A comparison of clozapine and haloperidol in hospitalized patients with refractory schizophrenia. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Clozapine in Refractory Schizophrenia

Relationship between clinical improvement and functional gains with clozapine in schizophrenia

Impairment in psychosocial functioning is a key feature in schizophrenia, but few studies have examined the relationship between improvements in symptoms and functioning. We examined the relationship between change in symptoms and change in functioning in a group of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia after 6 and 12 weeks of clozapine treatment. Participants were assessed prior to clozapine and again at 6 and 12-week on the 18-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS). Change scores in BPRS and SOFAS at 6 and 12-week post-clozapine were calculated and the direct relationship was assessed via regression models. Forty-three participants were included in this study; age of sample was 42.1 ± 12.7 years, with 31 (72.1%) male participants. At baseline, the mean BPRS total and SOFAS scores were 46.98 ± 12.86 and 33.07 ± 10.79, respectively. There were significant improvements in BPRS total and SOFAS scores at 6 weeks, but no significant differences between 6 and 12-week assessments. There was no significant change in negative symptoms at both follow-up assessments. At 6-week, change in symptoms was not correlated with change in functioning and while the relationship between change in symptoms and functioning was stronger at 12 weeks, none of the BPRS factors emerged as a significant predictor. The present study found that lower baseline SOFAS score was the most robust predictor for improvements in SOFAS at 6 and 12-weeks. There appears to be a "ceiling" for functional improvements on clozapine, but follow-up studies are needed to examine functional gains beyond 12 weeks.

Augmentation of clozapine with amisulpride: an effective therapeutic strategy for violent treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients in a UK high-security hospital

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine is used in the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is effective in reducing aggression; however a subgroup of patients is poorly responsive. For violent patients in this group, there is limited literature on the use of strategies to augment clozapine with other agents. Here we present a case series of 6 schizophrenia patients, within a high-security hospital, who have a history of serious violence and who were treated with clozapine augmented with amisulpride.

METHODS

We reviewed case notes and health records for evidence of violence/aggression and positive factors such as engagement in activities, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores were formulated. We also examined metabolic parameters before and after augmentation.

RESULTS

All 6 of the patients showed clinical improvement in symptoms and a reduction in their risk of violence to others. Five patients had a reduction in number of violent/aggressive incidents, and all patients showed improvement in engagement in occupational, vocational, and/or psychological work. Metabolic parameters were largely unchanged except for 1 patient whose Body Mass Index (BMI) increased. Five patients reported side effects as unchanged or improved.

CONCLUSION

These schizophrenia patients with a history of violence showed clinical improvement and reduced aggression and violence with amisulpride augmentation of clozapine. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an antiaggressive benefit of this combination in forensic psychiatric patients. Further studies are warranted to establish the efficacy and anti-aggressive effects of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine.

Discontinuation of clozapine: a 15-year naturalistic retrospective study of 320 patients

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine is underutilized in the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. To understand contributing factors, we analyzed the frequency and causes of clozapine discontinuations that occurred over a 15-year period in a clinical setting.

METHOD

Data were extracted from computerized records and from mandatory termination reports for discontinuation events 1993-2007. The reasons for termination were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over half of the patients (n = 183/320; 57%) had at least one discontinuation (median time 609 days). The two most common causes for discontinuation were non-adherence (35%) and side-effects (28%). Hematological side-effects accounted for 45% of all side-effect associated discontinuations; most such patients remained eligible for clozapine treatment, and a significant fraction remained on clozapine after rechallenge. Central nervous system side-effects accounted for 35% of side-effect induced discontinuations. General factors significantly associated with discontinuation were African American race, older age at initiation of clozapine and less improvement in psychiatric symptoms.

CONCLUSION

In addition to anticipating and addressing causes of non-adherence, psychiatrists should consider clozapine rechallenge in eligible patients and implement measures to mitigate clozapine-associated sedation, seizures, and other side-effects. Future studies should particularly address why African American and older patients may be more likely to discontinue clozapine.

Antipsychotic drugs: atypical advantages and typical disadvantages

Atypical antipsychotic drugs are recommended for the first line treatment of all patients with schizophrenia. This is because it has been demonstrated that atypical antipsychotic drugs are more effective across a broader range of symptoms of schizophrenia than typical antipsychotic drugs and because they are dramatically less likely to cause the extrapyramidal and endocrine side effects that greatly impair quality of life for patients and reduce their willingness to adhere to maintenance treatment. Atypical antipsychotic drugs are not perfect but they are the most effective and the safest treatment for schizophrenia presently available. The atypical antipsychotic drugs currently marketed in Ireland for the first line treatment of schizophrenia include amisulpride, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. These agents differ somewhat in chemical class, indications, daily dose range, need for titration, daily dosing regimen and available formulations (see Table 1). Clozapine is marketed for patients unresponsive to, or intolerant of, other antipsychotic drugs and must thus be regarded as a second line treatment for schizophrenia. Zotepine is not yet available in Ireland while the marketing of sertindole has been suspended following reports of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac deaths.

Clozapine: a review of clinical practice guidelines and prescribing trends

BACKGROUND

Clozapine effectiveness in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia has been sustained by published evidence in the last two decades, despite the introduction of safer options.

DISCUSSION

Current clinical practice guidelines have strongly recommended the use of clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but prescribing trends do not appear to have followed such recommendations. Clozapine is still underutilized especially in patients at risk of suicide. It seems that physicians are hesitant in prescribing clozapine due to concerns about serious adverse effects. Recent reports have highlighted the need to inform health professionals about the benefits of treating patients with clozapine and have voiced concerns about the underutilization of clozapine especially in patients at risk of suicide.

SUMMARY

Guidelines and prescribing patterns reported in various countries worldwide are discussed. Suggestions on how to optimize clozapine utilization have been published but more efforts are needed to properly inform and support prescribers' practices.

A six month randomized controlled trial of long acting injectable risperidone 50 and 100mg in treatment resistant schizophrenia

It has been suggested that atypical antipsychotic drugs (A-APDs) other than clozapine may be effective to improve positive symptoms in some patients with treatment resistant schizophrenia (TRS), if both the dose is higher, and the duration of the trial longer, than those which have been ineffective in non-TRS (NTRS) patients. This hypothesis was tested with long acting injectable risperidone (Risperdal Consta®, RLAI). One hundred sixty TRS patients selected for persistent moderate-severe delusions or hallucinations, or both, were randomized to RLAI, 50 or 100mg biweekly, in a six month, outpatient, double-blind, multicenter trial. We hypothesized that RLAI, 100mg, would be more effective than RLAI, 50mg. However, both doses produced clinically significant and equivalent improvement in PANSS Total, Positive, and Negative subscale scores, as well as key cognitive, global and functional measures, with increasing response during the course of the study, confirming the value of longer clinical trial duration for patients with TRS, but not superiority of the higher dose. The overall response rate was comparable to that previously reported for clozapine and high dose olanzapine, another A-APD, in TRS. Both doses of RLAI were equally well tolerated, producing minimal extrapyramidal side effects and few drop outs. Plasma levels of the active moiety, risperidone+9-hydroxyrisperidone, during treatment with RLAI 100mg, were comparable to those for 6-8 mg/day oral risperidone, which have not been effective in TRS. Further study of RLAI, ≥ 50-100mg biweekly, should compare it with clozapine and oral risperidone in TRS, with duration of treatment ≥ six months.

