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

The efficacies of clozapine and haloperidol in refractory schizophrenia are related to DTNBP1 variation

OBJECTIVE

The prototypical atypical antipsychotic agent, clozapine, is more efficacious for refractory schizophrenia than the 'typical' antipsychotics, but the mechanism underlying this enhanced efficacy is still under investigation. Since 2002, at least 22 association studies have shown that the DTNBP1 can be associated with the risk for schizophrenia. We hypothesized that DTNBP1 might also influence the response to antipsychotic treatments. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the DTNBP1 and the effects of clozapine and haloperidol on refractory schizophrenia.

METHODS

Patients with refractory schizophrenia were assigned to clozapine (n=85) or haloperidol (n=96) and followed for 3 months. Symptom improvement was evaluated by Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score. Six markers at DTNBP1 and 38 ancestry-informative markers were genotyped in all participants. The relationships between the effects of antipsychotics and the diplotypes, haplotypes, genotypes, and alleles of DTNBP1 were tested by analysis of covariance, analysis of variance, and t-test.

RESULTS

Patients with diplotype ACCCTC/GTTGCC, genotypes T/T+T/C, or allele T of marker rs742105 (P1333) have better response to clozapine (0.005< or =P< or =0.049), and patients with diplotype ACCCTC/GCCGCC, genotype A/G, or allele A of marker rs909706 (P1583) have better response to haloperidol (0.007< or =P< or =0.080) in European-Americans, African-Americans, and/or the combined sample; European-American patients with diplotype ACCCTC/GCCGCC have worse response to clozapine on positive symptoms (P=0.011).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the DTNBP1 gene modulates the effects of both the atypical antipsychotic clozapine and the typical antipsychotic haloperidol. Participants with different DTNBP1 diplotypes, haplotypes, genotypes, or alleles might have different responses to these antipsychotics.

Population admixture modulates risk for alcohol dependence

The admixture of different ancestral populations in America may have important implications for the risk for psychiatric disorders, as it appears to have for other medical disorders. The present study investigated the role of population admixture in risk for several psychiatric disorders in European-Americans (EAs) and African-Americans (AAs). This is a multisite study with 3,792 subjects recruited from across the United States, including 3,119 EAs and 673 AAs. These subjects included healthy controls and those with substance dependence (SD) [including alcohol dependence (AD), cocaine dependence, and opioid dependence], social phobia, affective disorders, and schizophrenia. In addition, DNA was included from 78 West Africans. The degree of admixture for each subject was estimated by analysis of a set of ancestry-informative genetic markers using the program STRUCTURE, and was compared between cases and controls. As noted previously, the degree of admixture in AAs was higher than EAs. In EAs, the degree of admixture (with African ancestry) was significantly lower in patients with SD (mainly AD) than controls (P = 0.009 for SD; P = 0.008 for AD). This finding suggests that population admixture may modulate risk for alcohol dependence. Population admixture might protect against alcohol dependence by increasing average heterozygosity and reducing the risk of deleterious recessive alleles. We cannot exclude the possibility that the results might have been influenced by selection bias due to the multisite nature of the study.

Rationale and design of an independent randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of aripiprazole or haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

One third to two thirds of people with schizophrenia have persistent psychotic symptoms despite clozapine treatment. Under real-world circumstances, the need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine has been cited as the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination treatment strategies. In a clinical area where the pressing need of providing therapeutic answers has progressively increased the occurrence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, despite the lack of robust evidence of its efficacy, we sought to implement a pre-planned protocol where two alternative therapeutic answers are systematically provided and evaluated within the context of a pragmatic, multicentre, independent randomised study.

METHODS/DESIGN

The principal clinical question to be answered by the present project is the relative efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole compared with combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with an incomplete response to treatment with clozapine over an appropriate period of time. This project is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial that follow patients over a period of 12 months. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months is the primary outcome.

DISCUSSION

The implementation of the protocol presented here shows that it is possible to create a network of community psychiatric services that accept the idea of using their everyday clinical practice to produce randomised knowledge. The employed pragmatic attitude allowed to randomly allocate more than 100 individuals, which means that this study is the largest antipsychotic combination trial conducted so far in Western countries. We expect that the current project, by generating evidence on whether it is clinically useful to combine clozapine with aripiprazole rather than with haloperidol, provides physicians with a solid evidence base to be directly applied in the routine care of patients with schizophrenia.

Does the addition of a second antipsychotic drug improve clozapine treatment?

In patients with schizophrenia who do not have an optimal response to clozapine, it remains unclear if there is an evidence base to support a second antipsychotic in combination with clozapine. The present systematic review was therefore carried out to determine the efficacy of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotics. Relevant studies were located by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, Medline, and Embase (up to November 2007). Only studies randomly allocating patients to clozapine plus another antipsychotic vs clozapine monotherapy were included. The search yielded 21 studies suitable for reanalysis. In 3 trials, clozapine was combined with a phenothiazine, in 8 trials with a benzamide, and in the remaining trials with risperidone. While the majority of randomized trials were not double blind, 6 studies were double-blind placebo-controlled trials. A total of 14 randomized open studies significantly favored clozapine combination strategy in terms of mean difference (random effect standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.14 to -0.46); however, data extracted from 6 randomized double-blind studies did not show a statistically significant positive effect of this combination strategy in terms of mean difference (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.57 to 0.32). In terms of percentage of patients failing to show an improvement, a total of 10 randomized open studies significantly favored clozapine combination strategy (random effect relative risk [RR] = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.97), but data extracted from 6 randomized double-blind studies did not show a statistically significant positive effect of this combination strategy (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.11). We conclude that the evidence base supporting a second antipsychotic in addition to clozapine in partially responsive patients with schizophrenia is weak. This weak evidence indicates modest to absent benefit.

Variability of the in vivo metabolism of clozapine

OBJECTIVES

Clozapine, the gold standard of antipsychotic treatment in treatment-refractory patients with schizophrenia, is metabolized in vivo to clozapine-N-oxide and N-desmethylclozapine (NDMC = norclozapine). N-desmethylclozapine is an active metabolite of clozapine and combines unique pharmacological properties. Because little is known about the rate of metabolic conversion of clozapine in vivo, we assessed the association between clozapine dose and plasma levels for clozapine and NDMC.

