Skip to main content

Psychotropic drug-induced adverse drug reactions in 462,661 psychiatric inpatients in relation to age: results from a German drug surveillance program from 1993–2016

Abstract

Background

Clinical practice suggests that older adults (i.e., ≥ 65 years of age) experience adverse drug reactions (ADRs) more often than younger patients (i.e., < 65 years of age). ADRs such as falls, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), metabolic disorders, sedation, and delirium are particularly worrisome and often associated with psychotropic drugs.

Methods

This observational study investigated the risk for psychotropic drug-related ADRs in older (n = 99,099) and younger adults (n = 363,562) in psychiatric inpatients using data from the German pharmacovigilance program “Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie” (AMSP) from 1993–2016. The aim was to assess whether age influenced the risk of specific ADR types and if certain psychotropic drugs posed particular concerns.

Results

The risk for ADRs did not differ between older and younger patients (relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.92–1.05). However, older patients had a higher risk for delirium (2.35, 1.85–2.99), hyponatremia (3.74, 2.85–4.90), and orthostatic syncope (2.37, 1.72–3.26), as well as certain types of EPS, e.g., parkinsonism (1.89, 1.45–2.48) and Pisa-/metronome syndrome (3.61, 2.51–5.18). The risk for other ADRs, such as acute dystonia (0.20, 0.10–0.37), akathisia (0.47, 0.29–0.76), liver dysfunction (0.63, 0.48–0.82), weight gain (0.07, 0.04–0.14), sexual dysfunction (0.03, CI 0.00–0.25), and hyperprolactinemia/galactorrhea (0.05, 0.02–0.17) was significantly lower for older patients. Older patients treated with any type of antidepressant drug (1.33, 1.26–1.40)—especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (1.57, 1.26–1.40) and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (2.03, 1.80–2.29)—and lithium (1.74, 1.52–2.00) had a higher ADR risk than younger patients. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs had a lower (0.74, 0.71–0.77) and low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs a higher (1.19, 1.07–1.33) ADR risk in older patients. The risk for ADRs involving multiple drugs was higher in older patients (1.28, 1.22–1.34). ADRs in older patients were 6.4 times more likely to result in death.

Conclusions

Clinicians and pharmacists should be aware of the types of ADRs and high-risk drugs across age groups and provide appropriate monitoring. Pharmacovigilance is crucial in psychiatric patients of all ages and should not be neglected, even for drugs generally considered “safe”.

Introduction

The global population is aging rapidly, with projections from the World Health Organization indicating that by 2050, about 30% of the population will be comprised of adults aged ≥ 60 years. This demographic shift constitutes rising healthcare costs [1]. Contributing to these increased costs is the higher vulnerability of older adults to drug-related morbidity and mortality due to a higher burden of chronic disease, side effects of polypharmacy (defined as the use of 5 or more drugs [2]), and age-related physiological changes in drug metabolism [3]. Psychotropic drugs warrant particular attention in this context. This concern aligns with both the recently revised German PRISCUS List, which classifies nearly all psychotropic drugs as “potentially inappropriate medication” when used in patients aged ≥ 65 years of age [4] and the American Beer’s Criteria that also recommend a prudent use of psychotropic drugs in older patients [5]. Indeed, psychotropic drug use in older adults is significantly associated with adverse health outcomes, such as hospitalization [6] and falls [7]. Another important aspect is the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), defined as unpleasant or potentially harmful reactions to a drug necessitating specific treatment, dose reduction, or drug withdrawal [8]. Not only are psychotropic drugs frequently associated with the occurrence of ADRs [9], psychotropic drug-related ADRs are often considered preventable [10].

Pharmacovigilance plays an important role in monitoring the safety of drugs. In fact, in the European Union, physicians and pharmacists are required to report ADRs to the respective national institutions, such as the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (“Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte”, BfArM). The advantage of sponateous reporting systems is that they collect data from a wide range of healthcare providers, in some cases even directly from patients. They are essential for detecting rare and unusual ADRs and, in contrast to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), they do not have any exclusion criteria, therefore offering an assessment of ADRs in an uncontrolled, “real-life” setting [11].

ADRs are a major health concern that affect 5–60% of older hospitalized inpatients, [12]. Heck et al. examined the prevalence of ADRs in geriatric psychiatric inpatients over a 6-year period, determining an overall ADR prevalence of 8.8%. The most common ADRs were extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), cardiovascular symptoms, and electrolyte disturbances, however, the authors included ADRs associated with any type of drug [13]. A previous study using data from the project “Drug Safety in Psychiatry” (German: “Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie e.V.”; AMSP), which included 39,728 inpatients and 699 severe ADRs from 2001–2010 in Switzerland, found an inverse correlation between patient age and the occurrence of psychotropic drug-induced ADRs, particularly weight gain, EPS, galactorrhea, and elevated transaminases [14]. Other studies examining the incidence of psychotropic drug-induced ADRs using AMSP data support these findings [15,16,17]. Thus, it appears that occurrence of several common psychotropic drug-associated ADRs show age-dependent effects. Some types of ADRs are more likely to affect younger patients (e.g., weight gain [15], galactorrhea [17], drug-induced liver injury [16]), while older patients are at higher risk for others (e.g., delirium [18], hyponatremia [19]).

The objective of the present study is to comprehensively analyze the risk of psychotropic drug-induced ADRs in patients ≥ 65 years of age compared to younger patients (i.e., < 65 years of age). We sought to determine (a) which types of ADRs had a higher risk in older versus younger adults and (b) which psychotropic drugs and drug groups are of particular concern. We hypothesized that the risk for several ADRs, such as weight gain and galactorrhea, are more common in younger patients, while the risk for EPS, hyponatremia, and delirium is higher in older patients. Further, we suspected that drugs with strong anticholinergic properties are associated with a higher risk of ADRs in older patients. This data holds considerable value in clinical practice as it aids in evaluating the association between particular drugs and their long-term risks, especially in the extended treatment of both younger and elderly patients.

Methods

The AMSP program and data collection

Aiming to improve pharmacovigilance in the field of psychiatry, the AMSP program was established in 1993 in German-speaking countries (i.e., Germany, Austria, Switzerland). AMSP is an ongoing project that monitors drug safety in a “real life” psychiatric inpatient setting. The AMSP database consists of two distinct sets of data. The first dataset comprises pharmacoepidemiologic data, i.e., drug use data, age, and sex of all patients treated in the hospitals participating in the AMSP project at the time of data collection. This data is collected on two index days per year. In addition, information on the number of patients monitored each year and the average duration of inpatient stay allows an estimation of the number of patients exposed to a particular drug/combination of drugs. The second dataset contains events of severe, unusual, and/or rare ADRs (see below) occurring in psychiatric inpatients during treatment with psychotropic drugs.

An ADR is defined as any adverse event occurring at doses adequate for therapeutic or prophylactic treatment. This does not include adverse events due to intoxication or inefficiency. ADRs are classified according to affected organ systems (e.g., psychiatric, neurological, cardiovascular). The AMSP manual includes guidelines for determining the severity of the ADR, allowing a standardized assessment of ADRs [20]. This study includes only events of ADRs classified as “severe”. All data collected is anonymized.

Assessment and collection of ADRs

Data on ADRs is collected by psychiatrists designated as drug monitors. Drug monitors regularly (i.e., at least bi-weekly) consult with treating physicians on psychiatric wards about the occurrence of ADRs in patients. ADRs are documented using a standardized questionnaire and carefully reviewed for plausibility by a senior physician. The causal relationship between an ADR and the implicated drug(s) is classified as ‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘definite’, or ‘questionable’ according to AMSP standards [20]:

  • Grade 1: possible (ADR unknown, alternative explanation more likely)

  • Grade 2: probable (ADR known for drug imputed, time of onset and dose are plausible; alternative explanation less likely)

  • Grade 3: definite (same as 2 with reoccurrence of the ADR after re-exposure with the drug imputed)

  • Grade 4: questionable or insufficient documentation

Only ADRs with a probability rating of ‘probable’ or ‘definite’ were considered in this study. An ADR is viable for inclusion in the AMSP database, (1) if it is either considered “severe” (i.e., it is [potentially] life-threatening or seriously endangers a patient’s health, (2) if it causes considerable impairment of everyday functioning, or (3) if it necessitates a transfer to another ward or department for more specialized care). The AMSP manual includes detailed guidelines for determining the severity of ADRs, allowing a standardized assessment of ADRs [20, 21].