Pharmacological treatment strategies for schizophrenia

The pharmacological choices for the treatment of schizophrenia have been greatly expanded with the availability of the atypical compounds clozapine (Clozaril, Novartis), risperidone (Risperdal, Janssen-Cilag), olanzapine (Zyprexa, Eli Lilly & Co.), quetiapine (Seroquel, AstraZeneca), ziprasidone (Geodon, Pfizer Inc.) and aripiprazole (Abilify, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd). In this article, the effects of the newer antipsychotics and their side effects are reviewed. Key issues in acute and maintenance treatment, often lifelong, will be reviewed. Side-effect management to ensure adherence to an optimal treatment regimen will be discussed. Coexisting syndromes must be treated in concordance with the patient's clinical presentation. For treatment-resistant patients, atypical compounds are generally more effective than their typical counterparts but medication augmentation strategies are frequently recommended. Finally, the results of recent meta-analyses comparing the effects of atypical versus typical compounds will be critically reviewed and remaining gaps in the current pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia will be explored.

Clozapine and tardive movement disorders: a review

BACKGROUND

Tardive syndromes (TS) arise from long term exposure to dopamine receptor blocking agents. Clozapine has been considered to have low risk of causing new onset TS and is considered as a treatment option in patients with TS.

AIM

This review evaluates the usefulness of clozapine in patients with TS and occasional reports of clozapine causing TS.

METHODOLOGY

Electronic searches were carried out using the search engines of PUBMED, Science direct and Google Scholar databases. All reports describing use of clozapine in management of TS, monitoring of TS while on clozapine and onset of TS after initiation of clozapine were identified.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials and 28 case series/case reports describe the use of clozapine in TS. Most of these reports show that clozapine is useful in patients with TS, in the dose range of 200-300 mg/day and the beneficial effect is seen within 4-12 weeks of initiation. One case series and two case reports described clozapine withdrawal emergent dyskinesias suggesting a masking role of clozapine. One trial, three case series and two case reports describe beneficial effects of clozapine on long standing neurological syndromes. There is relatively less literature (2 trials and 15 case series/reports) describing the emergence of TS with clozapine.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of beneficial effects of clozapine in TS is greater than its role in causation/worsening of TS. Hence, clozapine should be considered in symptomatic patients who develop TS while receiving other antipsychotics. Further research on mechanism of TS and clozapine effect on TS is required.

Adjuvant therapy with minocycline for schizophrenia (The MINOS Trial): study protocol for a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background

Schizophrenia is understood to be a heterogeneous brain condition with overlapping symptom dimensions. The negative symptom dimension, with its protean cognitive manifestations, responds poorly to treatment, which can be a particular challenge in countries where clozapine therapy is not available. Preliminary data indicate that minocycline may be beneficial adjunct in the treatment of schizophrenia: positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms.

In this study we aim to assess the efficacy of adjunctive minocycline to alleviate symptoms of schizophrenia in patients who have failed to respond to a therapeutic trial of antipsychotic medications.

Methods

The study is a parallel group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Participants will be adults (aged 18 years and above) with first episode or relapse episode of schizophrenia of under 5 years’ duration. Patients who failed to show adequate therapeutic response to at least one antipsychotic medication given for a minimum of 4 weeks will be recruited from a psychiatry hospital in Addis Ababa and a psychiatry clinic in Butajira, Ethiopia. A total of 150 participants (75 in each arm) will be required to detect a five-point mean difference between the intervention arms adjusting for baseline symptom severity, at 90% power and 95% confidence. Patients in the intervention arm will receive minocycline (200 mg/day orally) added on to the regular antipsychotic medications participants are already on. Those in the placebo arm will receive an inactive compound identical in physical appearance to minocycline. Intervention will be offered for 12 weeks. Diagnosis will be established using the operational criteria for research (OPCRIT). Primary outcome measure will be a change in symptom severity measured using the positive and the negative syndrome scale for schizophrenia (PANSS). Secondary outcome measures will include changes in severity of negative symptoms, proportion achieving remission, and level of functioning. Whether changes are maintained post intervention will also be measured (PANSS). Key assessment for the primary outcome will be conducted at the end of trial (week 12). One post-intervention assessment will be conducted 4 weeks after the end of intervention (week 16) to determine sustainability of change.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01809158.

Benzodiazepine augmentation of antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis and Cochrane review of randomized controlled trials

Applying various psychopharmacological combination and augmentation strategies in schizophrenia is common clinical practice. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of benzodiazepines added to antipsychotics. The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group trial register (until February 2011) and PubMed/Medline (until July 2012) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of one week that compared benzodiazepine augmentation of antipsychotics with a control group receiving antipsychotic monotherapy in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two authors. The primary outcome was response to treatment. Secondary outcomes were positive and negative schizophrenic symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and dropouts due to any reason, inefficacy of treatment, and adverse events. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model, with number-needed-to-treat/harm (NNT/H) calculations where appropriate. Overall, 16 relevant RCTs with 1045 participants were identified. Benzodiazepine augmentation was not associated with statistically significantly more responders (N=6; n=511; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77-1.22). Adjunctive benzodiazepines were well accepted and tolerated according to dropout-rates and adverse effects apart from dizziness (N=3; n=190; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.08-6.15) and somnolence (N=2; n=118; RR 3.30, 95% CI 1.04-10.40). There is no evidence for antipsychotic efficacy of additional benzodiazepine medication in schizophrenia. Therefore, benzodiazepines should be considered primarily for desired ultra short-term sedation of acutely agitated patients but not for augmentation of antipsychotics in the medium- and long-term pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia and related disorders.

Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a 12-month, randomized, naturalistic trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term studies for patients with resistant schizophrenia are necessary to assess the effectiveness of combination strategies on persisting positive symptoms.

AIMS AND METHODS

This multicenter, naturalistic, randomized, superiority study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00395915) aimed to compare clinical efficacy and tolerability of haloperidol versus aripiprazole as combination treatment with clozapine in patients with resistant schizophrenia.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were followed up for 12 months. After 12 months, the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was not significantly different between aripiprazole and haloperidol (37% vs 28%, respectively; P = 0.431). The change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (-7.0 vs -7.9, respectively; P = 0.389), whereas the tolerability total score decreased significantly more in the aripiprazole group (-7.2 vs -2.3; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

While the effectiveness of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic agent is not clearly demonstrated yet, results from this study suggest that augmentation with aripiprazole offers no substantial benefit over haloperidol in efficacy. Aripiprazole was perceived more tolerable than haloperidol, but it is uncertain how this finding may translate into the real world of clinical practice.

Clozapine: key discussion points for prescribers

Clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia and is also approved for suicidality in schizophrenia patients. However, it can cause significant medical morbidity and requires intensive medical monitoring once prescribed. Perhaps due to lack of familiarity with its use, it is underused in clinical practice and its initiation often delayed. This article reviews the literature on clozapine in order to measure its potential effectiveness against its adverse effects and ultimately aims to serve as a useful summary for clinicians in their everyday prescribing.

The effect of race-ethnicity on the comparative effectiveness of clozapine among Medicaid beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

Effectiveness trials have confirmed the superiority of clozapine in schizophrenia treatment, but little is known about whether the drug's superiority holds across racial-ethnic groups. This study examined the effectiveness by race-ethnicity of clozapine relative to other antipsychotics among adult patients in maintenance antipsychotic treatment.

METHODS

Black, Latino, and white Florida Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia receiving maintenance treatment with clozapine or other antipsychotics between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2005, were identified. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate associations between clozapine and race-ethnicity and their interaction; time to discontinuation for any cause was the primary measure of effectiveness.