METHODS

Plasma levels of clozapine and NDMC were measured in 485 blood samples from 108 patients with schizophrenia treated with clozapine. %NDMC, the ratio of NDMC to total clozapine (NDMC + clozapine), was used as a measure of the in vivo metabolism of clozapine.

RESULTS

Daily clozapine doses correlated significantly with clozapine levels and NDMC levels, whereas %NDMC showed a weaker negative correlation with clozapine dose. The mean %NDMC value was 37.0% +/- 16.8%, with high variability between subjects. Repeated measurements in subjects treated with the same dose of clozapine showed a high within-subject variability of %NDMC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a high degree of between-subject and within-subject variability in the metabolism of clozapine in vivo. Direct administration of NDMC may be preferable to reliably achieve sufficient plasma levels of this compound.

Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with typical antipsychotics has limitations: 25 to 33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer motor adverse effects than typical drugs for people with treatment-resistant illnesses. Clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders, which necessitates mandatory weekly blood monitoring at least during the first months of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of clozapine compared with typical antipsychotic drugs in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review (March 2006) we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

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 fixed-effect 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 fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 42 trials (3950 participants) in this review. Twenty-eight of the included studies are less than 13 weeks in duration, and, overall, trials were at significant risk of bias. We found no significant difference in the effects of clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs for broad outcomes such as mortality, ability to work or suitability for discharge at the end of the study. Clinical improvements were seen more frequently in those taking clozapine (n=1119, 14 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.7 to 0.8, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Also, participants given clozapine had fewer relapses than those on typical antipsychotic drugs (n=1303, RR 0.62 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 21 CI 15 to 49). BPRS scores showed a greater reduction of symptoms in clozapine-treated patients, (n=1145, 16 RCTs, WMD -4.22 CI -5.4 to -3.1), although the data were heterogeneous (Chi(2) 0.0001, I(2) 66%). Short-term data from the SANS negative symptom scores favoured clozapine (n=196, 5 RCTs, WMD -5.92 CI -7.8 to -4.1). We found clozapine to be more acceptable in long-term treatment than conventional antipsychotic drugs (n=982, 16 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 15 CI 12 to 20). Blood problems occurred more frequently in participants receiving clozapine (3.2%) compared with those given typical antipsychotics (0%) (n=1031, 13 RCTs, RR 7.09 CI 2.0 to 25.6). Clozapine participants experienced more drowsiness, hypersalivation, or temperature increase, than those given conventional neuroleptics. However, clozapine patients experienced fewer motor adverse effects (n=1433, 18 RCTs, RR 0.58 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 5 CI 4 to 6).The clinical effects of clozapine were more pronounced in participants resistant to typical neuroleptics in terms of clinical improvement (n=370, 4 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.6 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 6) and symptom reduction. Thirty-four per cent of treatment-resistant participants had a clinical improvement with clozapine treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine may be more effective in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia, producing clinically meaningful improvements and postponing relapse, than typical antipsychotic drugs - but data are weak and prone to bias. Participants were more satisfied with clozapine treatment than with typical neuroleptic treatment. The clinical effect of clozapine, however, is, at least in the short term, not reflected in measures of global functioning such as ability to leave the hospital and maintain an occupation. The short-term benefits of clozapine have to be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. Within the context of trials, the potentially dangerous white blood cell decline seems to be more frequent in children and adolescents and in the elderly than in young adults or people of middle-age.The existing trials have largely neglected to assess the views of participants and their families on clozapine. More community-based long-term randomised trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of clozapine on global and social functioning as trials in special groups such as people with learning disabilities.

Second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Because of the debate about whether second-generation antipsychotic drugs are better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs, we did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of these two types of drugs in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We compared nine second-generation antipsychotic drugs with first-generation drugs for overall efficacy (main outcome), positive, negative and depressive symptoms, relapse, quality of life, extrapyramidal side-effects, weight gain, and sedation.

FINDINGS

We included 150 double-blind, mostly short-term, studies, with 21 533 participants. We excluded open studies because they systematically favoured second-generation drugs. Four of these drugs were better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs for overall efficacy, with small to medium effect sizes (amisulpride -0.31 [95% CI -0.44 to -0.19, p<0.0001], clozapine -0.52 [-0.75 to -0.29, p<0.0001], olanzapine -0.28 [-0.38 to -0.18, p<0.0001], and risperidone -0.13 [-0.22 to -0.05, p=0.002]). The other second-generation drugs were not more efficacious than the first-generation drugs, even for negative symptoms. Therefore efficacy on negative symptoms cannot be a core component of atypicality. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than did haloperidol (even at low doses). Only a few have been shown to induce fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs. With the exception of aripiprazole and ziprasidone, second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced more weight gain, in various degrees, than did haloperidol but not than low-potency first-generation drugs. The second-generation drugs also differed in their sedating properties. We did not note any consistent effects of moderator variables, such as industry sponsorship, comparator dose, or prophylactic antiparkinsonian medication.

INTERPRETATION

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ in many properties and are not a homogeneous class. This meta-analysis provides data for individualised treatment based on efficacy, side-effects, and cost.

Evaluating the association between clozapine and venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE

The possible association between clozapine and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is discussed.

SUMMARY

Twenty-two cases of VTE associated with clozapine have been published. The average patient age at the time of occurrence was 38 years in the reported cases. Of the published cases with a known outcome, the mortality rate of a clotting complication while on clozapine was approximately 44%. The manufacturer of clozapine has calculated a mortality rate from pulmonary embolism to be one death per 3450 person years of use, approximately 28 times higher than the rate in the general population. The possible mechanism for the association between clozapine and VTE is probably multifactorial. A VTE usually occurs when one of three factors is present: damage to the vessel wall, static blood flow, or coagulation abnormalities. Clozapine, as well as other antipsychotics, has not been shown to cause direct damage to the vasculature in humans. However, static blood flow may be influenced by sedation and the sedentary lifestyle commonly associated with psychiatric disorders, their treatment, or both. Clozapine is associated with significant sedation and an average weight gain of 7-11 kg. There is also increasing evidence that clozapine and other antipsychotics may cause a variety of different coagulation abnormalities. Clozapine has been found to increase platelet adhesion as well as aggregation. Avoidance of risk factors, such as weight gain and sedentary lifestyle, may alleviate some of the risk of clozapine-induced VTE.

