Acute Antipsychotic Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Schizophrenia-Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Editorial: Making Use of What We Know: Medical Decision-Making and Antipsychotics

Minimizing the duration of untreated psychosis and providing comprehensive early intervention including the use of antipsychotics reflects best practice in the treatment of first-episode psychosis (FEP).¹ The adverse effects of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are well known, namely, weight gain, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia that are associated with an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Youth appear to be more vulnerable to deleterious cardiometabolic effects than adults.² Child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) treating FEP have an ethical duty to carefully select an effective antipsychotic medication, being cognizant of the metabolic profile of the considered SGAs and of the likelihood of prolonged antipsychotic exposure. Which is the "right" antipsychotic medication for the young person in front of me? What is known about the adverse effects of available antipsychotics and how do they compare to each other, not just to placebo? Does information exist to help me anticipate whether my patient is more or less susceptible to adverse cardiometabolic effects?

Association of dopamine D2 receptor gene polymorphisms with prolactin levels related to risperidone treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Dopamine D₂ receptor (DRD2) polymorphisms are inconsistently associated with elevated prolactin levels related to risperidone treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether DRD2 polymorphisms could modulate prolactin levels in patients treated with risperidone.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched for studies investigating the effect of DRD2 polymorphisms on prolactin levels in patients treated with risperidone until May 2018. Summary standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with Hedges' g tests for effect estimates using random effects models. The heterogeneity, sensitivity, univariable meta-regression, subgroup analyses and publication biases were calculated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

After initially identifying 886 studies, 772 patients from eight studies were included. Summary SMDs indicated that compared with A1 non-carriers, Taq1A A1 carriers did not have different risperidone-related prolactin levels (SMD: 0.13; 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.43; P = 0.423) among patients with schizophrenia (SCZ; SMD: 0.07; 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.29; P = 0.505) or among those without SCZ (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.71; P = 0.562). There was no significant difference between Del carriers and Del non-carriers with regard to risperidone-related prolactin levels (SMD: -0.00; 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.58; P = 0.996). In an Asian subgroup analysis, we also noted that compared with Taq1A A1A2 carriers, Taq1A A1A1 carriers had lower prolactin levels (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.02; P = 0.040). However, there was no significant difference in prolactin levels between A1A1 carriers and A2A2 carriers (SMD: -0.27; 95% CI: -0.60 to 0.05; P = 0.098), or between A2 carriers and A2 non-carriers (SMD: 0.29; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.59; P = 0.059). Based on univariable meta-regression analyses, the effects of publication year, study design, ethnicity, comparison groups and study quality could bias the identified association of DRD2 Taq1A with risperidone-related prolactin levels.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between Taq1A A1 carriers and non-A1 carriers with regard to risperidone-related prolactin levels. As there were few A1 homozygotes, large prospective studies with robust designs are still needed to investigate whether A1A1 could affect risperidone-related prolactin levels in the Asian population.

The evidence-based choice for antipsychotics in children and adolescents should be guaranteed

PURPOSE

Drug use in the pediatric population still often features off-label prescriptions, particularly for psychotropic drugs. We reviewed the registration status, scientific evidence, and recommendations from the guidelines for antipsychotics used for psychiatric disorders in children.

METHODS

Antipsychotic drugs marketed in Italy, the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) were identified with the ATC Classification System. The licensing status and Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) were taken from the national formularies. We analyzed reviews and guidelines on antipsychotics use in children and adolescents in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases.

RESULTS

Out of 67 drugs, 19 were marketed with a pediatric license in at least one country: three in all the selected countries, and only paliperidone with the same indications. Haloperidol was the only antipsychotic authorized for autism in Italy and the UK, and as well as risperidone and aripiprazole in the US. Aripiprazole and paliperidone were licensed in all three countries for schizophrenia. Aripiprazole was licensed for bipolar disorders in all three countries. Haloperidol was licensed for Tourette syndrome in Italy and the UK, and pimozide and aripiprazole in the US. We retrieved 21 pertinent reviews and 13 guidelines for the management of neuropsychiatric disorders in pediatrics. There was a complete overlap between the authorized therapeutic indications and the available scientific evidence for autism in the US, for conduct disorders and bipolar disorders in the UK, and for Tourette syndrome and tics in the UK and Italy.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the different regulatory processes that deny to many children and adolescents the most appropriate and rational antipsychotic therapy.