RESULTS

The 20,122 members of the study cohort accounted for 20,122 antipsychotic treatment episodes; 3.7% were treated with clozapine and 96.3% with other antipsychotics. Blacks accounted for 23% of episodes and Latinos for 36%. Unadjusted analyses suggested that Latinos continued on clozapine longer than whites and that Latinos and blacks discontinued other antipsychotics sooner than whites. Adjusted analyses of 749 propensity score-matched sets of clozapine users and other antipsychotic users indicated that risk of discontinuation was lower for clozapine users (risk ratio [RR]=.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.39-.52), an effect that was not moderated by race-ethnicity. Times to discontinuation were longer for clozapine users. Overall risk of antipsychotic discontinuation was higher for blacks (RR=1.56, CI=1.27-1.91) and Latinos (RR=1.23, CI=1.02-1.48).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirmed clozapine's superior effectiveness and did not find evidence that race-ethnicity modified this effect. The findings highlight the need for efforts to increase clozapine use, particularly among minority groups.

Efficacy of pimozide augmentation for clozapine partial responders with schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

A substantial number of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia respond only partially to clozapine. Therefore, it has been common practice to use augmentation strategies to maximize clozapine's effect. But the efficacy of this strategy remains poorly established. We have conducted a randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial in patients with schizophrenia currently receiving clozapine with partial response, and tested the efficacy of pimozide augmentation on positive and negative symptoms and also on neurocognitive measures.

METHODS

Thirty-two outpatients enrolled in the clinical trial and 28 completed. Patients with adequate blood levels of clozapine were randomized to pimozide vs placebo and participated in the trial for 12 weeks receiving monthly assessments for Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Schedule for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and weekly assessments for electrocardiogram (EKG), and side effects. Neurocognitive tests measuring verbal fluency, working memory, motor and attention/executive function were obtained at study entry and end of the trial.

RESULTS

We found no significant effect of pimozide on BPRS total, psychosis and depression subscale items, SANS scores or QTc interval. Neurocognitive measures did not show significant improvement either.

DISCUSSION

In this well controlled clinical trial of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia currently receiving clozapine, pimozide augmentation was not an effective strategy to maximize the benefit for better control of positive and negative symptoms or improving neurocognitive function.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, part 2: update 2012 on the long-term treatment of schizophrenia and management of antipsychotic-induced side effects

Abstract These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia published in 2006. For this 2012 revision, all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed systematically to allow for an evidence-based update. These guidelines provide evidence-based practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful. They are intended to be used by all physicians diagnosing and treating people suffering from schizophrenia. Based on the first version of these guidelines, a systematic review of the MEDLINE/PUBMED database and the Cochrane Library, in addition to data extraction from national treatment guidelines, has been performed for this update. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F) and five levels of recommendation (1-5) ( Bandelow et al. 2008a ,b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242, see Table 1 ). This second part of the updated guidelines covers long-term treatment as well as the management of relevant side effects. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication and other pharmacological treatment options) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

Comparison of first-episode and chronic patients diagnosed with schizophrenia: symptoms and childhood trauma

AIM

There has been considerable interest in identifying and addressing the specific needs of early-episode patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in the hope that by addressing such needs early, chronic disabilities can be avoided.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-eight early-episode and 571 chronic patients were compared on socio-demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms and history of childhood trauma. Symptoms were measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and trauma with the short version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.

RESULTS

First-episode patients scored 9.3% higher than chronic patients on the PANSS positive symptom scale and 16.3% lower on the negative symptom scale. More first episode patients reported childhood sexual abuse (P = 0.033); however, fewer reported childhood emotional neglect (P = 0.01). Childhood trauma was associated with positive symptoms, specifically with hallucinations in first-episode patients (r = 0.174; P = 0.049). Moreover, fewer parents of first episode patients were living alone (P = 0.008). On multiple logistic regression, the first-episode patients were younger (odds ratio = 0.92), had higher PANSS positive symptom scores (odds ratio 1.04) and lower negative symptom scores (odds ratio 0.948 recalculate).

CONCLUSIONS

More positive symptoms, fewer negative symptoms, less isolated parents and greater risk of childhood sexual abuse might warrant attention in first episode schizophrenia and perhaps should be a focus for the development of targeted interventions.

Clozapine: balancing safety with superior antipsychotic efficacy

Clozapine is often referred to as the gold standard for the treatment of schizophrenia and yet has also been described as the most underutilized treatment for schizophrenia supported by solid evidence-based medicine. In 2008, it was used to treat only 4.4% of patients with schizophrenia in the U.S., which is ~10-20% of those with approved indications for clozapine for which there is no alternative of equal efficacy. Its use is much higher in Scandinavian countries and China. The primary indications for clozapine are: 1) treatment-resistant schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, defined as persistent moderate to severe delusions or hallucinations despite two or more clinical trials with other antipsychotic drugs; and, 2) patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who are at high risk for suicide. Concerns over a number of safety considerations are responsible for much of the underutilization of clozapine: 1) agranulocytosis; 2) metabolic side effects; and, 3) myocarditis. These side effects can be detected, prevented, minimized and treated, but there will be a very small number of fatalities. Nevertheless, clozapine has been found in two large epidemiologic studies to have the lowest mortality of any antipsychotic drug, mainly due to its very large effect to reduce the risk for suicide. Other reasons for limited use of clozapine include the extra effort entailed in monitoring white blood cell counts to detect granulocytopenia or agranulocytosis and, possibly, minimal efforts to market it now that it is largely generic. Awareness of the benefits and risks of clozapine is essential for increasing the use of this lifesaving agent.

A gene expression and systems pathway analysis of the effects of clozapine compared to haloperidol in the mouse brain implicates susceptibility genes for schizophrenia

Clozapine has markedly superior clinical properties compared to other antipsychotic drugs but the side effects of agranulocytosis, weight gain and diabetes limit its use. The reason why clozapine is more effective is not well understood. We studied messenger RNA (mRNA) gene expression in the mouse brain to identify pathways changed by clozapine compared to those changed by haloperidol so that we could identify which changes were specific to clozapine. Data interpretation was performed using an over-representation analysis (ORA) of gene ontology (GO), pathways and gene-by-gene differences. Clozapine significantly changed gene expression in pathways related to neuronal growth and differentiation to a greater extent than haloperidol; including the microtubule-associated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling and GO terms related to axonogenesis and neuroblast proliferation. Several genes implicated genetically or functionally in schizophrenia such as frizzled homolog 3 (FZD3), U2AF homology motif kinase 1 (UHMK1), pericentriolar material 1 (PCM1) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were changed by clozapine but not by haloperidol. Furthermore, when compared to untreated controls clozapine specifically regulated transcripts related to the glutamate system, microtubule function, presynaptic proteins and pathways associated with synaptic transmission such as clathrin cage assembly. Compared to untreated controls haloperidol modulated expression of neurotoxic and apoptotic responses such as NF-kappa B and caspase pathways, whilst clozapine did not. Pathways involving lipid and carbohydrate metabolism and appetite regulation were also more affected by clozapine than by haloperidol.

Clozapine for the treatment of schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Despite considerable progress in the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia, about 30% of patients are minimally responsive to antipsychotics and there is still an excessively high rate of mortality in schizophrenia patients. Clozapine , a D(2)-5HT(2) antagonist, was the first antipsychotic to demonstrate efficacy in treatment-resistant patients, and to be associated with the lowest risk of death.

AREAS COVERED

The pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of clozapine are covered in this article, based on a literature review (PubMed) from 1975 to 2012. Pivotal, as well as supporting, randomized controlled trials are reviewed, along with observational and/or naturalistic safety studies. This review of clozapine will allow the reader to determine the place for clozapine in the schizophrenia treatment landscape.