CONCLUSION

Available data indicate an association between clozapine and VTE; however, it is unknown whether the increased risk of VTE in patients receiving clozapine is because of prothrombotic effects of the drug. Risk of VTE versus the benefits of therapy should be considered when initiating clozapine therapy.

Dirichlet Component Regression and its Applications to Psychiatric Data

We describe a Dirichlet multivariable regression method useful for modeling data representing components as a percentage of a total. This model is motivated by the unmet need in psychiatry and other areas to simultaneously assess the effects of covariates on the relative contributions of different components of a measure. The model is illustrated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for assessment of schizophrenia symptoms which, like many other metrics in psychiatry, is composed of a sum of scores on several components, each in turn, made up of sums of evaluations on several questions. We simultaneously examine the effects of baseline socio-demographic and co-morbid correlates on all of the components of the total PANSS score of patients from a schizophrenia clinical trial and identify variables associated with increasing or decreasing relative contributions of each component. Several definitions of residuals are provided. Diagnostics include measures of overdispersion, Cook's distance, and a local jackknife influence metric.

A randomized controlled trial of the cost-utility of second-generation antipsychotics in people with psychosis and eligible for clozapine

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether clozapine is likely to be more cost-effective than other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in people with schizophrenia.

METHODS

An integrated clinical and economic multicenter, rater-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared clozapine to the class of other SGAs, using the perspectives of the National Health Service, social support services, and patients. The practice setting was secondary and primary care in the United Kingdom; patients were followed for 1 year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net benefit statistics, and cost acceptability curves were estimated.

RESULTS

The ICER for clozapine was 33,240 pound per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (range 23,000-70,000 pound for the sensitivity analyses). The proportion of simulations when clozapine was more cost-effective than other SGAs reached 50% if decision-makers are prepared to pay 30,000 pound to 35,000 pound per QALY. This is at the top of the range of acceptable willingness-to-pay values per QALY implied by decisions taken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to a limited body of evidence comparing clozapine to other SGAs and is the first economic and clinical RCT to compare clozapine to the class of other SGAs using the lower cost of generic clozapine and a pragmatic trial design. Policy decisions by the NICE suggest that additional reasons would be needed to accept clozapine as effective and efficient if it had a high probability of having ICERs more than 35,000 pound per QALY. The results and limitations of the analysis suggest that there is still a need for further economic evaluation of clozapine.

Are second generation antipsychotics a distinct class?

INTRODUCTION

Second generation antipsychotic medications have become synonymous with "atypicality." To support the clinical lore of equivalent efficacy with reduced risk of extrapyramidal symptoms, clinical trials have overwhelmingly chosen a high-potency first-generation antipsychotic (e.g., haloperidol) as a comparator. Very few clinical trials have compared a second-generation antipsychotic with a low- or mid-potency first-generation antipsychotic medication.

METHODS

We identified eight completed, published, double-blind, randomized clinical trials that compared a second-generation antipsychotic with a low- or mid-potency first-generation antipsychotic and reviewed outcome measures for efficacy and extrapyramidal symptoms; 1,241 patients were represented in these eight trials.

RESULTS

Although data are very limited, mid- and low-potency first-generation antipsychotics show efficacy and extrapyramidal side effects that are comparable to those of second-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSION

Aside from clozapine, first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics represent a diverse group of medications that have heterogenous receptor profiles and side effects but comparable clinical efficacy and potential to cause extrapyramidal symptoms. Clinicians may provide better treatment for patients by considering the unique pharmacological and side-effect profile of each particular antipsychotic independent of its classification as a first- or second-generation agent.

Methodological issues in current antipsychotic drug trials

Every year numerous reports on antipsychotic drug trials are being published in neuropsychiatric journals, adding new information to our knowledge in the field. The information however is often hard for the reader to interpret, sometimes contradictory to comparable available studies and leaves more questions open than it actually answers. Although the overall quality of the studies is rather good, there are manifold options for further improvement in the conception, conduct, and reporting of antipsychotic drug trials. In this survey, we address methodological challenges such as the limited generalizability of outcomes due to patient selection and sample size; the vague or even lacking definition of key outcome parameters such as response, remission or relapse, insufficient blinding techniques, the pitfalls of surrogate outcomes and their assessment tools; the varying complex statistical approaches; and the challenge of balancing various ways of reporting outcomes. The authors present practical examples to highlight the current problems and propose a concrete series of suggestions on how to further optimize antipsychotic drug trials in the future.

Iloperidone: a new benzisoxazole atypical antipsychotic drug. Is it novel enough to impact the crowded atypical antipsychotic market?

Iloperidone is a new-generation atypical antipsychotic agent, acting as a serotonin/dopamine (5-HT(2A)/D(2)) antagonist, under development by Vanda Pharmaceuticals for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychiatric conditions. Chemically, iloperidone is a benzisoxazole, like risperidone, and shows a multiple receptor binding profile, sharing this feature with the other atypical antipsychotic agents. Administered orally, the drug is highly bound to plasma proteins and extensively metabolised. Several clinical trials have been carried out, to check efficacy, safety and side effects. In order to introduce iloperidone as an agent for the treatment of schizophrenia, a short overview of the disease and of the most important antipsychotic drugs available or under development will be reported. Iloperidone pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are presented herein, together with an evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy results.

Clozapine for severe ("kraepelinian") schizophrenia: Sustained improvement over 5 years

Clozapine has become a keystone in the treatment of schizophrenia because of its efficacy as an antipsychotic with negligible neuroleptic effects. The long-term stability of its effects, however, is poorly understood, because most studies have probed the usefulness of clozapine over a period of weeks to several months at the most. Knowing whether clozapine’s benefits are sustained over the very long-term, i.e., more than 5 years, may be critical for cost-benefit analyses.

Patients' perspectives on what works in psychoeducational groups for schizophrenia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Psychoeducational groups are a common component of interventions in schizophrenia.

AIMS

To explore patients' views about wanted and unwanted effects of group psychoeducation.

METHOD

Subjective feedback of 103 participants of a psychoeducational intervention as well as data from two specific focus groups-one with "enthusiastic" and one with "critical" participants-were analyzed by means of qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants emphasized the importance of information received and of exchanging information with others suffering from the same disorder. Positive effects on coping, activation and social interaction were reported. Perceived overemphasis on illness related information produced defensive reactions, whereas the integration of quality of life topics was appreciated. A pleasant group atmosphere and clinical stability were suggested as important determinants of success.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative analyzses of participants' views help to understand the potentials of a psychoeducational intervention in schizophrenia.