The present study includes ADR reports from 107 hospitals that participated in the AMSP program during the study period. Most ADRs (72.4%) stem from a total of 71 German hospitals, 17.2% from Switzerland (22 hospitals), 9.9% from Austria (12 hospitals), and 0.5% from Hungary and Belgium (1 hospital each). Of note, the present study also includes the ADRs using only Swiss AMSP data analyzed in the study by Greil et al. [14].

Because many patients are treated with multiple drugs, more than one drug may be implicated in the ADR in question. This can be due either to direct effects of the other drug(s) causing the same ADR or through pharmacokinetic interactions. When multiple drugs are implicated in an ADR, the causal relationship of each drug is evaluated individually. Therefore, AMSP distinguishes between three subgroups of ADR cases: cases in which only one drug was implicated (i.e., “single imputation”), cases in which a combination of drugs was imputed (i.e., “multiple imputation”), and “all cases”, which includes both of the above mentioned [20].

Classification of psychotropic drugs relevant to the present study

A classification of psychotropic drugs most commonly used in this study’s patient collective (i.e., drugs used in ≥ 1.0% of patients) can be found in the supplementary material (suppl. Table 1).

Inclusion criteria of the present study and definition of “older” and “younger” patients

The present study includes patients monitored by the AMSP Program from 1993 to 2016. Primary psychiatric diagnosis is presented according to the International Classification of Disease, 10th Version (ICD-10). We only included patients who were treated with psychotropic drugs (N = 462,661), as those without drug use aren’t at risk for ADRs. We defined “older patients” as those aged ≥ 65 years because this is the most commonly used age limit in scientific research and guidelines statements [22]. Accordingly, the term “younger patients” refers to those aged 18–65 years.

Statistical methods

The main objective of the present study was to determine (a) the risk of different types of ADRs and (b) the risk for ADR of different types of psychotropic in older vs. younger patients. The incidence of ADRs was calucluated in percent of patients exposed to psychotropic drugs or a specific psychotropic drug/drug class. The risk of different types of ADRs, as well as the risk for ADRs associated with different psychotropic drugs for older vs. younger patients, was calculated as relative risks (RRs) including their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RRs were also used to determine the general risk of ADRs according to age and diagnostic group in the two age groups. A RR > 1 implies a higher ADR-risk for older vs. younger patients, while a RR < 1 implies a lower ADR-risk for older patients.

Chi-squared tests were used to compare categorical characteristics (i.e., sex, diagnosis) of the collective in older and younger patients (N = 462,661), as well as countermeasures taken in ADRs (N = 5729). The mean number (± standard deviation [SD]) of different types of (psychotropic) drugs in different patient groups were calculated. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess normality. As data were not consistently normally distributed, unpaired t-tests were used to determine statistical significances. Cohen’s d was calculated as measure of effect size (d = 0.2, small; d = 0.5, medium; d = 0.8, large). All statistics were performed using Excel© and SPSS© version 26 by IBM. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

Characteristics according to age group

Between 1993 and 2016, the AMSP program monitored a total of 462,661 psychiatric inpatients who were treated with at least one psychotropic drug. 99,099 patients were aged ≥ 65 years (21.4% of all patients). The median age in the group of older patients was 75.0 years and 40.7 years in the younger group of patients. The proportion of females was significantly higher among older patients than among those aged < 65 years (68.3% vs. 52.5%;). Older patients suffered from organic (33.0% vs. 6.5%) and depressive disorders (41.1% vs. 32.3%) significantly more often and were significantly less likely to suffer from substance-related disorders (2.2% vs. 5.1%), schizophrenia (16.1% vs. 39.1%), and acute mania (2.4% vs. 3.0%; Table 1). Older patients were treated with an average of 5.37 ± 2.58 drugs compared to 3.50 ± 2.10 drugs in younger patients (p < 0.001, d = 0.845). The difference in the mean number of psychotropic drugs, antidepressant drugs (ADDs), and antipsychotic drugs (APDs) between age groups were either statistically insignificant or of small effect size (suppl. Table 2A).

Table 1 Characteristics (i.e., sex and diagnosis) of the study population according to age group (≥ 65 vs. < 65 years)

Relative risk for adverse drug reactions according to sex and diagnosis

A total of 5729 patients experienced severe ADRs (1.24% of 462,661). The overall risk for ADRs did not differ between older and younger patients (RR 0.98, CI 0.95–1.02). However, older women had a significantly higher risk for ADRs than younger females (RR 1.84, CI 1.76–1.92), while older men had a significantly lower risk for ADRs than younger men (RR 0.65, CI 0.62–0.68). Older patients with depressive disorders had a significantly higher risk of ADRs than younger patients with this diagnosis (RR 1.29, CI 1.22–1.36), whereas older patients with schizophrenia (RR 0.73, CI 0.69–0.77) and acute mania (RR 0.69, CI 0.60–0.79) had a lower risk of ADRs than younger patients (Table 2). Older patients with ADRs were treated with an average of 5.45 ± 2.59 drugs compared to 3.49 ± 2.00 drugs in younger patients (p < 0.001, d = 0.907). The difference in the mean number of psychotropic drugs, ADDs, and APDs between age groups were either statistically insignificant or of small effect size (suppl. Table 2B).

Table 2 Relative risk for adverse drug reactions of patients according to sex and diagnosis in patients ≥ 65 vs. < 65 years

Type of psychotropic drug-induced adverse drug reactions according to age group

All imputations (i.e., single and multiple imputation)

Figure 1A shows the RR of ADRs according to the affected organ system and age group, while Fig. 1B depicts the RR of a selection of individual ADRs that showed significant differences between the two age groups. Table 3 shows the RR (including 95% CI) of the affected organ systems, as well as of the frequent individual ADRs (cut-off ≥ 35 cases among all patients) for all cases (i.e., single and multiple imputations).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Relative risk (RR) incl. 95% confidence interval of (A) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) affecting different organ systems and (B) a selection* of individual ADRs (all imputations) in older vs. younger patients. RR > 1 implies a higher ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients; RR < 1 implies a lower ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients. *selection is based on ADRs for which we detected significant differences between the two age groups. w/ with; w/o without; EPS extrapyramidal symptoms

Table 3 Incidence and relative risk of different types of adverse drug reactions (all imputations) in older vs. younger patients

Compared to younger patients, older patients had a 2.35-fold (CI 1.87–2.96) higher risk of experiencing “delirium and confusion”. However, older patients had a significantly lower risk for drug-induced suicidality than younger patients (RR 0.11, CI 0.01–0.79; Fig. 1A; Table 3).

In general, the risk of neurological symptoms (Fig. 1A; Table 3) did not differ between age groups. But while older patients were less likely to experience seizures (RR 0.54, CI 0.35–0.83) and restless legs/arms (RR 0.35, CI 0.15–0.81), their risk for ataxia (RR 3.06, CI 1.69–5.53) and serotonergic ARDs (RR 1.99, CI 1.14–3.48) was significantly higher compared to younger patients. Similarly, while the risk of EPS in general did not show age-dependent effects, the risk for several types of EPS, such as parkinsonism (RR 1.89, CI 2.45–2.48) and Pisa/metronome-syndrome (RR 3.61, CI 2.51–5.18), was significantly higher in older patients. On the other hand, older patients had a significantly lower risk for acute dystonia (RR 0.20, CI 0.10–0.37) and akathisia (RR 0.47, CI 0.29–0.76; Fig. 1B; Table 3).

ADRs affecting the cardiovascular system were 1.83 times (CI 1.49–2.26) more likely in older patients (Fig. 1A; Table 3). In particular, older patients had a significantly higher risk of (orthostatic) syncope (RR 2.37, CI 1.72–3.26) and hypotension with vertigo (RR 3.25, CI 1.85–5.69; Fig. 1B; Table 3).

The risk of liver dysfunction (mainly elevated transaminases; RR 0.63, CI 0.48–0.82), changes in body weight (almost exclusively weight gain; RR 0.08, CI 0.04–0.15), and genital disorders (mainly including different types of sexual dysfunction; RR 0.03, CI 0.00–0.25; Fig. 1A; Table 3) was significantly lower among older patients. Older patients had a 3.74fold higher risk of psychotropic drug-induced hyponatremia (CI 2.85–4.90), while the risk for symptomatic hyperprolactinemia and galactorrhea (RR 0.05, CI 0.02–0.17) was significantly lower in older patients (Fig. 1B; Table 3). Lastly, older patients had a 5.87fold higher risk of experiencing psychotropic drug-related falls (CI 3.08–11.19; Fig. 1B; Table 3).