EXPERT OPINION

Studies conducted so far suggest that clozapine is the treatment of choice for schizophrenic patients who are refractory to treatment, display violent behaviors, or who are at high risk of suicide. However, it is also the antipsychotic with the worst side effect profile, the highest risk of complications, and the most difficult to prescribe. Experience with clozapine should therefore be included in the education of future physicians.

Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes study: twelve-month findings

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the 12-month outcomes associated with naturalistic antipsychotic treatment of patients participating in the Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (SOHO) study.

METHODS

SOHO is a 3-year, prospective, observational study of the health outcomes associated with antipsychotic treatment in 10 European countries. The study included over 10,000 outpatients who were initiating or changing their antipsychotic medication. Medication use pattern, change in symptom severity, social functioning, and health-related quality of life were assessed, as well as rates of response, remission, treatment discontinuation, adverse events, and hospitalization.

RESULTS

Clinical Global Impression-Severity for Schizophrenia (CGI-SCH) and quality of life scores improved in all treatment cohorts. There were greater improvements in the CGI-SCH overall symptom score and in the CGI-SCH positive, negative, cognitive, and depressive symptom scores in the olanzapine and clozapine cohorts compared with other treatment cohorts. Changes were associated with an improvement in quality of life. Patients treated with olanzapine, quetiapine, and clozapine had better tolerability per extrapyramidal symptoms and sexual-related dysfunction measures compared with patients receiving risperidone, amisulpride, or typicals. Patients treated with olanzapine had greater weight gain than patients in all other treatment cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Patients initiated on olanzapine and clozapine tend to have better outcomes at 12 months than patients initiated on other antipsychotics in routine outpatient clinical practice. Results should be interpreted conservatively due to the nonrandomized study design.

Defining treatment-resistant schizophrenia and response to antipsychotics: a review and recommendation

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) has been defined mainly by severity of (positive) symptoms and response to antipsychotics derived from a relative change in the representative scales (most frequently ≥ 20% decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale: PANSS), but these definitions have not necessarily been consistent. Integrating past evidence and real-world practicability, we propose that TRS be defined by at least two failed adequate trials with different antipsychotics (at chlorpromazine-equivalent doses of ≥ 600mg/day for ≥ 6 consecutive weeks) that could be retrospective or preferably include prospective failure to respond to one or more antipsychotic trials. In addition, our proposed criteria require both a score of ≥ 4 on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity and a score of ≤ 49 on the Functional Assessment for Comprehensive Treatment of Schizophrenia (FACT-Sz) or ≤ 50 on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scales to define TRS. Once TRS is established, we propose that subsequent treatment response be defined based on a CGI-Change score of ≤ 2, a ≥ 20% decrease on the total PANSS or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores, and an increase of ≥ 20 points on the FACT-Sz or GAF. While these suggestions provide a pragmatic framework for TRS classification, they need to be tested in future trials.

Treatment resistant schizophrenia and response to antipsychotics: a review

BACKGROUND

There remains a lack of agreement regarding criteria for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and definition of response.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted to identify clinical studies of antipsychotics in TRS using PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO (last search 31 July 2011). Psychopharmacological studies with the number of participants of ≥ 40 were evaluated in terms of definitions for TRS and subsequent treatment response.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies of antipsychotics in TRS were reviewed. TRS has been defined mainly by severity in symptoms. Many studies based TRS with at least 2 failed adequate antipsychotic trials (at chlorpromazine equivalent doses of ≥ 1000 mg/day for ≥ 6 weeks), but some studies adopted prospective treatment arm to be certain of sample refractoriness. Treatment response has been defined by a relative change in the representative scales (most commonly ≥ 20% decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), but it sometimes included the absolute criteria such as post-treatment score of ≤ 35 in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or Clinical Global Impression-severity score of ≤ 3 (mild or less severe). Social functioning has not been a primary outcome measure in past pivotal trials, and other important domains of the illness such as cognition and subjective perspectives have not been incorporated into definitions of treatment resistance or response. However, adopting various assessment scales can be time-consuming and complicated, with an additional possibility of disagreement among raters.

CONCLUSION

Defining outcomes in schizophrenia is a challenging task. It is imperative that the field agrees on how this population is better defined and what constitutes treatment response.

A review and Bayesian meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and adverse effects of 4 atypical neuroleptic drugs compared with haloperidol and placebo

AIMS

The objective of the study was to examine the efficacy and the degree of adverse effects connected with atypical neuroleptic drugs and haloperidol by using a previously described Bayesian statistical method that includes both direct and indirect comparisons simultaneously.

METHODS

The authors used the results of 30 double-blind, randomized studies including comparisons of 4 atypical neuroleptics and haloperidol, head-to-head or against placebo. We calculated the response ratios for drugs against placebo and thereafter the relative response ratios for one drug against another. With uniform priors, we calculated and ranked the posterior estimates of response ratios for antipsychotic effect, weight gain, and occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms.

RESULTS

All second-generation neuroleptics analyzed are fairly effective with response ratios against placebo ranging between 1.55 (credibility interval, 1.36-1.76) and 1.99 (1.76-2.26), with clozapine being the most effective and aripiprazole the least effective among them. The risk of inducing weight gain is clearly very high for all 5 neuroleptic drugs compared with placebo with response ratios of 12.21 (10.22-15.05) for olanzapine and 11.28 (6.89-17.77) for clozapine. There is a clear increased risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects for haloperidol compared with placebo as the response ratio is 2.33 (2.03-2.49). The other drugs all have considerably less risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4 second-generation neuroleptics included in our meta-analysis show only small differences in overall efficacy, with clozapine being the most effective and aripiprazole the least effective among them. When the risk of adverse effects is analyzed, olanzapine and clozapine are afflicted with the highest risk of inducing weight gain and haloperidol with extrapyramidal symptoms. Even aripiprazole and risperidone, however, induce considerable weight gain compared with placebo but may be acceptable alternatives when tailoring drug treatment to the individual patient.

Time course of improvement with antipsychotic medication in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Improvements are greatest in the earlier weeks of antipsychotic treatment of patients with non-resistant schizophrenia.

AIMS

To address the early time-line for improvement with antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

METHOD

Randomised double-blind trials of antipsychotic medication in adult patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia were investigated (last search June 2010). A series of metaregression analyses were carried out to examine the effect of time on the average item scores in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) at three or more distinct time points within the first 6 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Study duration varied from 4 weeks to 1 year and the definitions of treatment resistance as well as of treatment response were not necessarily consistent across 19 identified studies, resulting in highly variable rates of response (0–76%).The mean standardised baseline item score in the PANSS or BPRS was 3.4 (s.e. = 0.06) in the five studies included in the meta-regression analysis, with the average baseline Clinical Global Impression – Severity score being 5.2 (marked illness). For the pooled population treated with a range of antipsychotics (n = 1019), significant reductions in the mean item scores occurred during the first 4 weeks; improvements observed in later weeks were smaller and non-significant. In contrast, weekly improvement with clozapine was significant throughout (n = 356).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide preliminary evidence that the majority of improvement with antipsychotics may occur relatively early.More consistent improvements with clozapine may be associated with a gradual titration. To further elucidate response patterns, future studies are needed to provide data over regular intervals during earlier stages of treatment.

