) Lithium plus valproate combination therapy versus monotherapy for relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder (BAL‐

[38] Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, Cnaan A, Guerreiro C, Kälviäinen R, Matt‐ son R, French JA, Perucca E, Tomson T. Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepi‐ leptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures

[39] Goddard AW, Brouette T, Almai A, Jetty P, Woods SW, CharneyD. 2001. Early coad‐ ministration of clonazepam with sertralinefor panic disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry

[40] Grunze H, Vieta E, Goodwin GM, Bowden C, Licht RW, Moller HJ, Kasper S.The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the bi‐ ological treatment of bipolar disorders: update 2009 on the treatment of acute ma‐

[41] Grunze H, Vieta E, Goodwin GM, Bowden C, Licht RW, Möller HJ, Kasper S. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the Bi‐ ological Treatment of Bipolar Disorders: Update 2010 on the treatment of acute bipo‐

[42] Grunze H, Vieta E, Goodwin GM, Bowden C, Licht RW, Möller HJ, Kasper S. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the bi‐ ological treatment of bipolar disorders: update 2012 on the long-term treatment of bi‐

[43] Hert MD, van Winkel R, Wampers M, et al. Remission criteria for schizophrenia:

[44] Ihl R, Frölich L, Winblad B, Schneider L, Burns A, Möller HJ. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the biological treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;12(1):

[45] Kane JM, Honigfeld G, Singer J, Meltzer H. Clozapine in treatment-resistant schizo‐

[46] Kingsbury SJ, Lotito ML. Psychiatric polypharmacy: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

[47] Kingsbury SJ, Yi D, Simpson GM. Psychopharmacology: rational and irrational poly‐

evaluation in a large naturalistic cohort. Schizophr Res 2007; 92:68–73.

ANCE): a randomised open-label trial. Lancet 375: 385–395.

92 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

and syndromes. Epilepsia 2013;54:551-563.

nia.World J Biol Psychiatry 2009;10(2):85-116.

lar depression.World J Biol Psychiatry 2010;11(2):81-109.

polar disorder.World J Biol Psychiatry 2013;14(3):154-219.

phrenics. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988; 24(1):62–67.

pharmacy. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52(8):1033-6.

Psychiatric Times 2007;24(4):NP.

58:681686.

2-32.


[74] Porcelli S, Balzarro B, Serretti A. Clozapine resistance: augmentation strategies. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2012;22:165-182.

[61] McEvoy JP, Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, et al. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanza‐ pine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:600–610.

[62] McIntyre RS, Jerrell JM. Polypharmacy in children and adolescents treated for major depressive disorder: a claims database study. J Clin Psychiatry 2009;70:240–246.

[63] Megarbane B, Buisien A, Jacobs F, Resiere D, Chevillard L, Vicaut E, Baud FJ. 2010. Prospective comparative assessment of buprenorphine overdose with heroin and methadone: clinical characteristics and response to antidotal treatment. J Subst

[64] Mojtabai R, Olfson M. National trends in psychotropic medication polypharmacy in

[65] Moret C. Combination/augmentation strategies for improving the treatment of de‐

[66] National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD): Tech‐ nical Report on Psychiatric Polypharmacy. Medical Directors Council and State Med‐

[67] Nelson JC and Papakostas GI. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation in major depres‐ sive disorder: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. Am J Psychia‐

[68] Nelson JC, Mazure CM, Jatlow PI, et al. Combining norepinephrine and serotonin re‐ uptake inhibition mechanisms for treatment of depression: a double-blind, random‐

[69] Niculescu AB, Hulvershorn LA. Toward Early, Personalized, Rational Polypharmacy In Psychiatry: A Tri-Dimensional Approach. Psychopharm Rev 2010; 45: 9-16.

[70] Padmini DD, Amarjeeth R, Sushma M, Guido S. Prescription patterns of psychotrop‐ ic drugs in hospitalized schizophrenic patients in a tertiary care hospital. Calicut

[71] Peh AL, Tay LK.Demographical profile and clinical features of patients with bipolar disorder in an outpatient setting in Singapore.Singapore Medical J 2008 May;49(5):

[72] Perlis RH, Ostacher MJ, Patel JK, et al. Predictors of recurrence in bipolar disorder: primary outcomes from the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar

[73] Pollack MH, Simon NM, Worthington JJ, Doyle AL, Peters P,Toshkov F, et al. 2003b. Combined paroxetine and clonazepamtreatment strategies compared to paroxetine

Disorder (STEP-BD). Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:217–224.

monotherapy forpanic disorder. J Psychopharmacol 17:276282.

office-based psychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(1):26-36.