Quality of life in schizophrenic patients

In the last decades, there has been increased interest in the field of quality of life in mental disorders in general, and particularly in schizophrenia. In addition, the appearance of the atypical antipsychotic drugs (amisul pride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone) with different therapeutic and side-effect profiles, has promoted a greater interest in assessing the quality of life of schizophrenic patients. In this paper we will briefly summarize the difficulties in assessing quality of life in schizophrenic patients, as well as the results concerning their quality of life and the influence of psychopathology, especially negative and depressive symptoms, on it. We will also review data from recent clinical trials showing the impact of antipsychotic treatments and their side effects upon quality of life.

Adding or switching antipsychotic medications in treatment-refractory schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This study compared patients with schizophrenia whose antipsychotic medications were switched to manage treatment-resistant positive psychotic symptoms with those for whom another antipsychotic was added. Psychiatrists' characteristics and perceptions of effectiveness of the medication change on clinical outcomes were also reported.

METHODS

Psychiatrists participating in a nationally representative mailed survey (N=209) reported on the clinical features, management, and response to the change in antipsychotic medication (added versus switched) of one adult patient with treatment-refractory schizophrenia under their care for at least one year.

RESULTS

Thirty-three percent of patients were treated with an added antipsychotic medication. Compared with patients whose antipsychotic medications were switched, those with an added antipsychotic medication were more likely to be female, to have received care from the same psychiatrist for more than two years, and to have been recently prescribed an antidepressant. Compared with psychiatrists who switched antipsychotic prescriptions, those who added an antipsychotic reported that the change was less likely to reduce positive symptoms, improve functioning, and prevent hospitalization. Psychiatrists who added rather than switched antipsychotics reported more frequent attendance at educational programs sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with other lines of research and practice guideline recommendations, psychiatrists perceive antipsychotic polypharmacy to be a generally ineffective strategy for treatment-resistant positive psychotic symptoms. In light of these findings, efforts to identify and implement more effective evidence-based pharmacologic approaches should be undertaken.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of reduced tardive dyskinesia with second-generation antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Second-generation antipsychotics may have few advantages over older, cheaper drugs, except for possibly reduced risk of tardive dyskinesia.

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics with regard to reducing tardive dyskinesia.

METHOD

Literature was reviewed on risk of tardive dyskinesia with second-generation antipsychotics; on severity, duration and impairment of tardive dyskinesia; and on the relationship of this disorder to quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Diverse cost and benefit assumptions and of 1-year and 5-year planning horizons were examined in a deterministic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Estimating 0.143 QALYs lost per case of severe tardive dyskinesia, 1-year cost-effectiveness cumulative estimates ranged from pounds 74,000 (dollars 149,000) to pounds 342,000 (dollars 683,000) per QALY, all above the conventional policy threshold of pounds 25,000 (dollars 50,000).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction of tardive dyskinesia with second-generation antipsychotics appears unlikely to meet standards for cost-effectiveness.

Early use of clozapine for poorly responding first-episode psychosis

Although most patients treated for first-episode schizophrenia will experience considerable improvement with initial antipsychotic therapy, a subgroup experiences significant ongoing positive symptoms. Clozapine has unique efficacy in improving treatment-resistant patients with chronic schizophrenia, but its role in the treatment of first-episode patients remains unclear. A standardized treatment algorithm was implemented in our First Episode Psychosis Program, with patients receiving 2 trials with 2 second-generation antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone at low, medium, and high doses), followed by a trial of clozapine as early as 25 weeks into the start of their treatment. Patients progress along the algorithm according to their response as defined by clinical rating scales. To date, 123 patients with first-episode schizophrenia have been treated according to the algorithm. Of these, 93 (76%) responded to the first trial of an antipsychotic. Only 7 (23%) of the remaining 30 patients responded to a second antipsychotic trial; 13 of the remaining 23 individuals agreed to a trial of clozapine. We compared the clozapine-treated group with a group of 9 patients who refused clozapine and chose to continue the same antipsychotic treatment as before. Subjects who received clozapine experienced a mean Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale change of 19 points (from 53.5 to 34.5) and a change in the Clinical Global Inventory severity rating from 5.4 to 3.5 (from severely ill to mildly ill); those who refused clozapine had a 2-point increase in mean Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (from 53 to 55) and a 0.6-point increase in the mean Clinical Global Inventory severity rating from 5.4 to 6 (remaining markedly to severely ill). In clinical practice, there is a hesitancy to switch individuals to clozapine given its side effect profile and position as treatment of "last resort." The present findings suggest that clozapine may have an important role in the early treatment of first-episode patients whose psychosis does not remit with other second-generation antipsychotics during the first months of treatment.

Adding or switching antipsychotic medications in treatment-refractory schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This study compared patients with schizophrenia whose antipsychotic medications were switched to manage treatment-resistant positive psychotic symptoms with those for whom another antipsychotic was added. Psychiatrists' characteristics and perceptions of effectiveness of the medication change on clinical outcomes were also reported.

METHODS

Psychiatrists participating in a nationally representative mailed survey (N=209) reported on the clinical features, management, and response to the change in antipsychotic medication (added versus switched) of one adult patient with treatment-refractory schizophrenia under their care for at least one year.

RESULTS

Thirty-three percent of patients were treated with an added antipsychotic medication. Compared with patients whose antipsychotic medications were switched, those with an added antipsychotic medication were more likely to be female, to have received care from the same psychiatrist for more than two years, and to have been recently prescribed an antidepressant. Compared with psychiatrists who switched antipsychotic prescriptions, those who added an antipsychotic reported that the change was less likely to reduce positive symptoms, improve functioning, and prevent hospitalization. Psychiatrists who added rather than switched antipsychotics reported more frequent attendance at educational programs sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with other lines of research and practice guideline recommendations, psychiatrists perceive antipsychotic polypharmacy to be a generally ineffective strategy for treatment-resistant positive psychotic symptoms. In light of these findings, efforts to identify and implement more effective evidence-based pharmacologic approaches should be undertaken.