Single and multiple imputations

Figure 2A shows the RR of single vs. multiple imputation ADRs according to the affected organ system and age group, while Figs. 2B depicts the RR of single vs. multiple imputation in a selection of individual ADRs that showed significant differences between the two age groups. Tables with the RR for all single (Suppl. Table 3) and multiple imputation ADRs (Suppl. Table 4) can be found in the supplementary material.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Relative risk (RR) incl. 95% confidence interval of single vs. multiple imputation adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (A) according to the affected organ system and (B) in a selection* of individual ADRs in older vs. younger patients. RR > 1 implies a higher ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients; RR < 1 implies a lower ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients. *selection is based on ADRs for which we detected significant differences between the two age groups. (s) single imputation ADR; (m) multiple imputation ADR; w/ with; w/o without; EPS extrapyramidal symptoms; UL upper limit

3212 of 4517 ADRs (71.1% of all ADRs in younger patients) affecting younger patients implicated a single drug, while in older patients, 698 of 1212 ADRs (57.6% of all ADRs in older patients) implicated a single drug. Overall, the risk for multiple imputation ADRs was significantly higher in older than in younger patients (RR 1.44, CI 1.30–1.60; Fig. 2A; suppl. Table 4). Among organ systems, the risk for multiple imputation ADRs in older patients was significantly higher for psychiatric symptoms (excluding delirium; RR 1.65, CI 1.05–2.60), cardiovascular disorders (RR 2.89, CI 2.13–3.92), hematologic disorders (RR 2.02, CI 1.10–3.73), and metabolic disorders (RR 3.19, CI 2.41–4.21 Fig. 2A; suppl. Table 4). The risk for “delirium and confusion” was higher in older than in younger patients as a single imputation (RR 2.80, CI 1.90–4.12; Fig. 2A; suppl. Table 3), as well as a multiple imputation ADR (RR 2.14, CI 1.61–2.86; Fig. 2A; suppl. Table 4).

Among individual ADRs, older patients had a particularly high risk for (orthostatic) syncope (RR 2.95, CI 1.91–4.55) and hyponatremia (RR 6.09, CI 4.37–8.49) imputing multiple drugs compared to younger patients (Fig. 2B; suppl. Table 4). On the other hand, restless legs/arms, acute dystonia, hyperprolactinemia/glactorrhea, and weight gain had a significantly higher risk of affecting younger patients, both as single and as multiple imputation ADRs (Fig. 2B; suppl. Tables 3 and 4).

Adverse drug reactions by psychotropic drug class and specific psychotropic drugs

Rate of adverse drug reactions under treatment with psychotropic drugs (subgroups) and individual psychotropic drugs according to age group

Figure 3 provides an overview of the RRs for ADRs of different types of psychotropic drugs groups and subgroups (Fig. 3A) and individual psychotropic drugs for which we detected a significant RR between the two age groups (Fig. 3B). The RRs shown include all events of ADRs (i.e., imputation of a single drug and multiple drugs). A table with all psychotropic drugs and their respective RR can be found in the supplementary material (suppl. Table 5).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Relative risk (RR) incl. 95% confidence interval for ADRs (all imputations) of (A) different psychotropic drug classes and (B) in a selection* of different individual psychotropic drugs in older vs. younger patients. RR > 1 implies a higher ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients; RR < 1 implies a lower ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients. *selection is of psychotropic drugs for which we detected a significant relative risk. PD psychotropic drug; ADD antidepressant drug; SSRI selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SNRI selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor; TCA tricyclic antidepressant; NaSSA noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant; APD antipsychotic drug; FGA “first-generation” antipsychotic drug; lp low potency; hp high potency; SGA “second-generation” antipsychotic drug; HYPD hypnotic drug; TRD tranquilizing drug; AED antiepileptic drug; AParkD antiparkinson drug

Antidepressant drugs and lithium

Overall, older patients treated with ADDs had a significantly higher risk of experiencing ADRs than younger patients (RR 1.33, CI 1.26–1.40). This was observed for the two subgroups of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; RR 1.57, CI 1.42–1.75) and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; RR 2.03, CI 1.80–2.29; Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5). We found a higher RR for ADRs in older vs. younger patients for all individual SSRIs and SNRIs examined (Fig. 3B, suppl. Table 5). In general, the RR for ADRs in older patients treated with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) was significantly lower than in younger patients (RR 0.70, CI 0.63–0.80; Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5). However, when considering individuals TCAs, older users of amitriptyline and trimipramine had a significantly higher risk for ADRs than younger patients (Fig. 3B, suppl. Table 5). The risk of ADRs among older patients treated with noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSAs) was significantly lower than among younger patients (RR 0.71, CI 0.63–0.80). Older patients treated with lithium had a 1.74fold (CI 1.52–2.00) risk of ADRs compared to younger patients (Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5).

Antipsychotic drugs

In general, older APD-users had a significantly lower risk of ADRs than younger APD-users (RR 0.76, CI 0.73–0.79; Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5), however, the risk of ADRs of different subgroups of ADRs varied between the age groups. Low potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs) had a higher risk for ADRs in older patients (RR 1.19, CI 1.07–1.33; Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5), as was the case for melperone, chlorprothixene, prothipendyl, levomepromazine, and promethazine (Fig. 3B, suppl. Table 5). The ADR risk among hp FGA-users did not significantly differ between age groups (Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5), which the exception of flupentixol (Fig. 3B, suppl. Table 5). While the overall ADR risk in older SGA users was lower than in younger SGA users (RR 0.74, CI 0.71–0.77; Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5), older patients treated with clozapine had a significantly higher risk for ADRs and those treated with risperidone or olanzapine had a significantly lower risk for ADRs than younger patients (Fig. 3B, suppl. Table 5).

Tranquilizing and hypnotic drugs

Older patients treated with tranquilizing and hypnotic drugs had a significantly higher risk for ADRs than younger patients (RR 1.93, CI 1.60–2.33 resp. RR 2.24, CI 1.53–3-30; Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5).

Antiparkinson drugs

The RR of ADRs under treatment with antiparkinson drugs among older patients was significantly higher than in younger patients (RR 2.12, CI 1.71–2.62; Fig. 3A, suppl. Table 5), especially for biperiden (RR 3.33, CI 2.62–4.23; Fig. 3B, suppl. Table 5).

Adverse drug reactions with imputation of a single vs. multiple drugs according to age group

Figure 4 shows the RR for single and multiple imputation ADRs of different psychotropic drug groups. The exact RR and CIs can be found in the supplementary material (suppl. Table 6 for single imputation ADRs and suppl. Table 7 for multiple imputation ADRs).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Relative risk (RR) incl. 95% confidence interval of single vs. multiple imputation adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for psychotropic drug groups/subgroups in older vs. younger patients. RR > 1 implies a higher ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients; RR < 1 implies a lower ADR-risk for older patients compared to younger patients. (s) single imputation ADR; (m) multiple imputation ADR; PD psychotropic drug; ADD antidepressant drug; SSRI selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SSNRI selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor; TCA tricyclic antidepressant; NaSSA noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant; APD antipsychotic drug; FGA “first-generation” antipsychotic drug; lp low potency; hp high potency; SGA “second-generation” antipsychotic drug; HYPD hypnotic drug; TRD tranquilizing drug; AED antiepileptic drug; AParkD antiparkinson drug; UL upper limit

The risk of multiple imputation ADRs in older adults was significantly higher than in younger patients (RR 1.28, CI 1.22–1.34, suppl. Table 7), as was the case for most drug groups. While the risk for SSRI-associated single imputation ADRs did not significantly differ between age groups (Fig. 4, suppl. Table 6), the risk for multiple imputation ADRs under SSRI was significantly increased for older patients compared to younger patients (Fig. 4, suppl. Table 7). For SNRI, on the other hand, risk of both single and multiple imputation ADRs was signifcantly higher for older patients. This was also the case for lithium, tranquilizing drugs, and antiparkinson drugs (Fig. 4, suppl. Tables 6 and 7). Among APDs, older patients had a significantly lower risk of single imputation ADRs (Fig. 4, suppl. Table 6), whereas the risk for multiple imputation ADRs did not differ from younger patients, as was the case for SGAs (Fig. 4, suppl. Table 7). However, low potency FGAs were the only drug class for which the risk of single imputation ADRs tended to be higher than for multiple imputation ADRs was low-potency FGAs. However, the confidence intervals overlap, indicating that this difference (i.e., that the risk of older patients for single imputation ADRs is higher than for multiple imputation ADRs) is not statistically significant (Fig. 4, suppl. Tables 6 and 7).

