Prevalence of Psychotropic Use and Psychotropic Polypharmacy in a Finnish National Cohort of Persons With Intellectual Disabilities.

The study is cross-sectional, so it describes associations at one time point and cannot show that intellectual disability caused psychotropic prescribing or that any medication helped. The registers did not record why each prescription was given; indications were inferred from diagnoses and refund entitlements, so some prescriptions may have been for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, or another reason. Some people with milder intellectual disability may be missing if they were not diagnosed or did not receive disability benefits. Polypharmacy was counted only across different psychotropic drug groups, and the data could not separate adding a drug from switching between drugs. Half of psychotropic users had no recorded psychiatric diagnosis or challenging behaviour, but incomplete records and difficulties in diagnosis mean this cannot be read as proof of inappropriate prescribing.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest, and the funding section says the authors have nothing to report. One author reported research funding paid through their institution outside this study from the European Commission HORIZON EU programme, the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's research, the European Medicines Agency, and Amgen.

Do not read the high prevalence of psychotropic use as proof that these medicines are inappropriate or should be stopped. The study did not measure treatment benefit, adverse events, or true prescribing reasons, and many users had psychiatric comorbidity or challenging behaviour.