Synthesis and binding affinity of new pyrazole and isoxazole derivatives as potential atypical antipsychotics

We describe the synthesis and binding affinities on D(2), 5-HT(2A) and 5-HT(2C) receptors of 6-aminomethyl-6,7-dihydro-1H-indazol-4(5H)-ones and 6-aminomethyl-6,7-dihydro-3-methyl-benzo[d]isoxazol-4(5H)-ones, as conformationally constrained butyrophenone analogues. One of the new compounds showed good in vitro binding features, and a Meltzer's ratio characteristic of an atypical antipsychotic profile.

A controlled, mirror-image study of second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia

Second-generation antipsychotics are now treatments of choice in many countries. In this study, we aimed to compare hospital stay and admissions to hospital in patients switching from first-generation (conventional) to second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics with patients switching from one first-generation drug to another. This was a retrospective, 6-year, controlled mirror-image study conducted in an acute general psychiatry services in an inner-city area. Subjects were consisted of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder receiving continuous prescription of antipsychotics over at least a 6-year period between 1994 and 2002. The main outcome measures were number of days spent in hospital and number of admissions to hospital. In 36 patients switched from first to second-generation antipsychotics, total number of days spent in hospital increased, from a mean of 90 days in the 3 years before switching, to a mean of 200 days in the 3 years after (P<0.001). Mean number of admissions did not change significantly (1.61 before vs. 1.44 after, P=0.360). In 36 matched control patients, switching between first-generation antipsychotic drugs, mean number of days in hospital fell from 64 to 50 (P=0.189) and number of admissions was virtually unchanged (1.42 before vs. 1.03 after, P=0.202). Mean days in hospital were significantly increased in the second-generation antipsychotic group compared with the first-generation antipsychotic (control) group (P<0.001). Switching from first to second-generation antipsychotics resulted in an important increase in number of days spent in hospital. Switching from one first-generation antipsychotic drug to another did not significantly affect number of days in hospital.

Striatal and nigral COX-2 expression after chronic typical and atypical neuroleptic administration in rats

Haloperidol, but not clozapine, induces dopaminergic nigrostriatal degeneration. However, the mechanisms by which haloperidol causes neurotoxicity are not fully understood. An increase in cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression has been observed correlated with nigrostriatal degeneration. We investigated the modifications of striatal and nigral COX-2 expression induced by chronic haloperidol and clozapine administration. Rats were treated for 21 days with: haloperidol (1 mg/kg), clozapine (1 mg/kg) or saline. No significant differences were observed in striatal and nigral COX-2 expression between haloperidol and clozapine-treated animals. This observation might suggest that nigral COX-2 expression is not the underlying mechanisms involved in haloperidol-induced dopaminergic neurodegeneration.

Synthesis and biological evaluation of new quinazoline and cinnoline derivatives as potential atypical antipsychotics

Four new diaza analogues (14, 15, 23, and 24) of the conformationally constrained aminobutyrophenone derivatives QF0104B (5) and QF0108B (6) were synthesized (Schemes 2 and 3), and evaluated for their binding affinities (Table) towards the serotonin 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C, and the dopamine D2 receptors. Among the new compounds, the quinazoline derivative 15 (= 7-{[4-(4-fluorobenzoyl)piperidin-1-yl]methyl}-5,6,7,8-tetrahydroquinazolin-5-one) exhibited the highest affinities towards the serotonin 5-HT2A and dopamine D2 receptors, and it is in the borderline of potential atypical antipsychotics. The cinnoline derivative 23 (= 7-{[4-(4-fluorobenzoyl)piperidin-1-yl]methyl}-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-3-methylcinnolin-5-one) displayed high selectivity in its binding profile towards the 5-HT2C compared to both the 5-HT2A and D2 receptors.

EPS profiles: the atypical antipsychotics are not all the same

Within the first few years after chlorpromazine began to be used to treat psychosis, it was observed that it could cause many kinds of neurologic reactions that resembled those seen in idiopathic Parkinson's disease. These reactions were termed "extrapyramidal side effects" (EPS) because of their resemblance to the signs of Parkinson's disease, which were associated with degeneration of the dopamine nerve tracks located in the extrapyramidal region of the central nervous system. Eventually this association of dopamine loss, antipsychotics, and parkinsonism became a central part of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. Unfortunately, this association was also used to support the hypothesis that EPS were absolutely necessary for antipsychotic efficacy--hence the term "neuroleptic" rather than "antipsychotic." This theory, now discredited, was used to justify the practice of inducing EPS as a means to gauge whether an antipsychotic would be effective. The demonstration that clozapine, an antipsychotic virtually devoid of EPS, has better efficacy for psychosis than any other "neuroleptic" disproved the theory that EPS were fundamentally linked to efficacy. Because the idea of a relationship between EPS and efficacy was so ingrained in clinical practice, clozapine was called "atypical." Our understanding of the relationship between EPS and antipsychotic response has come full circle. With the introduction of clozapine and other newer antipsychotics, it has become clear that EPS are harmful and serve no beneficial purpose. The availability of newer antipsychotics with a lower EPS burden means that, at least in theory, it is now possible to treat psychosis without EPS in the vast majority of patients. In practice, however, EPS remain a significant problem even in the era of atypical or second generation antipsychotics (SGAs). One limitation is that the concept of "atypicality," when used to denote antipsychotic efficacy without EPS, is a relative not an absolute concept. Because all of the post-clozapine SGAs still affect the dopamine D2 receptor, it may be more accurate to say these medications have lower EPS liabilities that the earlier "neuroleptic" antipsychotics; i.e., relatively fewer patients will get EPS at therapeutic doses of one of the newer medications and, when EPS do occur, they tend to be less severe. Nonetheless, reduced EPS are not the same as no EPS, and most of the newer antipsychotics can still cause EPS in some patients. The incidence of EPS differs among the SGAs, with risperidone associated with the most and clozapine and quetiapine with the fewest EPS. The likelihood of developing EPS with a first-line SGA depends not only on the specific agent, but also on the rapidity of dose escalation, the target dose, and the patient's intrinsic vulnerability to EPS. Even with the SGAs, clinicians should not be lulled into believing EPS cannot happen, but need to be able to recognize and manage both overt and subtle manifestations of EPS. This review discusses differences among the SGAs in EPS liability, relationships between dosing and type of EPS, and situations in which differences in EPS liability among the SGAs are clinically relevant.