Drug dosages in patients with and without ADRs according to age group

Table 4 provides information on median daily dosages of patients who suffered from an ADRs compared to all exposed patients according to age group. Younger patients were generally treated with higher doses than older patients. Exceptions were venlafaxine and mirtazapine, for which the daily doses did not differ between the two age groups. Pipamperone was the only drug that had the highest dosage in older patients suffering from an ADR. Compared within the respective age group, dosages were higher for ADR patients for clozapine, haloperidol, lithium carbonate, pipamperone, risperidone, and valproate in patients ≥ 65 years. The median dosage was even lower in ADR patients treated with amisulpride, pregabalin, and quetiapine compared to all patients exposed in this age group. Among patients < 65 years in ADR cases involving amisulpride and amitriptyline, the dosages administered were higher compared to all patients exposed to the respective drug, and lower in ADR cases imputing citalopram, clozapine, escitalopram, and pregabalin.

Table 4 Median daily dosages in all patients exposed compared to patients with ADR cases under treatment with imputed drugs

Course, countermeasures, and risk factors of ADRs

Table 5 shows the course, countermeasures, and risk factors for ADRs in both age groups. We observed a total of 19 ADRs (1.6% of 1212) which resulted in death among patients ≥ 65 years of age versus only 7 fatal ADRs (0.2% of 4517) among younger patients. In so, the RR for fatal ADRs was 6.39 times higher (CI 3.03–13.47; data not shown) in older patients. However, ADRs in older patients were also more likely to be completely resolved by the end of the observation period compared to younger patients (81.9% vs. 72.1%; p < 0.001).

Table 5 Course, countermeasures, and risk factors of adverse drug reactions according to age group (≥ 65 years and < 65 years)

The majority of ADRs received some form of treatment. Cases in which no countermeasures were taken were less common in older patients (0.6% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001). The most common countermeasure was discontinuation of the implicated drug(s), which was performed in 86.6% of patients aged ≥ 65 years of age and 77.8% of patients aged < 65 years of age (p < 0.001). Older patients were significantly more likely to require transfer to a different ward for more specialized care (14.0% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001).

Risk factors were identified more frequently in older than in younger patients (59.2% vs. 38.2%; p < 0.001). The most common risk factor was pre-existing organ damage, which was present in 43.4% of ADRs in older patients and only in 16.7% of ADRs in younger patients (p < 0.001).

ADR cases with fatal outcomes

Table 6 gives an overview of the 26 ADRs with fatal outcomes observed in this study. The most common cause of death was bolus death in 5 cases (19.2% of the 26 fatal ADRs), 2 of which affected older patients. EPS, including one malignant neuroleptic syndrome (MNS) and 4 cases of severe parkinsonism, ended fatally in another 5 cases (19.2% of fatal ADRs), with 4 cases affecting older adults. In 3 cases (11.5% of fatal ADRs), all of which affected older adults, cardiovascular ADRs (severe hypotension in all 3 cases) resulted in death. Also, ileus and respiratoy insufficiency led to death in 3 cases, of which 2 fatal courses affected older patients for both ADRs. Fatal cases of agranulocytosis were observed 3 times (11.5% of fatal ADRs) as well, but only among patients ≥ 65 years of age.

Table 6 Adverse drug reactions with fatal outcomes according to age (≥ 65 vs < 65 years of age) including imputed psychotropic drugs

All cases of fatal ADRs in patients < 65 years of age imputed multiple drugs. High-potency FGAs were implicated in 4 cases, most often haloperidol (decanoate) in a total of 3 cases. SGAs, benzodiazepines and low potency FGAs were each imputed in 3 cases. An ADD (i.e., mianserin) was implicated in a single fatal ADR in this age group.

Among the 19 cases of fatal ADRs in patients ≥ 65 years of age, 4 cases implicated a single drug. High potency FGAs were implicated in 9 cases (2 single implications), whereby haloperidol (decanoate) was the most commonly imputed drug (8 cases; 1 single imputation in a patient treated with haloperidol per os). SGAs were implicated in 8 cases (1 single imputation), most commonly clozapine (4 cases) and olanzapine (2 cases). Risperidone was implicated in 2 ADRs (1 single imputation). ADDs were implicated in 9 cases (1 single imputation), most often mirtazapine (3 cases); TCAs and venlafaxine were imputed in 2 cases each, 1 single imputation with a TCA.

Discussion

The present study analyzed the risk of ADRs within the inpatient psychiatric setting according to age (i.e., < 65 and ≥ 65 years of age). While the overall risk for ADRs did not differ between the two age groups, older patients were at higher risk for certain ADRs such as delirium, ataxia, certain types of EPS (e.g., parkinsonism, Pisa-/metronome syndrome), cardiovascular symptoms, and falls. Other ADRs such as suicidality, acute dystonia, akathisia, liver dysfunction, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and hyperprolactinemia/galactorrhea were more common in younger patients. Older patients treated with ADDs—especially SSRIs and SNRIs—, low potency FGAs, and lithium had a higher risk of ADRs than younger patients, while younger patients treated with SGAs had a higher risk of ADRs than older patients treated with these drugs. Further, we found that ADRs in older patients were more likely to involve multiple drugs.

Older age is a well-described risk factor for ADRs [23]. While risk factors, such as pre-existing organ damage, are more common in patients ≥ 65 years of age, as found in this study, we were unable to detect a higher rate of ADRs in older adults. However, in this study, ADRs in older patients were more likely to be classified as life-threatening and required specialized care (Table 5). In addition, we found that older patients who experienced ADRs had an 6.4-fold increased risk of a fatal outcome. This significantly higher mortality greatly exceeds the findings of Dubrall et al., who examined ADRs reported to the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices and found that ADR-related mortality was 3 times higher among patients ≥ 65 years of age than in those < 65 years of age [24]. The inpatient setting of our study, suggesting patients are more severely ill, may be one reason for this.

Moreover, we found that ADRs were more likely to affect patients with certain diagnoses. Younger patients with schizophrenia or acute mania had a significantly higher risk for ADRs than older patients with these diagnoses (Table 2). An explanation for this may be in the way these patients are treated: Kleimann et al. previously described remarkably high rates of polypsychopharmacy—defined as the intake of ≥ 4 psychotropic drugs—in patients with acute mania, which declined with higher age [25]. Further, Zolk et al. found that older schizophrenic patients were generally treated with lower doses of APDs [26]. Both aspects (i.e., lower doses, less polypsychopharmacy) may in turn reduce the risk of ADRs in these two diagnostic subgroups.

We found lower median doses in older patients for all drugs with the exception of venlafaxine (no difference between age groups or between patients with and without ADRs), sertraline (lowest dose in older patients with ADRs), and pipamperone (highest median dose in older patients with ADRs; Table 4). Compared to other ADDs, venlafaxine has well-characterized dose-dependent efficacy. Increasing venlafaxine dose to 150 mg yields benefits [27], which appears to be the target dose in both age groups. However, this seems to come at the expense of tolerability, as ADRs are apparently to be expected at this dose. Pipamerone, on the other hand, is voluptously used in geriatric patients [28] presumingly under the assumption that its use for these patients—even at high doses—is safe. Our data suggest, that this is not the case and higher pipamerone doses increase the risk for subsequent ADRs.

In general, we found a higher ADR risk in older patients treated with low potency ADRs than in younger patients (Fig. 3A, Table 3), especially prothipendyl, melperone, chlorprothixene, levomepromazine, and promethazine (Fig. 3B, Table 3). While promethazine’s, chlorprothixene’s, and levomepromazine’s anticholinergic effects (see below) surely contribute to this, melperone and prothipendyl lack this specific effect. Prothipendyl, a frequently used drug in Austrian nursing homes despite its classification as a potentially inappropriate drug, is not available in most European countries to due a higher risk of EPS [4, 29, 30]. A previous AMSP study additionally found a higher risk of cardiovascular ADRs under treatment with prothipendyl, even as a single imputation ADR [31]. Most ADRs imputed a low-potency FGA alongside other drugs, suggesting that pharmacokinetic and additive pharmacodynamic effects are the leading cause for ADRs in this drug group, while the capacity of low-potency FGAs to induce ADRs on their own was relatively low (suppl. Table 6). However, bearing in mind that this study presents relative risks, the absolute risk of ADRs unter treatment with most low-potency FGAs is comparable to or even lower than the ADR risk of other drugs with sedating properties, such as mirtazapine, olanzapine, and trazodone (Fig. 3B, suppl. Table 5).

