Joëlle Weijgertze-Lanser, Maureen B G Wissing, Roy G Elbers, Josien Jonker, Gerda M de Kuijper, Dederieke A M Maes-Festen
{"title":"智障人士的非适应症抗精神病药物戒断:一个预测模型的发展和内部验证。","authors":"Joëlle Weijgertze-Lanser, Maureen B G Wissing, Roy G Elbers, Josien Jonker, Gerda M de Kuijper, Dederieke A M Maes-Festen","doi":"10.1111/jir.70038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Off-label antipsychotic use in people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour is high. Antipsychotic withdrawal is recommended, but attempts are often unsuccessful. This study aimed to develop and internally validate a prediction model that provides insight into predicting factors for unsuccessful (i.e. incomplete) off-label antipsychotic withdrawal attempts in people with intellectual disabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data collected in two previous studies examining the withdrawal of off-label antipsychotics in people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour living mostly in 24/7 care settings (98.6%) in the Netherlands were analysed. The dataset included 141 participants (64.5% male, median age 52). We selected candidate predictors (age, level of intellectual disability, defined daily dose, autism spectrum disorder and three subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist [ABC], namely stereotypy, hyperactivity and lethargy) based on previous research and clinical relevance. A multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection procedures was conducted to identify significant predictors. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis revealed the level of intellectual disability (p = 0.030, OR = 2.374), defined daily dose (p = 0.063, OR = 2.833), and ABC stereotypy (p = 0.007, OR = 1.106) as key predictors for unsuccessful withdrawals. The variables explained 20% of the variance (Nagelkerke's R-square, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.200). The model calibrated well as the Hosmer and Lemeshow test was not significant. The discrimination of the model was fair to good; the Area Under the Curve (AUC) was 0.728. Internal validation procedures showed an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.706; the optimism-corrected Nagelkerke's R<sup>2</sup> was 0.157.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The odds of unsuccessful withdrawal increase with a more severe level of intellectual disability, a higher antipsychotic defined daily dose and higher stereotypy scores. The results inform healthcare providers about the predictive factors enabling them to better anticipate and support future withdrawal attempts.</p>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Off-Label Antipsychotic Withdrawal in People With Intellectual Disabilities: Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model.\",\"authors\":\"Joëlle Weijgertze-Lanser, Maureen B G Wissing, Roy G Elbers, Josien Jonker, Gerda M de Kuijper, Dederieke A M Maes-Festen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jir.70038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Off-label antipsychotic use in people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour is high. Antipsychotic withdrawal is recommended, but attempts are often unsuccessful. This study aimed to develop and internally validate a prediction model that provides insight into predicting factors for unsuccessful (i.e. incomplete) off-label antipsychotic withdrawal attempts in people with intellectual disabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data collected in two previous studies examining the withdrawal of off-label antipsychotics in people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour living mostly in 24/7 care settings (98.6%) in the Netherlands were analysed. The dataset included 141 participants (64.5% male, median age 52). We selected candidate predictors (age, level of intellectual disability, defined daily dose, autism spectrum disorder and three subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist [ABC], namely stereotypy, hyperactivity and lethargy) based on previous research and clinical relevance. A multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection procedures was conducted to identify significant predictors. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis revealed the level of intellectual disability (p = 0.030, OR = 2.374), defined daily dose (p = 0.063, OR = 2.833), and ABC stereotypy (p = 0.007, OR = 1.106) as key predictors for unsuccessful withdrawals. The variables explained 20% of the variance (Nagelkerke's R-square, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.200). The model calibrated well as the Hosmer and Lemeshow test was not significant. The discrimination of the model was fair to good; the Area Under the Curve (AUC) was 0.728. Internal validation procedures showed an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.706; the optimism-corrected Nagelkerke's R<sup>2</sup> was 0.157.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The odds of unsuccessful withdrawal increase with a more severe level of intellectual disability, a higher antipsychotic defined daily dose and higher stereotypy scores. The results inform healthcare providers about the predictive factors enabling them to better anticipate and support future withdrawal attempts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.70038\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.70038","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在智力残疾和具有挑战性行为的人群中,标签外抗精神病药物的使用很高。建议停用抗精神病药物,但尝试往往不成功。本研究旨在开发并内部验证一个预测模型,该模型提供了对智力残疾患者未成功(即不完整)的非适应症抗精神病药物戒断尝试的预测因素的见解。方法:对先前两项研究收集的数据进行分析,这些研究调查了荷兰智力残疾和行为困难的人(98.6%)在24/7护理环境中停用标签外抗精神病药物的情况。该数据集包括141名参与者(64.5%为男性,中位年龄52岁)。我们根据以往的研究和临床相关性选择了候选预测因子(年龄、智力残疾水平、限定日剂量、自闭症谱系障碍和异常行为检查表[ABC]的三个子量表,即刻板印象、多动和嗜睡)。采用逆向选择程序进行多变量逻辑回归分析,以确定显著的预测因子。该模型使用自举程序进行内部验证。结果:分析显示智力残疾水平(p = 0.030, OR = 2.374)、规定日剂量(p = 0.063, OR = 2.833)和ABC刻板印象(p = 0.007, OR = 1.106)是不成功停药的关键预测因素。这些变量解释了20%的方差(Nagelkerke的r平方,R2 = 0.200)。模型校正良好,Hosmer和Lemeshow检验不显著。模型的歧视是公平到好的;曲线下面积(AUC)为0.728。内部验证程序显示,乐观校正的AUC为0.706;乐观修正后的Nagelkerke R2为0.157。结论:智力残疾程度越严重,抗精神病药物每日剂量越高,刻板印象评分越高,戒断失败的几率越大。结果告知医疗保健提供者有关的预测因素,使他们能够更好地预测和支持未来的退出尝试。
Off-Label Antipsychotic Withdrawal in People With Intellectual Disabilities: Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model.
Background: Off-label antipsychotic use in people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour is high. Antipsychotic withdrawal is recommended, but attempts are often unsuccessful. This study aimed to develop and internally validate a prediction model that provides insight into predicting factors for unsuccessful (i.e. incomplete) off-label antipsychotic withdrawal attempts in people with intellectual disabilities.
Methods: Data collected in two previous studies examining the withdrawal of off-label antipsychotics in people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour living mostly in 24/7 care settings (98.6%) in the Netherlands were analysed. The dataset included 141 participants (64.5% male, median age 52). We selected candidate predictors (age, level of intellectual disability, defined daily dose, autism spectrum disorder and three subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist [ABC], namely stereotypy, hyperactivity and lethargy) based on previous research and clinical relevance. A multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection procedures was conducted to identify significant predictors. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping procedures.
Results: The analysis revealed the level of intellectual disability (p = 0.030, OR = 2.374), defined daily dose (p = 0.063, OR = 2.833), and ABC stereotypy (p = 0.007, OR = 1.106) as key predictors for unsuccessful withdrawals. The variables explained 20% of the variance (Nagelkerke's R-square, R2 = 0.200). The model calibrated well as the Hosmer and Lemeshow test was not significant. The discrimination of the model was fair to good; the Area Under the Curve (AUC) was 0.728. Internal validation procedures showed an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.706; the optimism-corrected Nagelkerke's R2 was 0.157.
Conclusions: The odds of unsuccessful withdrawal increase with a more severe level of intellectual disability, a higher antipsychotic defined daily dose and higher stereotypy scores. The results inform healthcare providers about the predictive factors enabling them to better anticipate and support future withdrawal attempts.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.