94 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

pression. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment 2005:1(4) 301–9.

icaid Directors: Alexandria, Virginia: 2001.

ized study. Biol Psychiatry 2004;55: 296–300.

Abuse Treat 38:403 – 407.

try 2009;166:980–91.

Med J. 2007;5:e3.

380-3.


the treatment of Alzheimer's disease with neuropsychiatric features: A randomised, double-blind, exploratory trial. Aging Ment Health 13:183 – 190.

[99] Yatham LN, Grossman F, Augustyns I, Vieta E, Ravindran A. Mood stabilizers plus risperidone or placebo in the treatment of acute mania. International, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2003;182:141–7.

[87] Soyka M, Kranzler HR, van den Brink W, Krystal J, Möller HJ, Kasper S. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the biological treatment of substance use and related disorders. Part 2: Opioid dependence. World J

[88] Soyka M, Schmidt F, Schmidt P. 2006. Efficacy and safety of outpatient alcohol detox‐ ification with a combination of tiapride/ carbamazepine: Additional evidence. Phar‐

[89] Sung SC, Haley CL, Wisniewski SR, Fava M, Nierenberg AA, Warden D, Morris DW, Kurian BT, Trivedi MH, Rush AJ. The impact of chronic depression on acute and long-term outcomes in a randomized trial comparing selective serotonin reuptake in‐ hibitor monotherapy versus each of 2 different antidepressant medication combina‐

[90] Suppes T, Vieta E, Liu S, Brecher M, Paulsson B. Maintenance treatment for patients with bipolar I disorder: results from a north american study of quetiapine in combi‐ nation with lithium or divalproex (trial 127). Am J Psychiatry 2009;166(4):476-88. [91] Tohen M, Vieta E, Calabrese J, Ketter TA, Sachs G, Bowden C,et al. 2003. Efficacy of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetinecombination in the treatment of bipolar I de‐

[92] van der Loos ML, Mulder PG, Hartong EG, Blom MB, VergouwenAC, de Keyzer HJ, et al. 2009. Efficacy and safety of lamotrigineas add-on treatment to lithium in bipo‐ lar depression: amulticenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychia‐

[93] Veehof L, Stewart R, Haaijer-Ruskamp F, Jong BM. The development of polypharma‐

[94] Vieta E, Suppes T, Eggens I, Persson I, Paulsson B, Brecher M.Efficacy and safety of quetiapine in combination with lithium or divalproex for maintenance of patients with bipolar I disorder (international trial 126).J Affect Disord 2008;109(3):251-63. [95] Vieta E, T'joen C, McQuade RD, Carson WH Jr, Marcus RN, Sanchez R, Owen R, Nameche L.Efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole to either valproate or lithium in bipo‐ lar mania patients partially nonresponsive to valproate/lithium monotherapy: a pla‐

[96] Werder SF, Preskorn SH: Managing polypharmacy: Walking the fine line between

[97] Wilby J, Kainth A, Hawkins N, Epstein D, McIntosh H, McDaid C, Mason A, Golder S, O'Meara S, Sculpher M, Drummond M, Forbes C. Clinical effectiveness, tolerabili‐ ty and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults: a systematic review

[98] Yancheva S, Ihl R, Nikolova G, Panayotov C, Schlaefke S, Hoerr R, for the GINDON Study Group. 2009. Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761 ®, donepezil or both combined in

help and harm. Current Psychiatry Online 2003;2(2):published online.

Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Apr;12(3):160-87.

96 Evidence-based Strategies in Herbal Medicine, Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Medicine

tions. J Clin Psychiatry 2012;73(7):967-76.

pression. Arch GenPsychiatry 60:1079–1088.

cy. A longitudinal study. Fam Pract. 2000;17(3):261-7.

cebo-controlled study.Am J Psychiatry 2008;165(10):1316-25.

and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-157.

macopsychiatry 39:3034.

try70:223–231.