In older adults, ADRs often present as nonspecific geriatric syndromes such as falls, delirium [32], decreased mobility, cognitive decline [33], and incontinence [12] possibly making them more difficult to accurately identify as drug-induced phenomena [32, 33]. Additionally, cognitive impairment may reduce the patient’s ability to adequately express any drug-related discomfort [34], perhaps explaining why dementia has even been found to decrease the risk of ADRs [13]. This is likely to have significantly contributed to the under-reporting of ADRs in cognitively impaired patients in the present study and emphasizes the importance of careful clinical monitoring, the collection of baseline parameters, and the explicit assessment of drug-related symptoms. Moreover, comorbidities may mask ADRs or be sufficient in themselves to explain a particular symptom. Additionally, certain symptoms, such as severe edema, may appear more alarming, when they occur in younger patients because they are unusual for this age group and are more likely to lack an alternate explanation other than drug-induced. Finally, older patients with conditions such as schizophrenia have most likely been treated with psychotropic drugs for an extended period of time, reducing the likelihood of ADRs that generally emerge early in treatment, whereas long-standing ADRs become more challenging to recognize.

In the present study, we identified age-related differences in the risk of various ADRs. A selection of findings will be discussed in detail below.

Delirium and central anticholinergic effects

Unsurprisingly, we found that older patients had a higher risk of drug-induced delirium (Fig. 1B, Table 3), consistent with the observations reported by Greil et al. [14]. Up to 39% of deliriums in older hospitalized patients are associated with drug use. One of the most concerning drug properties in this regard is a high affinity for antimuscarinic acetylcholine receptors [35]. Central anticholinergic properties may be particularly harmful in older adults, which is why drugs such as amitriptyline, biperiden, and olanzapine are not generally recommended for older patients [4, 5], especially when multiple drugs with anticholinergic properties are combined [34]. Using AMSP data, Friedrich et al. previously found that APDs and ADDs with potent anticholinergic properties, such as TCAs and several SGAs (e.g., clozapine, olanzapine), have a higher propensity to cause drug-induced delirium in psychiatric inpatients. Clozapine and amitriptyline were the psychotropic drugs most frequently associated with drug-induced delirium, and most cases of drug-induced delirium were caused by multiple drugs [18]. In the present study, older patients treated with several drugs with strong anticholinergic properties, such as amitriptyline, trimipramine, levomepromazine, promethazine, chlorprothixene, and biperiden, did indeed have a significantly higher risk of experiencing ADRs than younger patients (Fig. 2B, suppl. Table 5). In both age groups, drug-induced delirium in the present study was often the effect of multiple drugs, indicating that this ADR typically results from pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions. However, older patients were also at higher risk of experiencing delirium imputing a single drug (Fig. 2A, suppl. Table 6 and 7).

Suicidality and serotonergic ADRs

Early warnings by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2004 highlighted the risk of suicidality associated with the use of SSRIs in children, adolescents, and young adults under 25, primarily during the initial stages of treatment [36]. While this rare effect has also been noted in patients above the age of 25 [37, 38], the risk significantly declines with age [37]. This is consistent with our findings indicating only a single instance of this ADR in older patients (Table 3). Although the exact mechanisms of drug-induced suicidality remain elusive, serotonergic activation induced by SSRIs and SNRIs is proposed to significantly contribute [39]. Notably, our study found older patients had an overall higher risk for serotonergic ADRs (including serotonin syndrome; Fig. 1B, Table 3), especially as a multiple imputation ADR (Fig. 2B, suppl. Table 4). Serotonin syndrome, though rare, preferentially affects high-risk patients, i.e., critically ill patients and those with polypharmacy, and often goes unrecognized [40].

Extrapyramidal symptoms

Affecting about 1 in 5 patients [41], EPS are one of the most significant ADRs of treatment with APDs and a major concern in older patients [4, 13]. When systematically analyzed, drug-induced movement disorders occur more frequently in older adults [42]. However, distinguishing new-onset drug-induced EPS from pre-existing movement disorders may pose a challenge [42], increasing the risk that they remain unnoticed [43]. This may in part explain why the overall incidence of EPS in this study did not differ between older and younger patients (Fig. 1A, Table 3). The study by Greil et al. using Swiss AMSP data indicated that the risk for EPS decreases with age, though with limited statistical significance (p < 0.05) [14]. However, in examining a much larger patient collective, we found that individual types of EPS showed age-related effects, which was not previously considered by Greil et al. [14]. The risk for some types of movement disorders, such as acute dystonia and akathisia, was higher in younger patients in the present study (Fig. 1B, Table 3). Indeed, apart from male sex, younger age is a well-known risk factor for acute dystonia [44]. The likelihood of developing akathisia and acute dystonia increases with the use of high doses and rapid titration strategies and is highest when antipsychotic treatment is first initiated, all of which may affect younger patients more often [44, 45].

On the other hand, this study found that the risk for other types of EPS was higher in older patients (i.e., parkinsonism, Pisa/metronome syndrome; Fig. 1B, Table 3) and EPS among older patients were more likely to result in death (4 out of 5 fatal EPS cases; Table 6). Parkinsonism occurs in up to 50% of older patients treated with APDs and up to 67% of those with dementia [46] and often occurs even when APDs are used at lower than usual doses [42]. An earlier analysis of severe parkinsonism using AMSP data found that pre-existing organic brain damage (such as dementia) is a relevant risk factor for APD-induced parkinsonism and that high-potency FGAs expectably have an expectably higher risk than SGAs or low-potency FGAs [47]. Further, both older age and organic brain damage are known risk factors for Pisa syndrome and the related condition, metronome syndrome, which can emerge either acutely or after prolonged exposure to APDs [48, 49].

Seizures

In the present study, younger patients had a significantly higher risk for drug-induced seizures than older patients (Fig. 1B, Table 3). Druschky et al., who analyzed the occurrence of APD-induced seizures within the AMSP database over a slightly shorter time period (i.e., 1993 to 2015) found that young men with schizophrenia were most at risk for this ADR. The by far highest risk of seizures was found for clozapine, with a comparatively low rate for risperidone [50], an APD with high use among older patients [26]. ADD-associated seizures are rare, but seem to particulary be associated with the use of TCAs and tend to affect younger men and patients suffering from schizophrenia [51]. While certain risk factors for drug-induced seizures, such as higher doses [52], are presumably more prevalent in younger patients, other significant risk factors, such as somatic comorbidities [53], pre-existing brain damage, and EEG abnormalities [52], are more common in older adults. But again, the co-occurrence of these risk factors may make it more difficult to definitively attribute a seizure to drug use, resulting in an only “possible” probability rating for the involvement of a psychotropic drug among older patients.

Liver dysfunction

Our results suggest that the risk for elevated transaminases is higher in younger patients (Fig. 1). Liver injury associated with APDs is most often associated with olanzapine, followed by perazine and clozapine [16], therefore providing one explanation for the overall higher risk of ADRs under olanzapine and clozapine in younger patients (Fig. 2A, suppl. Table 5). Drug-induced liver injury caused by ADDs most commonly implicate mianserine and agomelatine [54]. Greil et al. also suggested a higher risk of psychotropic-drug induced liver dysfunction in younger patients, though the effect was statistically weak (p < 0.05) [14]. Whether age is a susceptibility factor for drug-induced liver injury appears to be drug-specific. However, persistent liver injury is appears to be more common with higher age [55].

Sexual dysfunction, galactorrhea/hyperprolactinemia, and weight gain

The present study found only one case of an ADR presenting with genital dysfunction in older patients, making it one of the main ADRs that are significantly more common in younger patients (Fig. 1A, Table 3). In general, the prevalence of sexual dysfunction increases with age [56] and in the presence of comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, and benign prostatic hyperplasia [57], making it more difficult to identify drug-induced effects. Moreover, this often shame-filled ADR is significantly under-reported [58], especially among older patients [59].

Similarly, symptomatic prolactin elevation and events of galactorrhea were significantly less common in older patients (Fig. 1B, Table 3), as was also found in the earlier publication of Greil et al. [14]. Amenorrhea, a possible symptom of hyperprolactinemia, is expected to occur only in premenopausal women, but breast tissue growth, galactorrhea, or sexual dysfunction may still affect older adults [60]. The clinical implications of elevated prolactin in older adults may also be less apparent. For example, (chronic) hyperprolactinemia is associated with osteoporosis [61] and certain types of breast cancer [62], both of which are complex conditions difficult to causally attribute to drug use. Previous studies suggest the prevalence of hyperprolactinemia is indeed higher in premenopausal (53–65.6%) than postmenopausal women (32–45.1%) [63, 64]. However, the risk detected in the present study is significantly lower, as only severe case with acute symptoms are included. Apart from amisulpride, risperidone has a particularly high propensity to cause hyperprolactinema [17]. Risperidone is also one of the most commonly used APDs in older patients [26], suggesting this ADR should be more common. However, the dose-dependency of hyperprolactinemia [65] may mitigante this effect, as older patients—even those with ADRs—were treated with lower median doses of risperidone (Table 4).