The development of monoaminergic neurotransmitter systems in childhood and adolescence

Brain maturation extends throughout adolescence well into early adulthood. Knowledge on developmental changes is crucial for age-appropriate pharmacotherapy. This article reviews data on maturational processes with a focus on the noradrenergic, dopaminergic, and serotonergic neurotransmitter systems.The literature was searched with a focus on studies in humans. However, since data in humans are limited animal studies were also included. All reviewed neurotransmitter systems show age-related development processes that differentiate child and adolescent brain function from those of adult brains. Unfortunately, the state of knowledge surrounding development-related changes remains sufficiently sparse, There is a high need for more studies on pediatric psychopharmacology and its biological underpinnings. Safety and efficacy of psychopharmacological medicines cannot be readily extrapolated from adults.

Meta-Review: Network Meta-Analyses in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) are gaining traction as the preferred method for evidence synthesis of intervention studies. This review aimed to summarize the basics of NMAs and conduct a meta-review of available NMAs on the treatment of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders by appraising their quality.

METHOD

PubMed (Medline), PsycInfo, Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Knowledge were systematically searched (last update January 9, 2018). The quality of each included NMA was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the PRISMA-NMA checklist, which includes specific items for NMAs.

RESULTS

Eighteen NMAs (6 on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; 4 on psychotic disorders; 2 on depression; 2 on anxiety disorders; 1 on obsessive-compulsive disorder; 1 on disruptive behavior disorder, 1 on bipolar disorder, and 1 on antipsychotics across disorders) were retrieved. Results from the AMSTAR-2 assessment showed that only 27% of appraised NMAs were rated as moderate quality; most were rated as low (33%) or critically low (40%) quality. Only 3 of the appraised NMAs reported on all PRISMA-NMA items specific for NMAs; the network structure was graphically presented in most NMAs (80%), and inconsistency was described in only 47%.

CONCLUSION

Given the paucity of head-to-head trials in child and adolescent psychiatry, NMAs have the potential to contribute to the field, because they provide evidence-based hierarchies for treatment decision making, even in the absence of trials directly comparing at least 2 treatments. However, because of important limitations in the included NMAs, additional methodologically sound NMAs are needed to inform future guidelines and clinical practice in child and adolescent psychiatry.

Twenty years of progress in paediatric psychopharmacology: accomplishments and unmet needs

The systematic assessment of the efficacy and safety of psychiatric medications in children and adolescents started about 20 years ago. Since then, a considerable number of randomised clinical trials have been conducted, including also a series of publicly funded comparative effectiveness studies to evaluate the therapeutic benefit of medications relative to psychosocial interventions, alone or combined with medications. On the whole, these studies have been informative of the paediatric pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of the most commonly used psychotropics. As a consequence, a number of meta-analyses have been conducted that have documented both the benefits and harms of the most common medication groups, such as stimulants, antidepressants and antipsychotics. Evidence-based practice guidelines have been produced, and clinicians can now better estimate the therapeutic value and the risk of treatment, at least at the group mean level. However, most clinical trials have been conducted in research settings, and this limits the generalisability of the results. There is a need for evaluating treatment effects under usual practice conditions, through practical trials. The ongoing debate about the proper role of pharmacotherapy in child mental health can be advanced by comparative effectiveness research to assess the benefit/risk ratio of pharmacotherapy vis-à-vis alternative treatment modalities. In addition, analyses of large population databases can better inform on the impact of early treatment on important distal outcomes, such as interpersonal functioning, social and occupational status, quality of life and risk for disability or mortality. Thus far, paediatric psychopharmacology has been mostly the application to children of medications that were serendipitously discovered and developed for adults. By focusing on the neurobiological mechanisms of child psychopathology, it may be possible to identify more precise pharmacological targets and arrive at a truly developmental psychopharmacology.