Association of an UCP4 (SLC25A27) haplotype with ultra-resistant schizophrenia

AIMS

Neuronal uncoupling proteins are involved in the regulation of reactive oxygen species production and intracellular calcium homeostasis, and thus, play a neuroprotective role. In order to explore the potential consequences of neuronal uncoupling proteins variants we examined their association in a sample of Caucasian patients suffering from schizophrenia and phenotyped them according to antipsychotic response.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Using a case-control design, we compared the frequencies of 15 genetic variants spanning UCP2, UCP4 and UCP5 in 106 French Caucasian patients suffering from schizophrenia and 127 healthy controls. In addition, patients with schizophrenia who responded to antipsychotic treatment were compared with patients with ultra-resistant schizophrenia (URS). This latter population presented no clinical, social and/or occupational remission despite at least two periods of treatment with conventional or atypical antipsychotic drugs and also with clozapine.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the distribution of the respective alleles between URS and responding patients. However, one haplotype spanning UCP4 was found to be significantly under-represented in URS patients. This relationship remained significant after multiple testing corrections.

CONCLUSION

Although our sample is of limited size and not representative of schizophrenia as a whole, the association found between the URS group and the UCP4 haplotype is noteworthy as it may influence treatment outcome in schizophrenia.

Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia in routine clinical care: a randomized, controlled trial

This multisite study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole versus combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia who do not have an optimal response to clozapine. Patients continued to take clozapine and were randomly assigned to receive daily augmentation with aripiprazole or haloperidol. Physicians prescribed the allocated treatments according to usual clinical care. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included severity of symptoms on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and antipsychotic subjective tolerability on the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale. A total of 106 patients with schizophrenia were randomly assigned to treatment. After 3 months, we found no difference in the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment between the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (13.2% vs 15.1%, P = 0.780). The 3-month change of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (-5.9 vs -4.4 points, P = 0.523), whereas the 3-month decrease of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale total score was significantly higher in the aripiprazole group than in the haloperidol group (-7.4 vs -2.0 points, P = 0.006). These results suggest that augmentation of clozapine with aripiprazole offers no benefit with regard to treatment withdrawal and overall symptoms in schizophrenia compared with augmentation with haloperidol. However, an advantage in the perception of adverse effects with aripiprazole treatment may be meaningful for patients.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

These guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from the participants and interested parties, and cover the pharmacological management and treatment of schizophrenia across the various stages of the illness, including first-episode, relapse prevention, and illness that has proved refractory to standard treatment. The practice recommendations presented are based on the available evidence to date, and seek to clarify which interventions are of proven benefit. It is hoped that the recommendations will help to inform clinical decision making for practitioners, and perhaps also serve as a source of information for patients and carers. They are accompanied by a more detailed qualitative review of the available evidence. The strength of supporting evidence for each recommendation is rated.

Effect of medication-related factors on adherence in people with schizophrenia: A European multi-centre study

Aim– To investigate the relation between medication-related factors and adherence in people with schizophrenia in outpatient treatment.Methods– The sample comprised 409 outpatients (ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia) with clinician-rated instability in four European cities (Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Verona, Italy; Leipzig, Germany; London, Great Britain). Adherence was assessed using theMedication Adherence Questionnaire(patient perspective), and theClinician Rating Scale(clinician perspective). Examined medication-related factors were type (atypical vs. typical), application (oral vs. depot), daily dose frequency of antipsychotic medication (Medication History Scale), number of side effects (Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale), and patient attitudes toward medication (Drug Attitude Inventory). Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors of adherence by medication-related factors.Results– Adherence, as rated by patient and clinician, was predicted by patient attitude towards medication, but was unrelated to type of drug, formulation or side effects of antipsychotic medication. A high daily dose frequency was associated with better adherence, but only when rated by the patient.Conclusions– In order to improve adherence there is a need to seriously consider and attempt to improve patient attitude toward medication. However, type of antipsychotic and other medication-related factors may not be as closely related to adherence as it has often been suggested.

Declaration of Interest:The study was funded by a grant from the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Program of the European Union (QLG4-CT-2001–01734). JM, AS, CB, MK, CB, LB, and BP declare that they have not received any form of financing including pharmaceutical company support or any honoraria for consultancies or interventions during the last two years. DR has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Janssen Cilag and Astra Zeneca for consultancy work, and Anita Patel has received research consultancy funding from Servier. TB reports research funding to the department from Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Affectis for clinical trials and investigator-initiated trials; the department has also received funds to a minor extent for symposia and in-house training from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Janssen Cilag, Lilly Germany, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, and Wyeth. All authors declare that they have no other involvements that might be considered a conflict of interest in connection with this article.

Evidence-based pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

We describe the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and have arranged the manuscript as a simple algorithm which starts from the choice of an antipsychotic drug for an acutely ill patient and concludes with the most important questions about maintenance treatment. In acutely ill patients the choice of drug is mainly based on pragmatic criteria. Among many strategies used for agitated patients, haloperidol plus promethazine is the best examined one. In case of persistent depression or negative symptoms treatment includes antidepressants, and some second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) have been found somewhat superior to first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs) in these domains. If an antipsychotic is suspected to be ineffective, several factors need to be checked before action is taken. Few trials have addressed strategies such as switching the drug or increasing the dose in case of non-response. Clozapine remains the gold-standard for treatment-refractory patients, while none of the numerous augmentation strategies that have been examined by randomized controlled trials can be generally recommended. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs effectively reduces relapse rates. Small, not definitive, studies have shown that withdrawing antipsychotics from patients who have been stable for up to 6 yr leads to more relapses than continuing medication. In effect, continuous treatment is more effective than intermittent strategies. The identification of optimum doses for relapse prevention with FGAs has proven difficult, and there is little randomized data on SGAs. Although the randomized evidence on a superiority of depot compared to oral treatment is not ideal, this approach suggests obvious advantages in assuring compliance.

Challenges in the design and conduct of controlled clinical effectiveness trials in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The introduction of antipsychotic medication has been a major advance in the treatment of schizophrenia and allows millions of people to live outside of institutions. It is generally believed that long-acting intramuscular antipsychotic medication is the most effective approach to increasing medication adherence and thereby reduce relapse in high-risk patients with schizophrenia, but the data are scant.

PURPOSE

To report the design of a study to assess the effect of long-acting injectable risperidone in unstable patients and under more realistic conditions than previously studied and to evaluate the effect of this medication on psychiatric inpatient hospitalization, schizophrenia symptoms, quality of life, medication adherence, side effects, and health care costs.

METHODS

The trial was an open randomized clinical comparative effectiveness trial in patients with schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorders in which parenteral risperidone was compared to an oral antipsychotic regimen selected by each control patient's psychiatrist. Participants had unstable psychiatric disease defined by recent hospitalization or exhibition of unusual need for psychiatric services. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for psychiatric indications; the secondary endpoint was psychiatric symptoms.

RESULTS

Overall, 382 patients were randomized. Determination of a persons' competency to understand the elements of informed consent was addressed. The use of a closed-circuit TV interview for psychosocial measures provided an economical, high quality, reliable means of collecting data. A unique method for insuring that usual care was optimal was incorporated in the follow-up of all subjects.

LIMITATIONS

Patients with schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorders and with the common co-morbid illnesses seen in the VA are a challenging group of subjects to study in long-term trials. Some techniques unique in the VA and found useful may not be generalizable or applicable in other research or treatment settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial tested a new antipsychotic medication early in its adoption in the Veterans Health Administration. The VA has a unique electronic medical record and database which can be used to identify the endpoint, that is, first hospitalization due to a psychiatric problem, with complete ascertainment. Several methodologic solutions addressed competency to understand elements of consent, the costs and reliability of collecting interview data gathering, and insuring usual care.