Weight gain is often a primary concern in patients treated with psychotropic drugs Consistent with the findings of Greil et al. [14] as well as other authors [66, 67], our study found that the risk for psychotropic drug-induced weight gain was significantly higher in younger patients (Fig. 1B, Table 3). Using AMSP data, Schneider et al. previously reported that olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, mirtazapine, and valproate were among the drugs most often associated with psychotropic drug-induced weight gain [15]. The higher propensity of these four drugs to cause this ADR may explain their higher ADR risk in younger patients in this study. Additionally, younger patients in the present study were treated with higher median doses of quetiapine, valproate, and risperidone, contributing to the risk of weight gain, which appears to have dose-dependent effects [68].

Cardiovascular adverse reactions

Cardiovascular ADRs are a major concern in older patients. The relevance of this ADR type is underlined by the 3 fatal cases of cardiovascular ADRs among older patients detected in the present study (Table 6). Because of their affinity for α1-adrengic receptors, APDs can cause hypotension [69]. In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that APDs, along with α-blockers and sodium–glucose-cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors, were the most common drug classes associated with orthostatic hypotension [70]. The risk of hypotension further increases when psychotropic drugs are used in combination with antihypertensive drugs, such as diuretics or β-blockers, or other psychotropic drugs [31, 71, 72]. Our study found that cardiovascular ADRs in older adults often imputed multiple drugs, whereas cardiovascular ADRs in younger patients often imputed a single drug (Fig. 2A). This is most likely due to a lower utilization of antihypertensive drugs in younger patients.

Hyponatremia

Among the ADRs examined in this study, hyponatremia was one of the ADRs with the highest risk (i.e., 3.7-fold) for older compared to younger patients (Fig. 1B, Table 3), also explaining the higher risk of ADRs in older patients treated with SSRIs, and even more so with SNRIs (Fig. 2A, suppl. Table 2). Using AMSP data, Seifert et al. previously described that older patients, particularly women ≥ 65 years of age treated with SNRIs and other potentially hyponatremia-inducing drugs, were the most vulnerable patient group for this ADR [19]. Among psychotropic drugs, SSRIs and SNRIs are best known for their propensity to cause this ADR, especially at the beginning of treatment and, therefore, even at lower doses [19]. This potentially explains the lowest sertraline dose in older patients with ADRs (Table 4). The risk for hyponatremia increases when SSRI and SNRI are used in combination with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics, and proton pump inhibitors [19, 73, 74], inducing additive pharmacodynamic effects [19, 75]. However, the risk for hyponatremia associated with single psychotropic drug, did not differ between the two age groups (Fig. 2B, suppl. Table 3).

Falls

We found that older patients had a sixfold higher risk of falls as an ADR compared to younger patients (Fig. 1B, Table 3). As falls are a common occurrence with a 2-year prevalence of 36% of patients aged ≥ 65 years [76] and psychotropic drug use indisputably contributes to this risk [7], this was to be expected. It is difficult to determine which psychotropic drugs carry the greatest risk of falls. It appears, however, that long-acting benzodiazepines and SSRIs may pose a particular risk [7]. The present study found drug-induced falls, especially in older patients, imputed multiple drugs significantly more often than a single drug (Fig. 2B, suppl. Tables 3 and 4), suggesting that psychodynamic drug–drug interactions are a relevant contributor to this ADR.

Strengths and limitations

AMSP is a structured pharmacovigilance program with an established methodology that assesses drug safety in the “real world” psychiatric inpatient setting. As clinical trials often exclude older patients and patients with polypharmacy, pharmacovigilance systems such as AMSP are indispensable for assessing ADRs in this population. Further, because data is collected in a uniform manner and ADRs are carefully analyzed by multiple drug safety expert teams prior to their inclusion in the AMSP database, AMSP has a high accuracy of correct causal attribution of drugs involved in the respected ADRs.

Nevertheless, the present study has several limitations that must be discussed. Firstly, AMSP is not an RCT, limiting the reliability of evidence. Several studies using AMSP data have highlighted changing drug utilization trends over time [77, 78], alongside regional drug utilization trends and regional drug availability. While hospitals from Germany and Switzerland contributed to AMSP as of 1993, Austria has been participating since 2001. Due to the database structure, it is not possible to distinguish whether a patient experienced multiple ADRs. Next to a detailed assessment of a patient’s drug use, the epidemiologic data on patients under surveillance gathered by AMSP only includes a limited amount of information (i.e., diagnoses, age, sex). Underreporting of ADRs is likely as physicians who serve as drug monitors generally do this alongside their clinical work. Therefore reporting of ADRs is subjective to their personal time, motivation, as well as the financial resources of the participating hospital. This may also contribute to an individual and/or institutional bias: ADRs occurring in patients treated with drugs better known for their potentially severe ADRs (e.g., TCAs for their delirogenic potential) may be more frequently detected and/or documented. ADRs may also be more difficult to detect in elderly patients, especially in those suffering from dementia due to their reduced ability to adequately report symptoms, resulting in falsely low ADR rates within this patient population.

Conclusion and clinical implications

The present study indicates that the risk of several types of psychotropic drug-induced ADRs, such as hyponatremia, delirium, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and galactorrhea, shows age-dependent effects. Drugs which are often considered relatively “harmless”, such as SSRI, SNRI, and low potency FGAs, are associated with a significantly higher risk of ADRs in older patients compared to younger patients. Clinicians should be aware of age-dependent risk factors for ADRs and proactively monitor patients, starting with a baseline assessment. Regularly including (clinical) pharmacists in the treatment of inpatients has proven a promising approach in reducing drug-related problems in mental health care [79]. Additionally, tools such as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) are invaluable in guiding appropriate dosing, especially in patients with somatic diseases, such as renal or hepatic failure, polypharmacy, or a history of ADRs, in order to lower the risk for (dose-dependent) ADRs. Pharmacogenetic testing may also present a unique opportunity to further individualize drug treatment, thus optimizing drug safety.

Availability of data and materials

Data on an individual level generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to data protection regulations and ethical considerations. Summarized data on the prevalence of ADRs and drug use relevant to the present study is provided in the tables and supplementary material of this manuscript.

Abbreviations

ACE:

Angiotensin-converting enzyme

ADD:

Antidepressant drug

AED:

Antiepileptic drug

ADR:

Adverse drug reaction

AMSP:

Drug Safety in Psychiatry (German: “Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie”)

AParkD:

Antiparkinson drug

APD:

Antipsychotic drug

CI:

Confidence interval

EPS:

Extrapyramidal symptoms

FGA:

First-generation antipsychotic drug

hp:

High potency

HYPD:

Hypnotic drug

lp:

Low potency

SGA:

Second-generation antipsychotic drug

SNRI:

Selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor

SSRI:

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

TCA:

Tricyclic antidepressant drug

TRD:

Tranquilizing drug

w/:

With

w/o:

Without

NaSSA:

Noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant

MNS:

Malignant neuroleptic syndrome

N:

Number (of)

d:

Day

Min.:

Mininmum

Max.:

Maximum

df:

Degrees of freedom

ICD-10:

International Classification of Disease, 10th Version

References

  1. Organization WH. World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Guillot J, Maumus-Robert S, Bezin J. Polypharmacy: a general review of definitions, descriptions and determinants. Therapie. 2020;75(5):407–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mimica Matanović S, Vlahovic-Palcevski V. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: a comprehensive protocol. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;68(8):1123–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mann NK, Mathes T, Sönnichsen A, Pieper D, Klager E, Moussa M, et al. Potentially inadequate medications in the elderly: PRISCUS 2.0—first update of the PRISCUS list. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2023;120:3–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Panel BtAGSBCUE. American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(7):2052–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wojt IR, Cairns R, Clough AJ, Tan ECK. The prevalence and characteristics of psychotropic-related hospitalizations in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(6):1206-14.e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Seppala LJ, Wermelink A, de Vries M, Ploegmakers KJ, van de Glind EMM, Daams JG, et al. Fall-risk-increasing drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis: II. Psychotropics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(4):371.e11-371.e17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1255–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jennings ELM, Murphy KD, Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. In-hospital adverse drug reactions in older adults; prevalence, presentation and associated drugs-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2020;49(6):948–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pollock BG. Primum non nocere: prescription of potentially inappropriate psychotropic medications to older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(2):186–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaeding M, Schmälter J, Klika C. Pharmacovigilance in the European Union: practical implementation across member states. Springer Nature; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Long SJ, Brown KF, Ames D, Vincent C. What is known about adverse events in older medical hospital inpatients? A systematic review of the literature. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25(5):542–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heck J, Noltemeyer N, Schulze Westhoff M, Deest-Gaubatz S, Schröder S, Krichevsky B, et al. Adverse drug reactions in geriatric psychiatry-retrospective cohort study of a 6-year period. Ir J Med Sci. 2023;192(6):2917–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Greil W, Häberle A, Schuhmann T, Grohmann R, Baumann P. Age and adverse drug reactions from psychopharmacological treatment: data from the AMSP drug surveillance programme in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2013;143: w13772.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schneider M, Pauwels P, Toto S, Bleich S, Grohmann R, Heinze M, et al. Severe weight gain as an adverse drug reaction of psychotropics: data from the AMSP project between 2001 and 2016. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020;36:60–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Druschky K, Toto S, Bleich S, Baumgärtner J, Engel RR, Grohmann R, et al. Severe drug-induced liver injury in patients under treatment with antipsychotic drugs: data from the AMSP study. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2021;22(5):373–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Glocker C, Grohmann R, Engel R, Seifert J, Bleich S, Stübner S, et al. Galactorrhea during antipsychotic treatment: results from AMSP, a drug surveillance program, between 1993 and 2015. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2021;271:1425–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedrich ME, Grohmann R, Rabl U, Winkler D, Konstantinidis A, Engel R, et al. Incidence of drug-induced delirium during treatment with antidepressants or antipsychotics: a drug surveillance report of german-speaking countries between 1993 and 2016. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;25(7):556–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Seifert J, Letmaier M, Greiner T, Schneider M, Deest M, Eberlein CK, et al. Psychotropic drug-induced hyponatremia: results from a drug surveillance program-an update. J Neural Transm. 2021;128(8):1249–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grohmann R, Engel RR, Ruether E, Hippius H. The AMSP drug safety program: methods and global results. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2004;37:S4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grohmann R, Engel RR, Möller HJ, Rüther E, van der Velden JW, Stübner S. Flupentixol use and adverse reactions in comparison with other common first- and second-generation antipsychotics: data from the AMSP study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014;264(2):131–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Orimo H, Ito H, Suzuki T, Araki A, Hosoi T, Sawabe M. Reviewing the definition of “elderly.” Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2006;6(3):149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Corsonello A, Pedone C, Incalzi RA. Age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes and related risk of adverse drug reactions. Curr Med Chem. 2010;17(6):571–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dubrall D, Just KS, Schmid M, Stingl JC, Sachs B. Adverse drug reactions in older adults: a retrospective comparative analysis of spontaneous reports to the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2020;21(1):25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kleimann A, Schrader V, Stübner S, Greil W, Kahl KG, Bleich S, et al. Psychopharmacological treatment of 1650 in-patients with acute mania-data from the AMSP study. J Affect Disord. 2016;191:164–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zolk O, Greiner T, Schneider M, Heinze M, Dahling V, Ramin T, et al. Antipsychotic drug treatment of schizophrenia in later life: results from the European cross-sectional AMSP study. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(5):374–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Cowen PJ, Leucht S, Egger M, Salanti G. Optimal dose of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine in major depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Focus. 2020;18(2):211–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Oberhofer E. Psychopharmaka in Altenheimen zu sorglos eingesetzt? Geriatrie-Report. 2018;13(4):9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mann E, Köpke S, Haastert B, Pitkälä K, Meyer G. Psychotropic medication use among nursing home residents in Austria: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2009;9(1):18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mann E, Haastert B, Frühwald T, Sauermann R, Hinteregger M, Hölzl D, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication in older persons in Austria: A nationwide prevalence study. European Geriatric Medicine. 2014;5(6):399–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Friedrich ME, Winkler D, Konstantinidis A, Huf W, Engel R, Toto S, et al. Cardiovascular adverse reactions during antipsychotic treatment: results of amsp, a drug surveillance program between 1993 and 2013. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020;23(2):67–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hilmer SN, Gnjidic D. The effects of polypharmacy in older adults. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85(1):86–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hernández MH, Mestres C, Modamio P, Junyent J, Costa-Tutusaus L, Lastra CF, et al. Adverse drug events in patients with dementia and neuropsychiatric/behavioral, and psychological symptoms, a one-year prospective study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mintzer J, Burns A. Anticholinergic side-effects of drugs in elderly people. J R Soc Med. 2000;93(9):457–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Catic AG. Identification and management of in-hospital drug-induced delirium in older patients. Drugs Aging. 2011;28(9):737–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Newman TB. A black-box warning for antidepressants in children? N Engl J Med. 2004;351(16):1595–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stone M, Laughren T, Jones ML, Levenson M, Holland PC, Hughes A, et al. Risk of suicidality in clinical trials of antidepressants in adults: analysis of proprietary data submitted to US Food and Drug Administration. BMJ. 2009;339: b2880.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Stübner S, Grohmann R, Greil W, Zhang X, Müller-Oerlinghausen B, Bleich S, et al. Suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior as rare adverse events of antidepressant medication: current report from the AMSP multicenter drug safety surveillance project. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2018;21(9):814–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Amitai M, Chen A, Weizman A, Apter A. SSRI-induced activation syndrome in children and adolescents—what is next? Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry. 2015;2(1):28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Spadaro A, Scott KR, Koyfman A, Long B. High risk and low prevalence diseases: Serotonin syndrome. Am J Emerg Med. 2022;61:90–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ali T, Sisay M, Tariku M, Mekuria AN, Desalew A. Antipsychotic-induced extrapyramidal side effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9): e0257129.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Saltz BL, Robinson DG, Woerner MG. Recognizing and managing antipsychotic drug treatment side effects in the elderly. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;6(Suppl 2):14–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. López-Sendón JL, Mena MA, de Yébenes JG. Drug-induced parkinsonism in the elderly: incidence, management and prevention. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(2):105–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. van Harten PN, Hoek HW, Kahn RS. Acute dystonia induced by drug treatment. BMJ. 1999;319(7210):623–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Lohr JB, Eidt CA, Abdulrazzaq Alfaraj A, Soliman MA. The clinical challenges of akathisia. CNS Spectr. 2015;20(Suppl 1):1–14 (quiz 5-6).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Estevez-Fraga C, Zeun P, López-Sendón Moreno JL. Current methods for the treatment and prevention of drug-induced parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia in the elderly. Drugs Aging. 2018;35(11):959–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Druschky K, Bleich S, Grohmann R, Engel RR, Toto S, Neyazi A, et al. Severe parkinsonism under treatment with antipsychotic drugs. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;270(1):35–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Suzuki T, Matsuzaka H. Drug-induced Pisa syndrome (pleurothotonus): epidemiology and management. CNS Drugs. 2002;16(3):165–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Stübner S, Padberg F, Grohmann R, Hampel H, Hollweg M, Hippius H, et al. Pisa syndrome (pleurothotonus): report of a multicenter drug safety surveillance project. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(8):569–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Druschky K, Bleich S, Grohmann R, Engel RR, Neyazi A, Stübner S, et al. Seizure rates under treatment with antipsychotic drugs: data from the AMSP project. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2019;20(9):732–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Köster M, Grohmann R, Engel RR, Nitsche MA, Rüther E, Degner D. Seizures during antidepressant treatment in psychiatric inpatients–results from the transnational pharmacovigilance project “Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie” (AMSP) 1993–2008. Psychopharmacology. 2013;230(2):191–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Arana GW. An overview of side effects caused by typical antipsychotics. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(Suppl 8):5–11 (discussion 2-3).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Thundiyil JG, Rowley F, Papa L, Olson KR, Kearney TE. Risk factors for complications of drug-induced seizures. J Med Toxicol. 2011;7(1):16–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Friedrich M-E, Akimova E, Huf W, Konstantinidis A, Papageorgiou K, Winkler D, et al. Drug-induced liver injury during antidepressant treatment: results of AMSP, a drug surveillance program. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016;19(4):pyv126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Chalasani NP, Maddur H, Russo MW, Wong RJ, Reddy KR. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury. Off J Am College Gastroenterol ACG. 2021;116(5):878–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Valeiro C, Matos C, Scholl J, van Hunsel F. Drug-induced sexual dysfunction: an analysis of reports to a national pharmacovigilance database. Drug Saf. 2022;45(6):639–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pellegrino F, Sjoberg DD, Tin AL, Benfante NE, Briganti A, Montorsi F, et al. Relationship between age, comorbidity, and the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9(1):162–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Trenque T, Maura G, Herlem E, Vallet C, Sole E, Auriche P, et al. Reports of sexual disorders related to serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the French pharmacovigilance database: an example of underreporting. Drug Saf. 2013;36(7):515–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Slack P, Aziz VM. Sexuality and sexual dysfunctions in older people: a forgotten problem. BJPsych Advances. 2020;26(3):173–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Torre DL, Falorni A. Pharmacological causes of hyperprolactinemia. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007;3(5):929–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. González-Rodríguez A, Labad J, Seeman MV. Antipsychotic-induced Hyperprolactinemia in aging populations: Prevalence, implications, prevention and management. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020;101: 109941.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Taipale H, Solmi M, Lähteenvuo M, Tanskanen A, Correll CU, Tiihonen J. Antipsychotic use and risk of breast cancer in women with schizophrenia: a nationwide nested case-control study in Finland. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(10):883–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kinon BJ, Liu-Seifert H, Stauffer VL, Jacob J. Bone loss associated with hyperprolactinemia in patients with schizophrenia. Clin Schizophr Relat Psychoses. 2013;7(3):115–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pigato G, Piazzon G, Di Florio A, Ermani M, Toffanin T, Perini G. Early hyperprolactinaemia in acute psychiatric inpatients: a cross-sectional study. J Psychopathol. 2015;21(3):226–30.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ajmal A, Joffe H, Nachtigall LB. Psychotropic-induced hyperprolactinemia: a clinical review. Psychosomatics. 2014;55(1):29–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Muntané G, Vázquez-Bourgon J, Sada E, Martorell L, Papiol S, Bosch E, et al. Polygenic risk scores enhance prediction of body mass index increase in individuals with a first episode of psychosis. Eur Psychiatry. 2023;66(1): e28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Gebhardt S, Haberhausen M, Heinzel-Gutenbrunner M, Gebhardt N, Remschmidt H, Krieg JC, et al. Antipsychotic-induced body weight gain: predictors and a systematic categorization of the long-term weight course. J Psychiatr Res. 2009;43(6):620–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wu H, Siafis S, Hamza T, Schneider-Thoma J, Davis JM, Salanti G, et al. Antipsychotic-induced weight gain: dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Schizophr Bull. 2022;48(3):643–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Proudman RGW, Pupo AS, Baker JG. The affinity and selectivity of α-adrenoceptor antagonists, antidepressants, and antipsychotics for the human α1A, α1B, and α1D-adrenoceptors. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2020;8(4): e00602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Bhanu C, Nimmons D, Petersen I, Orlu M, Davis D, Hussain H, et al. Drug-induced orthostatic hypotension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med. 2021;18(11): e1003821.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Gugger JJ. Antipsychotic pharmacotherapy and orthostatic hypotension. CNS Drugs. 2011;25(8):659–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Spindelegger CJ, Papageorgiou K, Grohmann R, Engel R, Greil W, Konstantinidis A, et al. Cardiovascular adverse reactions during antidepressant treatment: a drug surveillance report of german-speaking countries between 1993 and 2010. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;18(4):pyu080.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Rosner MH. Severe hyponatremia associated with the combined use of thiazide diuretics and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Am J Med Sci. 2004;327(2):109–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Mannesse CK, Jansen PA, Van Marum RJ, Sival RC, Kok RM, Haffmans PM, et al. Characteristics, prevalence, risk factors, and underlying mechanism of hyponatremia in elderly patients treated with antidepressants: a cross-sectional study. Maturitas. 2013;76(4):357–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Montastruc F, Sommet A, Bondon-Guitton E, Durrieu G, Bui E, Bagheri H, et al. The importance of drug–drug interactions as a cause of adverse drug reactions: a pharmacovigilance study of serotoninergic reuptake inhibitors in France. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;68(5):767–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Cigolle CT, Ha J, Min LC, Lee PG, Gure TR, Alexander NB, et al. The epidemiologic data on falls, 1998–2010: more older Americans report falling. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(3):443–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Seifert J, Engel RR, Bernegger X, Führmann F, Bleich S, Stübner S, et al. Time trends in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder: results from the AMSP pharmacovigilance program from 2001–2017. J Affect Disord. 2021;281:547–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Toto S, Grohmann R, Bleich S, Frieling H, Maier HB, Greil W, et al. Psychopharmacological treatment of schizophrenia over time in 30 908 inpatients: data from the AMSP study. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019;22(9):560–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Stuhec M, Batinic B. Clinical pharmacist interventions in the transition of care in a mental health hospital: case reports focused on the medication reconciliation process. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1263464.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Chew ML, Mulsant BH, Pollock BG, Lehman ME, Greenspan A, Mahmoud RA, et al. Anticholinergic activity of 107 medications commonly used by older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(7):1333–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participating hospitals and drug monitors for their contributions.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JS, CG: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revision of the manuscript. MAR, SB, AE, WG, ST: interpretation of data, revision of the manuscript. RG: data extraction, analysis and interpretation of data, revision of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johanna Seifert.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics Committee of the University of Munich and Hannover Medical School (Nr. 8100_BO_S_2018) have approved analyses using the AMSP database. This study adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Due to its observational nature, AMSP does not interfere with the ongoing treatment of the patients under surveillance.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