Adherence behaviour with psychotropic medication is a form of self-medication

Adherence with psychotropic medication is at least at poor as adherence with medication for physical health problems. There has been an assumption this was due to loss of insight resulting from psychiatric disorders themselves. Consequently, interventions have focussed on treating the underlying psychiatric disorder and generating psychological strategies to promote awareness. Recent surveys of patient preferences for information and involvement in health care decisions highlight that most individuals want to participate in the process of medical care. Patients often have strong pre-existing beliefs about different therapeutic options. This is supported by the self-determination theory which distinguishes between autonomous behaviour and behaviours that are influenced by external forces. When considering the patient perspective in medication adherence, it is useful to consider the self-medication hypothesis. This can equally be applied to prescribed and non-prescribed drugs. The self-medication hypothesis states that patients decide to start, adjust or stop prescribed medication according to perceived health needs. Such decisions are often conducted intentionally and rationally, given the information available to the patient and their understanding of their condition. In this narrative review, the evidence for and against intentionality in psychotropic adherence behaviour is examined. Studies of compliance and related predictors are examined in depression, schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder. Results suggest that although concordance depends on patient, illness and clinician factors, patient choice is usually the final common pathway. Illness severity and insight is important in some cases but can act in concert with cognitive factors. Individuals appear to prefer to take medication "as required" (symptomatically) rather than prophylactically. Significant influences upon self-medication habits are prior health beliefs, medication attitudes, adverse effects and adequacy of communication from the health care professional. The self-medication hypothesis applied to prescribed psychotropic medication should assist rather than heed clinicians in improving adherence by taking a patient centred approach and where possible promoting patient autonomy.

Pharmacological treatment of primary negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment of primary negative symptoms is important because their presence is associated with poor outcome.

AIMS

To systematically review all studies dealing with the efficacy of pharmacological agents on primary negative symptoms.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the relevant literature was undertaken using electronic database, reference lists and personal contact.

RESULTS

There is a lack of standardized research designs. Amisulpride is the most extensively studied drug with respect to efficacy against primary negative symptoms. At low doses it demonstrates a consistent, modest effect compared to placebo, though not to conventional antipsychotics and has yet to be tested against other atypicals. Evidence from multiple studies that used simple statistical analyses and inclusion criteria for patients with primary negative symptoms does not support a direct effect for clozapine. Path-analysis studies support the direct effects of risperidone, olanzapine, sertindole and aripiprazole, however, different statistical analyses of the same risperidone study produced conflicting results and the direct effects of olanzapine were not confirmed in selected patients with primary negative symptoms. There are no studies supporting the use of ziprasidone or quetiapine. The effects of typical antipsychotics on primary negative symptoms are inconclusive and likely to depend on drug dosages. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mirtazepine and NMDA agonists show early promise but require further study. Novel agents such as selegiline, naltrexone, dehydroepiandrosterone, galantamine, Ginkgo, nitric oxide, L-deprenyl and pergolide show positive effects on general negative symptoms but remain untested against primary negative symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies using standardized selective inclusion criteria and controlling for chronicity are needed. Research guidelines are discussed.

Pharmakotherapie der Schizophrenie

The management of schizophrenia patients remains one of the great challenges in psychiatry. Despite the undisputed effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs, patients and their physicians still face considerable difficulties mainly related to incomplete or lacking treatment response and the inability to predict the individual efficacy and tolerability. In this manuscript we review the key elements of pharmacological treatment of this disorder, encompassing acute and long-term management as well as specific management problems ranging from acutely violent patients to treatment-resistant subjects. Along with general treatment principles, the document provides specific information regarding efficacy and safety features of antipsychotics. Many of the currently available treatment recommendations/guidelines are based on the evidence reviewed here. This review is meant to serve as a guide for clinicians involved in managing schizophrenia, whether in a psychiatric hospital setting or as family physicians in private practice.

The relationship between patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes in schizophrenia

In recent years, the goals of treatment in schizophrenia have evolved from objective improvements in psychotic symptoms to encompass patient-related factors such as subjective response and quality of life. In order to examine factors that influence patient satisfaction with treatment, subjective quality of life and subjective response to treatment, two literature searches were performed using PubMed. The first searched for articles of any kind with no time limits using the search parameters 'schizophrenia AND satisfaction', 'antipsychotic AND satisfaction', 'schizophrenia AND subjective response', 'schizophrenia AND therapeutic alliance', 'schizophrenia AND psychosocial OR psychoeducation'. Secondly, PubMed was searched between January 1990 and December 2005 using the key words 'satisfaction', 'subjective response' and 'quality of life' in combination with an array of atypical agents. Results demonstrated that patient satisfaction with antipsychotic therapy is influenced by multiple factors. The most frequently reported reasons for dissatisfaction include drug side effects, lack of involvement in treatment planning or decision-making and lack of involvement of family members in the care plan. The majority of studies have demonstrated that the atypical antipsychotics are associated with significant improvements in quality of life, functional status and patient satisfaction compared with conventional agents. The therapeutic alliance is key to achieving optimal outcomes, by providing information and education to meet patients' needs, while facilitating compliance with drug therapy to ensure better clinical outcomes. A long-acting atypical antipsychotic that can ensure medication delivery will provide a platform for psychosocial interventions, and thus may further increase patient satisfaction and, ultimately, improve long-term outcomes in schizophrenia.

Symptom domains of schizophrenia: the role of atypical antipsychotic agents

Given their more obvious presentation, the reduction of positive symptoms and their associated behavioural problems have been considered the most important treatment outcome parameter in patients with schizophrenia. However, the development of the atypical antipsychotic agents in the early 1990s resulted in the adoption of more wide-reaching measures of therapeutic outcome. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of currently available atypical agents across multiple symptom domains of schizophrenia with a specific focus on negative symptoms, neurocognition, social functioning, quality of life and insight. As such, studies published between January 1990 and December 2005 that evaluated the clinical efficacy and tolerability of atypical antipsychotics in different symptom domains of schizophrenia were reviewed as identified from literature researches using MEDLINE and Embase. Abstracts and posters presented at key psychiatry and schizophrenia congresses during this period were also reviewed where available in the public domain. Results from the studies identified have consistently demonstrated that atypical antipsychotics have substantial advantages over conventional antipsychotics with a broader spectrum of efficacy across symptomatic domains of schizophrenia as proven by greater improvements in negative symptoms and cognitive function and a beneficial effect on affective symptoms and quality of life. However, their clinical advantages have often been limited by patients' partial compliance with therapy. As such, the development of a long-acting atypical antipsychotic agent may provide a new and valuable treatment option for patients with schizophrenia.

Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia

There is good evidence that clozapine is more efficacious than first-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. It is less clear if clozapine is more effective than the other second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs. A noncommercially funded, pragmatic, open, multisite, randomized controlled trial was conducted in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). Participants were 136 people aged 18-65 with DSM-IV schizophrenia and related disorders whose medication was being changed because of poor clinical response to 2 or more previous antipsychotic drugs. Participants were randomly allocated to clozapine or to one of the class of other SGA drugs (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, amisulpride) as selected by the managing clinician. Outcomes were assessed blind to treatment allocation. One-year assessments were carried out in 87% of the sample. The intent to treat comparison showed no statistically significant advantage for commencing clozapine in Quality of Life score (3.63 points; CI: 0.46-7.71; p = .08) but did show an advantage in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score that was statistically significant (-4.93 points; CI: -8.82 to -1.05; p = .013) during follow-up. Clozapine showed a trend toward having fewer total extrapyramidal side effects. At 12 weeks participants who were receiving clozapine reported that their mental health was significantly better compared with those receiving other SGA drugs. In conclusion, in people with schizophrenia with poor treatment response to 2 or more antipsychotic drugs, there is an advantage to commencing clozapine rather than other SGA drugs in terms of symptom improvement over 1 year.

Effect of antipsychotic replacement with quetiapine on the symptoms and quality of life of schizophrenic patients with extrapyramidal symptoms

Replacement of antipsychotic drugs with quetiapine (QTP) was tried in a naturalistic setting in chronic schizophrenic patients who still showed moderate psychiatric symptoms and either showed extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) or took anti-parkinson drugs for the EPS. QTP was added on and gradually increased while the previous drugs were tapered and discontinued whenever possible. Clinical symptoms, objective and subjective QOL, and EPS were measured before and 6 months after QTP addition, using Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Quality of Life Scale (QLS), Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale (SQLS) and Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptom Scale (DIEPSS), respectively. Twenty-one patients completed the trial and received the assessment. It was found that replacement with QTP-improved clinical symptoms, objective and subjective QOL and EPS. This improvement was equally observed in not only patients who switched to QTP monotherapy (n = 11) but also patients who took QTP together with reduced small doses (4.4 +/- 4.3 mg/day) of previous drugs (n = 11). The results suggest that replacement with QTP improves symptoms as well as objective and subjective QOL in a subgroup of schizophrenia.

Clozapine but not haloperidol suppresses the changes in the levels of neuropeptides in MK-801-treated rat brain regions

Noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist (+)MK-801 is known to induce neurotoxicity and schizophrenia-like symptomatology where atypical neuroleptic clozapine is effective in contrast to typical neuroleptic, haloperidol. Although neuropeptides are implicated in memory and cognition, their roles in schizophrenia are not well understood. In the present study, we therefore examined the possible roles of neuropeptides, cholecystokinin (CCK) and somatostatin (SS) in the posterior cingulate/retrosplenial cortices (PC/RSC), frontal cortex, and hippocampus of a MK-801-induced schizophrenia-like model rat brain. This study further investigated the pretreated effect of atypical versus typical neuroleptics on the peptidergic system. SS mRNA and peptide levels significantly decreased in the PC/RSC and hippocampus but not in the frontal cortex 3 days after 0.5 mg/kg MK-801 treatment whereas CCK mRNA and peptide levels significantly decreased in all of the brain regions examined. Pretreatment with clozapine but not haloperidol completely recovered the changes in both mRNA and peptide levels of SS and CCK in those brain regions. These data suggest that peptidergic system in the brain presumably plays an important role in the control of negative schizophrenia.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, part 2: long-term treatment of schizophrenia

These guidelines for the biological treatment of schizophrenia were developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP). The goal during the development of these guidelines was to review systematically all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of schizophrenia, and to reach a consensus on a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating people with schizophrenia. The data used for developing these guidelines have been extracted primarily from various national treatment guidelines and panels for schizophrenia, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews and randomised clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into four levels of evidence (A-D). This second part of the guidelines covers the long-term treatment as well as the management of relevant side effects. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication, other pharmacological treatment options, electroconvulsive therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

Side effects of atypical antipsychotics: extrapyramidal symptoms and the metabolic syndrome

In this article we examine the two major classes of side effects with atypical antipsychotics: extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and the metabolic syndrome (the triad of diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, with associated obesity). We conclude that atypical antipsychotics continue to have notable risks of EPS, particularly akathisia, and that these agents also appear to increase the risk of the metabolic syndrome, though this effect seems most marked with clozapine and olanzapine. Novel conclusions based on this review are as follows: we provide a classification scheme based on low versus high D2 binding affinity (which is, to our knowledge, a new means of classifying atypical antipsychotics); we emphasize that the akathisia risk is likely equal among agents and that tardive dyskinesia is an early, and not late, risk in treatment (a common misconception); we make the methodological point that in randomized clinical trials, there is a high risk of false-negatives regarding side effects; we raise the issue of confounding bias in epidemiological studies of metabolic syndrome; and we stress the need to compare side effects in the same studies and not different studies. Future prospective observational cohort studies must target side effects and be designed to collect and analyze data on confounding factors.

Cost-effectiveness of olanzapine as first-line treatment for schizophrenia: results from a randomized, open-label, 1-year trial

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, open-label trial was designed to help inform antipsychotic treatment policies. It compared the 1-year cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with olanzapine (OLZ) (n = 229) versus a "fail-first" algorithm on conventional antipsychotics (then olanzapine if indicated) (CON) (n = 214); and versus initial treatment with risperidone (RIS) (n = 221).

METHODS

Individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were recruited from May 1998 to September 2001. Clinical, functioning, and resource utilization data were collected at baseline and five postbaseline visits. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores defined "clinical effectiveness;" Lehman Quality of Life Scale social relations scores defined "social effectiveness."