Risperidone versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second-generation ("atypical") antipsychotics (SGAs) have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether and if so how much the effects of the various SGAs differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of risperidone differs from that of other SGAs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

1. Electronic searching We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.2. Reference searching We inspected the references of all identified studies for more trials.3. Personal contact We contacted the first author of each included study for missing information.4. Drug companies We contacted the manufacturers of all atypical antipsychotics included for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised, blinded trials comparing oral risperidone with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 45 blinded RCTs with 7760 participants. The number of RCTs available for each comparison varied: four studies compared risperidone with amisulpride, two with aripiprazole, 11 with clozapine, 23 with olanzapine, eleven with quetiapine, two with sertindole, three with ziprasidone and none with zotepine. Attrition from these studies was high (46.9%), leaving the interpretation of results problematic. Furthermore, 60% were industry sponsored, which can be a source of bias.There were few significant differences in overall acceptability of treatment as measured by leaving the studies early. Risperidone was slightly less acceptable than olanzapine, and slightly more acceptable than ziprasidone in this regard.Risperidone improved the general mental state (PANSS total score) slightly less than olanzapine (15 RCTs, n = 2390, MD 1.94 CI 0.58 to 3.31), but slightly more than quetiapine (9 RCTs, n = 1953, MD -3.09 CI -5.16 to -1.01) and ziprasidone (3 RCTs, n = 1016, MD -3.91 CI -7.55 to -0.27). The comparisons with the other SGA drugs were equivocal. Risperidone was also less efficacious than olanzapine and clozapine in terms of leaving the studies early due to inefficacy, but more efficacious than ziprasidone in the same outcome.Risperidone produced somewhat more extrapyramidal side effects than a number of other SGAs (use of antiparkinson medication versus clozapine 6 RCTs, n = 304, RR 2.57 CI 1.47 to 4.48, NNH 6 CI 33 to 3; versus olanzapine 13 RCTs, n = 2599, RR 1.28 CI 1.06 to 1.55, NNH 17 CI 9 to 100; versus quetiapine 6 RCTs, n = 1715, RR 1.98 CI 1.16 to 3.39, NNH 20 CI 10 to 100; versus ziprasidone 2 RCTs, n = 822, RR 1.42 CI 1.03 to 1.96, NNH not estimable; parkinsonism versus sertindole 1 RCT, n = 321, RR 4.11 CI 1.44 to 11.73, NNH 14 CI 100 to 8). Risperidone also increased prolactin levels clearly more than all comparators, except for amisulpride and sertindole for which no data were available.Other adverse events were less consistently reported, but risperidone may well produce more weight gain and/or associated metabolic problems than amisulpride (weight gain: 3 RCTs, n = 585, MD 0.99 CI 0.37 to 1.61), aripiprazole (cholesterol increase: 1 RCT, n = 83, MD 22.30 CI 4.91 to 39.69) and ziprasidone (cholesterol increase 2 RCTs, n = 767, MD 8.58 CI 1.11 to 16.04) but less than clozapine (weight gain 3 RCTs n = 373, MD -3.30 CI -5.65 to -0.95), olanzapine (weight gain 13 RCTs, n = 2116, MD -2.61 CI -3.74 to -1.48), quetiapine (cholesterol increase: 5 RCTs, n = 1433, MD -8.49 CI -12. 23 to -4.75) and sertindole (weight gain: 2 RCTs, n = 328, MD -0.99 CI -1.86 to -0.12). It may be less sedating than clozapine and quetiapine, lengthen the QTc interval less than sertindole (QTc change: 2 RCTs, n = 495, MD -18.60 CI -22.37 to 14.83), produce fewer seizures than clozapine (2 RCTs, n = 354, RR 0.22 CI 0.07 to 0.70, NNT 14 CI 8 to 33) and less sexual dysfunction in men than sertindole (2 RCTs, n = 437, RR 0.34 CI 0.16 to 0.76, NNT 13 CI 8 to 33).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Risperidone seems to produce somewhat more extrapyramidal side effects and clearly more prolactin increase than most other SGAs. It may also differ from other compounds in efficacy and in the occurrence of other adverse effects such as weight gain, metabolic problems, cardiac effects, sedation and seizures. Nevertheless, the large proportion of participants leaving studies early and incomplete reporting of outcomes makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Further large trials, especially comparing risperidone with those other new drugs for which only a few RCTs are available, are needed.

Pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a disabling mental illness with a lifetime prevalence of 0.7% worldwide and significant, often devastating, consequences on social and occupational functioning. A range of antipsychotic medications are available; however, suboptimal therapeutic response in terms of psychotic symptoms is common and affects up to one-third of people with schizophrenia. Negative symptoms are generally less amenable to treatment. Because of the consequences of inadequate symptom control, effective treatment strategies are required for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clozapine has been shown to be more effective than other antipsychotics in treatment-resistant populations in several studies; however, the occurrence of adverse effects, some of which are potentially life-threatening, are important limitations. In addition to those who are intolerant to clozapine, only 30% to 50% experience clinically significant symptom improvement. This review describes the recent evidence for treatment strategies for people not responding to nonclozapine antipsychotic agents and people not responding or only partially responding to clozapine.

Pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia

Despite pharmacologic advances, the treatment of schizophrenia remains a challenge, and suboptimal outcomes are still all too frequent. Although treatment goals of response, remission, and recovery have been defined more uniformly, a good “effectiveness” measure mapping onto functional outcomes is still lacking. Moreover, the field has to advance in transferring measurement-based approaches from research to clinical practice. There is an ongoing debate whether, and which, first- or second-generation antipsychotics should be used. However, an individualized treatment approach needs to consider current symptoms, comorbid conditions, past therapeutic response, and adverse effects, as well as patient choice and expectations. Moreover, acute and long-term goals and effects of medication treatment need to be balanced. While the acute response to appropriately dosed first-generation antipsychotics may not differ much from second-generation antipsychotics, advantages of lower rates of extrapyramidal side effects, tardive dyskinesia, and, possibly, relapse may favor second-generation antipsychotics. However, when considering individual adverse effect prof iles, the differentiation into first- and second-generation antipsychotics as unified classes can not be upheld, and a more differentiated view and treatment selection is required. To date, clozapine is the only evidence-based treatment for refractory patients, and the role of antipsychotic polypharmacy and other augmentation strategies remains unclear, at best. To improve the treatment outcomes in schizophrenia, research efforts are needed that elucidate biomarkers of the illness and of treatment response (both therapeutic and adverse effects). Moreover, new treatment options are needed that affect nondopaminergic targets with relevance for symptom reduction, relapse prevention, enhanced efficacy for nonresponders, and reduced key adverse effects.

Adjunctive risperidone for partially responsive people with schizophrenia treated with clozapine

The large numbers of partial clozapine responders represent a major therapeutic challenge. Unfortunately, there are no clear data to support how best to treat these patients. This study examines the efficacy and safety of adjunctive risperidone in a well-defined treatment-resistant population optimally treated with clozapine. A total of 69 inpatients and outpatients with DSM-IV schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder entered a 16-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Of them, 33 participants were randomized to risperidone and 36 were randomized to placebo. There was no significant group difference in the predefined response criteria. There were modest group differences for Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) positive symptoms, which were significant in the completer analysis (F=5.70; df=1, 70.3; p=0.02; ES=0.27) but not the intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses (F=3.01; df=1, 77.5; p=0.09; ES=0.19). A similar pattern was found for the BPRS total score, with the completer analysis showing a significant improvement in the risperidone group (F=5.21; df=1, 64.9; p=0.03; ES=0.27), whereas the ITT analysis was not significant (F=3.52; df=1, 71.3; p=0.06; ES=0.22). In addition, there was a small, but significant, group difference for negative symptoms, as measured by the SANS total score, which favored the risperidone group (F=5.67; df=1, 78.7; p=0.02; ES=0.24). There were no significant group differences on safety measures, including neuropsychological test and extrapyramidal symptom scores. A significant elevation of prolactin in the risperidone group was observed. The study results suggest that adjunctive risperidone may have a modest benefit for treatment-resistant clozapine patients. The study results are discussed in the context of previous double-blind studies of adjunctive risperidone. (clinicaltrials.gov, trial number: NCT00056498).