Dilemmas in the treatment of early-onset first-episode psychosis

Early-onset first-episode psychosis (EOP) is a severe mental disorder that can pose a number of challenges to clinicians, young people and their families. Its assessment and differentiation from other neurodevelopmental and mental health conditions may at times be difficult, its treatment may not always lead to optimal outcomes and can be associated with significant side effects, and its long-term course and prognosis seem to be less favourable compared with the adult-onset disorder. In this paper, we discuss some dilemmas associated with the evaluation and management of EOP and propose approaches that can be used in the clinical decision-making process. A detailed and well-informed assessment of psychotic symptoms and comorbidities, a systematic approach to treatment with minimum possible medication doses and close monitoring of its effectiveness and adverse effects, and multidimensional interventions taking into consideration risks and expectations associated with EOP, are paramount in the achievement of the most favourable outcomes for affected children and young people.

Efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with schizophrenia: A network meta-analysis

Children and adolescents with schizophrenia are a particularly vulnerable group. Thus, we integrated all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for this subgroup by performing a network-meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We searched multiple databases up to Nov 17, 2016 (final update search in PubMed: Dec 12, 2017). The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change/endpoint in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included positive and negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, sedation, prolactin, extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) and antiparkinsonian medication. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 3003 unique participants (58% males; mean age 14.41 years) published from 1967 to 2017 were identified. Clozapine was significantly more effective than all other analyzed antipsychotics. Nearly all antipsychotics were more efficacious compared to placebo, but ziprasidone showed no efficacy. In terms of preventing weight gain, molindone, lurasidone and ziprasidone were benign. The highest weight gain was found for clozapine, quetiapine and olanzapine. Most antipsychotics had some sedating effects. Risperidone, haloperidol, paliperidone and olanzapine were associated with prolactin increase. There were evidence gaps for some drugs and many outcomes, especially safety outcomes. Most of the comparisons are based only on one study or just on indirect evidence. Nevertheless, the available direct and indirect evidence showed that the treatment effects were similar compared to findings in adult patients with schizophrenia.

Psychosis in Children and Adolescents

Psychosis is characterized by overt disruptions in thought, perceptions, and behavior. Complex syndromes presenting with psychosis, including schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, and medical illnesses, are differentiated by characteristic patterns of symptom presentation and course of illness. Accurate diagnosis is important to guide treatment and to avoid inaccurate labeling, because most youth reporting psychotic-like experiences do not have a true psychotic disorder.

The incidence, psychiatric co-morbidity and pharmacological treatment of severe mental disorders in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drug use among children and adolescents is increasing, and there is growing concern about off-label use and adverse effects. The present study aims to investigate the incidence, psychiatric co-morbidity and pharmacological treatment of severe mental disorder in Norwegian children and adolescents.

METHODS

We obtained data on mental disorders from the Norwegian Patient Registry on 0-18 year olds who during 2009-2011 were diagnosed for the first time with schizophrenia-like disorder (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes F20-F29), bipolar disorder (F30-F31), or severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms (F32.3 or F33.3). Data on filled prescriptions for psychotropic drugs were obtained from the Norwegian Prescription Database.

RESULTS

A total of 884 children and adolescents (25.1 per 100 000 person years) were first time diagnosed with schizophrenia-like disorder (12.6 per 100 000 person years), bipolar disorder (9.2 per 100 000 person years), or severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms (3.3 per 100 000 person years) during 2009-2011. The most common co-morbid mental disorders were depressive (38.1%) and anxiety disorders (31.2%). Antipsychotic drugs were prescribed to 62.4% of the patients, 72.0% of the schizophrenia-like disorder patients, 51.7% of the bipolar disorder patients, and 55.4% of the patients with psychotic depression. The most commonly prescribed drugs were quetiapine (29.5%), aripiprazole (19.6%), olanzapine (17.3%), and risperidone (16.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

When a severe mental disorder was diagnosed in children and adolescents, the patient was usually also prescribed antipsychotic medication. Clinicians must be aware of the high prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders among early psychosis patients.