SB, RG, and ST are project managers of the AMSP program. ST is a member of the advisory board for Otsuka and Janssen-Cilag and has received speaker´s honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Lundbeck/Otsuka, Recordati Pharma GmbH, ROVI GmbH, and Servier. JS has participated in educational events sponsored by Otsuka/Lundbeck. AE is a member of advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Idorsia, and Recordati and has received speaker’s honoraria from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Germania, Idorsia, Janssen, Lundbeck, Mylan, Neuraxpharm, Recordati, Rovi, and Sandoz. All other authors state they have no conflicts of interest to declare. The research presented in this manuscript did not receive any specific grants or funding. The AMSP drug safety project is facilitated by non-profit associations in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The AMSP project has been supported with unrestricted educational and research grants since 1993 by the following companies: German companies: Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Aristo Pharma, AstraZeneca GmbH, Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH GE–O/R/N, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Ciba Geigy GmbH, Desitin Arzneimittel GmbH, Duphar Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Eisai GmbH, Esparma GmbH Arzneimittel, GlaxoSmithKline Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Hoffmann-La Roche AG Medical Affairs, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Janssen Research Foundation, Knoll Deutschland GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH Niederlassung Bad Homburg, Lundbeck GmbH & Co. KG, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nordmark Arzneimittel GmbH, Organon GmbH, Otsuka-Pharma Frankfurt, Pfizer GmbH, Pharmacia & Upjohn GmbH, Promonta Lundbeck Arzneimittel, Recordati Pharma GmbH, Rhone-Poulenc Rohrer, ROVI GmbH, Sanofi-Synthelabo GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Schering AG, SmithKlineBeecham Pharma GmbH, Solvay Arzneimittel GmbH, Synthelabo Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr. Wilmar Schwabe GmbH & Co., Thiemann Arzneimittel GmbH, Troponwerke GmbH & Co. KG, Upjohn GmbH, Wander Pharma GmbH, and Wyeth-Pharma GmbH. Austrian companies: Astra Zeneca Österreich GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim Austria, Bristol-Myers Squibb GmbH, CSC Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Eli Lilly GmbH, Germania Pharma GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline Pharma GmbH, Janssen-Cilag Pharma GmbH, Lundbeck GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Med Inform, and Wyeth Lederle Pharma GmbH. Swiss companies: AHP (Schweiz) AG, AstraZeneca AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb AG, Desitin Pharma GmbH, Eli Lilly (Suisse) S.A., Essex Chemie AG, GlaxoSmithKline AG, Janssen-Cilag AG, Lundbeck (Suisse) AG, Organon AG, Pfizer AG, Pharmacia, Sanofi-Aventis (Suisse) S.A., Sanofi-Synthelabo SA, Servier SA, SmithKlineBeecham AG, Solvay Pharma AG, Wyeth AHP (Suisse) AG, and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals AG.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seifert, J., Reinhard, M.A., Bleich, S. et al. Psychotropic drug-induced adverse drug reactions in 462,661 psychiatric inpatients in relation to age: results from a German drug surveillance program from 1993–2016. Ann Gen Psychiatry 23, 47 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12991-024-00530-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12991-024-00530-0

Keywords