Adjunctive alpha2-adrenoceptor blockade enhances the antipsychotic-like effect of risperidone and facilitates cortical dopaminergic and glutamatergic, NMDA receptor-mediated transmission

Compared to both first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs (APDs), clozapine shows superior efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. In contrast to most APDs clozapine possesses high affinity for alpha2-adrenoceptors, and clinical and preclinical studies provide evidence that the alpha2-adrenoceptor antagonist idazoxan enhances the antipsychotic efficacy of typical D2 receptor antagonists as well as olanzapine. Risperidone has lower affinity for alpha2-adrenoceptors than clozapine but higher than most other APDs. Here we examined, in rats, the effects of adding idazoxan to risperidone on antipsychotic effect using the conditioned avoidance response (CAR) test, extrapyramidal side-effect (EPS) liability using the catalepsy test, brain dopamine efflux using in-vivo microdialysis in freely moving animals, cortical N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor-mediated transmission using intracellular electrophysiological recording in vitro, and ex-vivo autoradiography to assess the in-vivo alpha2A- and alpha2C-adrenoceptor occupancies by risperidone. The dose of risperidone needed for antipsychotic effect in the CAR test was approximately 0.4 mg/kg, which produced 11% and 17% in-vivo receptor occupancy at alpha2A- and alpha2C-adrenoceptors, respectively. Addition of idazoxan (1.5 mg/kg) to a low dose of risperidone (0.25 mg/kg) enhanced the suppression of CAR, but did not enhance catalepsy. Both cortical dopamine release and NMDA receptor-mediated responses were enhanced. These data propose that the therapeutic effect of risperidone in schizophrenia can be enhanced and its EPS liability reduced by adjunctive treatment with an alpha2-adrenoceptor antagonist, and generally support the notion that the potent alpha2-adrenoceptor antagonistic action of clozapine may be highly important for its unique efficacy in schizophrenia.

Association of Disrupted in Schizophrenia 1 (DISC1) missense variants with ultra-resistant schizophrenia

Three common missense variants of the Disrupted in Schizophrenia 1 (DISC1) gene, rs3738401 (Q264R), rs6675281 (L607F) and rs821616 (S704C), have been variably associated with the risk of schizophrenia. In a case-control study, we examine whether these gene variants are associated with schizophrenia and ultra-resistant schizophrenia (URS) in a population of French Caucasian patients. The URS phenotype is characterized according to stringent criteria as patients who experience no clinical, social and/or occupational remission in spite of treatment with clozapine and at least two periods of treatment with distinct conventional or atypical antipsychotic drugs. We find a significant association between DISC1 missense variants and URS. The association with rs3738401 remains significant after appropriate correction for multiple testing. These results suggest that the DISC1 rs3738401 missense variant is statistically linked with ultra-resistance to antipsychotic treatment.

A randomized trial comparing clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs in non-treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Clozapine has been shown to be superior to typical neuroleptic drugs for treating positive symptoms in treatment-resistant (TR) schizophrenia. Long-term data from randomized clinical trials comparing clozapine with typical neuroleptics in non-TR schizophrenia are rare. We previously reported that clozapine was superior to typical neuroleptic drugs in some domains of cognition in recent onset non-TR schizophrenia. We now present data on psychopathology and quality of life from this randomized, flexibly dosed, 24-month study of clozapine vs. typical neuroleptics in non-TR schizophrenia patients. Both treatments produced significant improvement in measures of psychopathology, quality of life, and global function, with minor exceptions. There was no difference in extrapyramidal side effects between the patients treated with clozapine or typical neuroleptics. However, significantly more relapse/rehospitalization drop-outs occurred in the typical neuroleptic group. Two patients treated with typical neuroleptics, but none treated with clozapine, became non-responsive to treatment. Clozapine was associated with significantly greater weight gain. Clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs appear to produce equivalent improvement in psychopathology in patients with non-TR schizophrenia. Clozapine may be more effective than typical neuroleptics for treatment retention and prevention of relapse, but it produces more severe metabolic side effects. These considerations should be taken into account in decisions of how best to utilize clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Olanzapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second generation ("atypical") antipsychotics have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether, and if so how much, the effects of the various second generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of olanzapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

1. Electronic searching We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.2. Reference searching We inspected the reference of all identified studies for more trials.3. Personal contact We contacted the first author of each included study for missing information.4. Drug companies We contacted the manufacturers of all atypical antipsychotics included for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials that used at least single-blind (rater-blind) design, comparing oral olanzapine with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 50 studies and 9476 participants which provided data for six comparisons (olanzapine compared to amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone). The overall attrition from the included studies was considerable (49.2%) leaving the interpretation of results problematic.Olanzapine improved the general mental state (PANSS total score) more than aripiprazole (2 RCTs, n=794, WMD -4.96 CI -8.06 to -1.85), quetiapine (10 RCTs, n=1449, WMD -3.66 CI -5.39 to -1.93), risperidone (15 RCTs, n=2390, WMD -1.94 CI -3.31 to -0.58) and ziprasidone (4 RCTs, n=1291, WMD -8.32 CI -10.99 to -5.64), but not more than amisulpride or clozapine. This somewhat better efficacy was confirmed by fewer participants in the olanzapine groups leaving the studies early due to inefficacy of treatment compared to quetiapine (8 RCTs, n=1563, RR 0.56 CI 0.44 to 0.70, NNT 11 CI 6 to 50), risperidone (14 RCTs, n=2744, RR 0.78 CI 0.62 to 0.98, NNT 50 CI 17 to 100) and ziprasidone (5 RCTs, n=1937, RR 0.64 CI 0.51 to 0.79, NNT 17, CI 11 to 33).Fewer participants in the olanzapine group than in the quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=876, RR 0.56 CI 0.41 to 0.77, NNT 11 CI 7 to 25) and ziprasidone (2 RCTs, n=766, RR 0.65 CI 0.45 to 0.93, NNT 17 CI 9 to 100) treatment groups, but not in the clozapine group (1 RCT, n=980, RR 1.28 CI 1.02 to 1.61, NNH not estimable), had to be re-hospitalised in the trials.Except for clozapine, all comparators induced less weight gain than olanzapine (olanzapine compared to amisulpride: 3 RCTs, n=671, WMD 2.11kg CI 1.29kg to 2.94kg; aripiprazole: 1 RCT, n=90, WMD 5.60kg CI 2.15kg to 9.05kg; quetiapine: 7 RCTs, n=1173, WMD 2.68kg CI 1.10kg to 4.26kg; risperidone: 13 RCTs, n=2116, WMD 2.61kg CI 1.48kg to 3.74kg; ziprasidone: 5 RCTs, n=1659, WMD 3.82kg CI 2.96kg to 4.69kg). Associated problems such as glucose and cholesterol increase were usually also more frequent in the olanzapine group.Other differences in adverse effects were less well documented. Nevertheless, olanzapine may be associated with slightly more extrapyramidal side effects than quetiapine (use of antiparkinson medication (6 RCTs, n=1090, RR 2.05 CI 1.26 to 3.32, NNH 25 CI 14 to 100), but less than risperidone (use of antiparkinson medication 13 RCTs, n=2599, RR 0.78 CI 0.65 to 0.95, NNH 17 CI 9 to 100) and ziprasidone (use of antiparkinson medication 4 RCTs, n=1732, RR 0.70 CI 0.50 to 0.97, NNH not estimable). It may also increase prolactin somewhat more than aripiprazole, clozapine and quetiapine, but clearly less so than risperidone (6 RCTs, n=1291, WMD -22.84 CI -27.98 to -17.69).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine may be a somewhat more efficacious drug than some other second generation antipsychotic drugs. This small superiority in efficacy needs to be weighed against a larger weight gain and associated metabolic problems than most other second generation antipsychotic drugs, except clozapine. These conclusions are tentative due to the large number of people leaving the studies early which possibly limits the validity of the findings. Further large, well-designed trials are necessary to establish the relative effects of different second generation antipsychotic drugs.