Risperidone versus olanzapine among patients with schizophrenia participating in supported employment: Eighteen-month outcomes

This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine versus risperidone among patients with schizophrenia who are established in outpatient psychiatric care and entering supported employment. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted among 107 outpatients with schizophrenia, who were cross-titrated to flexible dose risperidone or olanzapine over 2 weeks. Clinical endpoints included time to hospitalization and persistence on assigned medication. Weight, laboratory tests, psychopathology, neurologic side effects, social adjustment and role functioning were assessed at 3-6 month intervals. Data were analyzed first by randomized treatment, and then reassessed controlling for prior medication treatment. The proportion of patients on assigned medication at 18 months was 30.9% for risperidone and 37.3% for olanzapine. Mean doses were 6.4 ± 3.2 mg daily for risperidone, and 17.0 ± 5.0 mg daily for olanzapine. The groups did not differ significantly in time to medication discontinuation, first hospitalization or first employment. There were few differences in psychopathology, laboratory, or neurological assessments between groups at 18 months. Patients randomized to olanzapine gained modestly more weight. Controlling for pre-randomization medication suggested improvement in some aspects of psychopathology from switching medications; however, switching from olanzapine to risperidone was associated with more hospitalizations. Risperidone and olanzapine have similar efficacy and tolerability in patients with schizophrenia who are participating in supported employment. Randomization to olanzapine was associated with more weight gain, but randomization from olanzapine to risperidone appeared to be associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization. Careful monitoring of metabolic effects and participation in supported employment may have contributed to minimal weight gain and metabolic effects.

A Naturalistic Comparison of Methylphenidate and Risperidone Monotherapy in Drug-Naive Youth With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Comorbid With Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Aggression

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) are frequently co-occurring in youth, but data about the pharmacological management of this comorbidity are scarce, especially when impulsive aggression is prominent. Although stimulants are the first-line medication for ADHD, second-generation antipsychotics, namely, risperidone, are frequently used. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of monotherapy with the stimulant methylphenidate (MPH) and risperidone in a consecutive sample of 40 drug-naive male youths diagnosed as having ADHD-combined presentation, comorbid with ODD and aggression, without psychiatric comorbidities, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria and a structured clinical interview (Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version).

METHODS

Twenty males treated with MPH (mean age, 8.95 ± 1.67 years) and 20 males treated with risperidone (mean age, 9.35 ± 2.72 years), followed up to 6 months, were assessed according to efficacy measures (Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL], Clinical Global Impression-Severity [CGI-S] and Improvement [CGI-I], Children Global Assessment Scale), and safety measures. At the end of the follow-up, both medications were similarly effective based on CBCL subscales of aggression and rule-breaking behaviors, on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-oriented oppositional defiant problems and conduct problems, and on CGI-S, CGI-I, and Children Global Assessment Scale, but only MPH was effective on CBCL attention problems and attention-deficit/hyperactivity problems. Risperidone was associated with weight gain and elevated prolactin levels.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Although the nonrandomized, nonblind design limits the conclusions of our exploratory study, our findings suggest that when ADHD is comorbid with ODD and aggression MPH and risperidone are both effective on aggressive behavior, but only stimulants are effective on ADHD symptoms.

Quetiapine extended release versus aripiprazole in children and adolescents with first-episode psychosis: the multicentre, double-blind, randomised tolerability and efficacy of antipsychotics (TEA) trial

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head trials to guide antipsychotic treatment choices for paediatric psychosis are urgently needed because extrapolations from adult studies might not be implementable. In this superiority trial with two-sided significance testing, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of quetiapine-extended release (quetiapine-ER) versus aripiprazole in children and adolescents with first-episode psychosis, to determine whether differences between the two treatments were sufficient to guide clinicians in their choice of one drug over the other.

METHODS

In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial in seven Danish university clinics, we recruited children and adolescents aged 12-17 years with a diagnosis of ICD-10 schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, delusional disorder, or affective-spectrum psychotic disorder, and psychotic symptoms scoring at least 4 on at least one of the following Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) items: P1 (delusions), P2 (conceptual disorganisation), P3 (hallucinations), P5 (grandiosity), P6 (suspiciousness/persecution), and G9 (unusual thought content), and a total PANSS score greater than 60. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 12 weeks of treatment with target doses of 600 mg/day of quetiapine-ER (starting from 50 mg/day) or 20 mg/day of aripiprazole (starting from 2·5 mg/day). The assigned drug was titrated over five levels, with 2 days at each dose, and the final dose achieved on day 9. Randomisation was done using a computer-generated concealed sequence with a block size of 8, and stratified by baseline PANSS positive score (≤20 points or >20 points) and age (12-14 years or 15-17 years). Study drugs were administered in identical capsules, and interventions, assessments, and data analysis were done masked. The primary outcome was PANSS positive score. Key adverse outcomes were bodyweight, homoeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), akathisia, and sedation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01119014.

