The Feasibility Test of Korean Medication Algorithm for the Treatment with Schizophrenic Patients(II): The Problem for Applying Algorithm to the Real Clinical Situation and Opinion of Revision.
- Author:
Yong Min AHN
1
;
Jun Soo KWON
;
Won Myong BAHK
;
Chul Eung KIM
;
Jong Ik PARK
;
Sang Yeol LEE
;
Jung Seo YI
;
Chang Hwa LEE
;
Hong Seok JANG
;
Duk In JON
;
Sang Keun CHUNG
;
In Won CHUNG
;
Hyun Sang CHO
;
Yeon Ho JOO
;
Yong Seoung CHOI
;
Yong Sik KIM
;
Hong Shick LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. kwonjs@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Schizophrenia;
Korean Medication Algorithm;
Feasibility test;
Problem;
Revision
- MeSH:
Antipsychotic Agents;
Clozapine;
Compliance;
Cytidine Diphosphate;
Humans;
Research Personnel;
Schizophrenia
- From:Korean Journal of Psychopharmacology
2006;17(1):35-49
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: The Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Korean Academy of Schizophrenia developed the Korean medication algorithm project for schizophrenia (KMAP) to aid clinical decisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate problems and revision of Korean Medication Algorithm for Schizophrenia after feasibility test. METHODS: A total of 108 schizophrenia patients were enrolled at 19 centers and treated according to the algorithm. Prescribing investigators were able to change the recommended treatment strategies of the algorithm if necessary. All subjects were assessed over a 4-month period. Appropriateness of choice, dosage, duration and switch of antipsychotics and definition of treatment response were examined. RESULTS: Compliance of 1(st) choice antipsychotics in KMAP was favorable. Atypical antipsychotics which is a 1(st) stage drug selected first was above 84%, especially in case of no previous medical history was nearly all. In case that shift of stage was needed, there is a trend that combination treatment stage (6(th) stage) and clozapine treatment stage (5(th) stage) were preferred to rather than 3(rd) stage and 4(th) stage (typical antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics treatment stage). The rates of switching antipsychotics at the time points other than CDP (critical decision points) was low and the reason was almost the side effects. So the compliance of CDPs in KMAP was good in case of insufficiency of treatment response. Also the reasons why many investigators continued using current antipsychotics without switching despite insufficiency of treatment response were definition of treatment response, discrepancy between brief symptom rating scale for negative symptom and decision of clinicians. In addition, compliance of co-existence symptoms and side effect of medication in KMAP was favorable. CONCLUSION: It is some difference from clinical practice such as stage of antipsychotics, definition of treatment response and usefulness of brief symptom rating scale for negative symptom. But the majority apart from points of preceding paragraph is feasible in clinical practice. These results are essential to revise the next version of KMAP.