Antipsychotics and schizophrenia: from efficacy and effectiveness to clinical decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively review the 2 recent and large antipsychotic effectiveness trials for treatment of schizophrenia: the United Kingdom's Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS), and the National Institute of Mental Health-initiated Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) schizophrenia trial.

METHOD

We present a review of the rationale, methodology, and findings to date from the CUtLASS and CATIE schizophrenia trials, including all primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary findings from both trials, CUtLASS and CATIE, suggest that first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are equally effective in the treatment of schizophrenia. The exception is in treatment-resistant populations where clozapine exhibits superiority, compared with other SGAs. In the CATIE trial, there is a suggestion that olanzapine is superior in effectiveness, compared with other nonclozapine SGAs, although this seems to be mediated by past history of olanzapine use, and carries with it increased weight gain and metabolic adverse events. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, there is no evidence that SGAs are superior to FGAs, with findings suggesting the possibility that FGAs may be superior.

CONCLUSION

Past efficacy trials have strongly supported the position that SGAs are superior to FGAs in the treatment of schizophrenia and in side effect profile. Two large independent effectiveness trials, CUtLASS and CATIE, have offered a strong challenge to these claims. Both suggest that SGAs, except clozapine in the treatment-resistant population, offer little, if any, clinical benefits, and, moreover, harbour their own significant side effects.

Association study of DTNBP1 with schizophrenia in a US sample

BACKGROUND

Straub et al. (2002b) located a susceptibility region for schizophrenia at the DTNBP1 locus. At least 40 studies (including one study in US populations) attempted to replicate this original finding, but the reported findings are highly diverse and at least five pathways by which dysbindin protein might be involved in schizophrenia have been proposed. This study aimed to test the association in two common US populations by using powerful analytic methods.

METHODS

Six markers at DTNBP1 were genotyped by mass spectroscopy ('MassARRAY' technique) in a sample of 663 individuals, including 346 healthy individuals European-Americans (EAs) and 48 African-Americans (AAs), and 317 individuals with schizophrenia (235 EAs and 82 AAs). Thirty-eight ancestry-informative markers were genotyped in this sample to infer the ancestry proportions. Diplotype, haplotype, genotype, and allele frequency distributions were compared between the cases and controls, controlling for possible population stratification, admixture, and sex-specific effects, and taking interaction effects into account, using a logistic regression analysis (an extended structured association method).

RESULTS

Conventional case-control comparisons showed that genotypes of the markers P1578 (rs1018381) and P1583 (rs909706) were nominally associated with schizophrenia in EAs and in AAs, respectively. These associations became less or nonsignificant after controlling for population stratification and admixture effects (using structured association or regression analysis), and became nonsignificant after correction for multiple testing. However, regression analysis showed that the common diplotypes (ACCCTT/GCCGCC or GCCGCC/GCCGCC) and the interaction effects of haplotypes GCCGCC/GCCGCC significantly affected risk for schizophrenia in EAs, effects that were modified by sex. Fine-mapping using d or J statistics located the specific markers (d: P1328; J: P1333) closest to the putative risk sites in EAs.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that DTNBP1 is a risk gene for schizophrenia in EAs. Variation at DTNBP1 may modify risk for schizophrenia in this population.

Second-generation antipsychotics for schizophrenia: can we resolve the conflict?

The initial enthusiasm about the second-generation or atypical antipsychotic drugs soon changed into criticism and debate, culminating in the controversial CATIE (Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness), CUtLASS (Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study) and EUFEST (European First-Episode Schizophrenia Trial) effectiveness trials. This review summarizes the results of three recent meta-analyses that compared second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with placebo, with conventional antipsychotics, and with SGAs head-to-head. We compare the meta-analyses with previous reviews and put them in the perspective of CATIE, CUtLASS and EUFEST. The data show that the SGAs are not a homogeneous group and that this confusing classification should be abandoned. We find that, overall, the data are consistent but experts interpret the same results differently. The debate seems to be driven more by values than by data; some place an emphasis on cost, others focus on extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), weight gain, or efficacy. In our opinion, the SGAs are not the breakthrough that industry would like to maintain. They have different properties, so a clinician may individualize a treatment plan to a given patient's problems, a decision that should be shared with the patient. However, these drugs are important contributions to treatment, and most psychiatrists, let alone patients, would probably not want to do without them.

Clozapine combined with different antipsychotic drugs for treatment resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Although clozapine has been shown to be the treatment of choice in people with schizophrenia that are resistant to treatment, one third to two thirds of people still have persistent positive symptoms despite clozapine monotherapy of adequate dosage and duration. The need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine is the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination with clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotics in people with treatment resistant schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2008) and MEDLINE (up to November 2008). We checked reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials and requested pharmaceutical companies marketing investigational products to provide relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreement by discussion with third member of the team. When insufficient data were provided, we contacted the study authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Three small (range of number of participants 28 to 60) randomised controlled trials were included in the review. Even though results from individual studies did not find that one combination strategy is better than the others, the methodological quality of included studies was too low to allow authors to use the collected data to answer the research question correctly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review we considered the risk of bias too high because of the poor quality of the retrieved information (small sample size, heterogeneity of comparisons, flaws in the design, conduct and analysis). Although clinical guidelines recommend a second antipsychotic in addition to clozapine in partially responsive patients with schizophrenia, the present systematic review was not able to show if any particular combination strategy was superior to the others. New, properly conducted, randomised controlled trials independent from the pharmaceutical industry need to recruit many more patients to give a reliable estimate of effect or of no effect of antipsychotics as combination treatment with clozapine in patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine monotherapy.

Dropout rates in randomized clinical trials of antipsychotics: a meta-analysis comparing first- and second-generation drugs and an examination of the role of trial design features

Dropout is often used as an outcome measure in clinical trials of antipsychotic medication. Previous research is inconclusive regarding (a) differences in dropout rates between first- and second-generation antipsychotic medications and (b) how trial design features reduce dropout. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antipsychotic medication was conducted to compare dropout rates for first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs and to examine how a broad range of design features effect dropout. Ninety-three RCTs that met inclusion criteria were located (n = 26 686). Meta-analytic random effects models showed that dropout was higher for first- than second-generation drugs (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-1.66). This advantage persisted after removing study arms with excessively high dosages, in flexible dose studies, studies of patients with symptom exacerbation, nonresponder patients, inpatients, and outpatients. Mixed effects models for meta-analysis were used to identify design features that effected dropout and develop formulae to derive expected dropout rates based on trial design features, and these assigned a pivotal role to duration. Collectively, dropout rates are lower for second- than first-generation antipsychotic drugs and appear to be partly explained by trial design features thus providing direction for future trial design.