FINDINGS

Between June 10, 2010, and Jan 29, 2014, 231 participants were assessed for elegibility, of whom 113 were randomly assigned to quetiapine-ER (n=55) or aripiprazole (n=58). PANSS positive score did not differ between groups after 12 weeks (adjusted mean change -5·05 [5·46] for quetiapine-ER, -6·21 [5·42] for aripiprazole; p=0·98), but decreased over time in both groups (p<0·0001). Weight gain was more rapid with quetiapine-ER (p=0·0008), with an adjusted mean weight group difference at week 12 of 3·33 kg (SD 7·23; effect size 0·64; p<0·0001). The HOMA-IR group difference at week 12 favoured aripiprazole (adjusted mean log-transformed group difference 0·259 [SD 0·906]; effect size 0·35; p=0·0060). Akathisia was more common with aripiprazole at week 2 (observed in 34 [60%] of 57 patients; estimated 63·5%) than with quetiapine-ER (15 [30%] of 50; estimated 31·3%; p=0·0021), but not at other timepoints. Sedation proportions did not change significantly over time with either intervention (observed at weeks 2, 4, and 12, respectively, for quetiapine-ER in 43 [83%] of 52, 40 [83%] of 48, and 34 [72%] of 47 patients and for aripiprazole in 49 [89%] of 55, 52 [96%] of 54, and 44 [92%] of 48 patients), and the overall estimated probability combining all timepoints was significantly higher for aripiprazole (97·1%) than for quetiapine-ER (89·2%; p=0·012). In addition to sedation and akathisia, the most common adverse events were tremor (42 [79%] patients in the quetiapine-ER group vs 52 [91%] patients in the aripiprazole group), increased duration of sleep (47 [92%] vs 39 [71%]), orthostatic dizziness (42 [78%] vs 46 [81%]), depression (43 [80%] vs 44 [77%]), tension/inner unrest (37 [69%] vs 50 [88%]), failing memory (41 [76%] vs 44 [77%]), and weight gain (46 [87%] vs 38 [68%]).

INTERPRETATION

This first head-to-head comparison of quetiapine-ER versus aripiprazole in early-onset psychosis showed no significant group differences in severity of psychopathology after 12 weeks of treatment. Quetiapine-ER was associated with more metabolic adverse events and aripiprazole with more initial akathisia and, unexpectedly, more sedation. The limited antipsychotic efficacy and high level of adverse events were noticeable. This trial provides novel information for the treatment of early-onset psychosis and highlights the importance of adverse event profiles when choosing among antipsychotics for children and adolescents who often require chronic treatment.

FUNDING

The National Research Council for Health and Disease Foundation for Health Promotion, AP Møller Foundation, Rosalie Petersens Foundation, Stevn and Rindom Foundation, Foundation for the Promotion of Medical Science, The Capital Region Psychiatric Research Foundation, Tryg Foundation, Region of Southern Denmark Research Foundation, Danish Psychiatric Research Educational Fund, Psychiatry Foundation, Foundation of 17-12-1981, Psychiatric Research Foundation Region Zealand, Capital Region Strategic Research Foundation, Knud og Dagny Andresens Foundation, Psychiatric Research Foundation of 1967, The Capital Region Research Foundation, Dr Sofus Carl Emil Friis and Hustru Olga Friis Scholarship, Tømrerhandler Johannes Fogs Foundation, Brdr Hartmanns Foundation DKK, Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Foundation, Jacob Madsen and wife Olga Madsens Foundation, CC Klestrup and wife Scholarship, Lundbeck Foundation Scholarship, and Tømrermester Jørgen Holm and wife Elisas Scholarship.