RESULTS

Requiring failure on less expensive antipsychotics before use of olanzapine did not result in total cost savings, despite significantly higher antipsychotic costs with OLZ. Total 1-year mean costs were 21,283 dollars for CON; 20,891 dollars for OLZ; and 21,347 dollars for RIS (pair-wise comparisons nonsignificant). Intent-to-treat effectiveness comparisons (nonsignificant) were augmented by analyses that adjusted for duration on initial antipsychotic treatment, and by comparisons of patients remaining on initial antipsychotic treatment versus those who required switching. When accounting for differential switching rates (OLZ 0.14 vs. CON 0.53, P < 0.0001; vs. RIS 0.31, P < 0.0001), OLZ was significantly more effective than CON on clinical (P = 0.025) and social (P = 0.043) measures, and significantly more effective than RIS on the social (P = 0.002) measure. Further, patients initiated on an antipsychotic from which they needed to switch required additional resources for hospitalization (P = 0.036) and crisis services (P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Approaches that integrate costs, effectiveness, and treatment patterns are important for providing optimal information regarding the value of first-line antipsychotic options for schizophrenia.

Randomized controlled augmentation trials in clozapine-resistant schizophrenic patients: a critical review

Approximately 40-70% of treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients fail to benefit from clozapine monotherapy or are partial responders. During the last years several clozapine adjunctive agents have come into clinical practice. This study aims to critically review all published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy and safety of adjunctive agents in clozapine-resistant schizophrenic or schizoaffective patients. A MEDLINE search for RCTs on clozapine adjunctive agents published from January 1980 to February 2004 was conducted. All identified papers were critically reviewed and examined against several methodological features as well as clinical and pharmacological parameters. Eleven trials including 270 patients, partial or non-responders to clozapine, assessed the efficacy of sulpiride, lithium, lamotrigine, fluoxetine, glycine, d-serine, d-cycloserine and ethyl-eicosapentanoate (E-EPA) as clozapine adjuncts. There were eight parallel-group and three crossover trials. The inclusion criteria varied widely. The duration as well as the dosage of clozapine monotherapy were reported adequate in only one trial. Plasma clozapine levels were assessed in only three trials. Main side-effects reported were hypersalivation, sedation, diarrhea, nausea, hyperprolactinaemia. The outcome favored clozapine augmentation with sulpiride, lamotrigine and E-EPA. Lithium was shown to benefit only schizoaffective patients. However, the methodological shortcomings of trials analyzed limit the impact of evidence provided.

Clozapine alone versus clozapine and risperidone with refractory schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The treatment of schizophrenia with multiple antipsychotic drugs is common, but the benefits and risks are not known.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind study, we evaluated patients with schizophrenia and a poor response to treatment with clozapine. The patients continued to take clozapine and were randomly assigned to receive eight weeks of daily augmentation with 3 mg of risperidone or with placebo. This course of treatment was followed by an optional 18 weeks of augmentation with risperidone. The primary outcome was reduction in the total score for severity of symptoms on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). The secondary outcomes included cognitive functioning.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. In the double-blind phase, the mean total score for the severity of symptoms decreased from baseline to eight weeks in both the risperidone and the placebo groups. There was no statistically significant difference in symptomatic benefit between augmentation with risperidone and placebo: 9 of 34 patients receiving placebo and 6 of 34 receiving risperidone responded to treatment (P=0.38). The mean difference in the change in PANSS scores from baseline to eight weeks between those receiving risperidone and those receiving placebo was 0.1 (95 percent confidence interval, -7.3 to 7.0). The verbal working-memory index showed a small decline in the risperidone group and a small improvement in the placebo group (P=0.02 for the comparison between the two groups in the change from baseline). The increase in fasting blood glucose levels was mildly greater in the risperidone group than in the placebo group (16.2 vs. 1.8 mg per deciliter [0.90 vs. 0.10 mmol per liter], P=0.04). The incidence and severity of other side effects did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this short-term study, the addition of risperidone to clozapine did not improve symptoms in patients with severe schizophrenia. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00272584).

Head-to-head comparison of the costs of atypical antipsychotics: a systematic review

In many countries, prescribing guidelines recommend the use of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in the first-line treatment of individuals with newly diagnosed schizophrenia. This recommendation has increased the utilisation of these agents and, consequently, produced a progressive increase in the proportion of total direct costs in schizophrenia accounted for by drug therapy. In this still-evolving context of care, it becomes relevant to critically investigate the literature base on the relative cost effectiveness of each SGA in comparison with the others, the purpose being to ascertain whether the data reveal any one agent to be truly more cost effective than the others.A systematic search of economic evaluations comparing two or more SGAs yielded 19 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were retrospective database or chart review analyses, six were observational prospective or mirror-image studies, and two were randomised clinical trials. Olanzapine and risperidone were compared in 16 studies, two studies compared clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone, and one compared clozapine and risperidone. While experimental studies indicated an absence of differences among the SGAs in terms of total expenditure, database analyses found contrasting evidence. These latter studies, although susceptible to bias and confounding, should theoretically provide an added dimension, in that they are based on observations from 'real world' practice. However, there were too many potential threats to the validity of these analyses to draw a firm conclusion that any one agent is truly more cost effective than the others. In this uncertain situation, clinicians and policy makers should be aware that indirect evidence from independent randomised controlled trials comparing individual SGAs with haloperidol suggested similar cost effectiveness. As healthcare providers in different settings are ultimately the ones who pay for new innovations, it seems appropriate that they commission research into the cost effectiveness of SGAs.

Use of nationwide outcomes monitoring data to compare clinical outcomes in specialized mental health programs and general psychiatric clinics in the Veterans Health Administration

There has been a growing interest in the implementation of evidence-based specialized mental health programs. However, there has been little study of the effectiveness of these programs in comparison with standard mental health care in real world mental health systems. This study used a national sample of patients from the Veterans Health Administration to compare changes in mental health status in various specialized mental health outpatient programs and in general psychiatric clinics. Hierarchical linear models were used to compare the association of both regularity and intensity of care in six specialized mental health programs with GAF change scores in patients treated in general psychiatric clinics. While improvements were observed in all programs, two specialized programs performed better overall than general psychiatric care, one was not significantly different, and three had poorer outcomes than general psychiatric clinics. Programmatic differences in target populations accompanied by imperfect risk adjustment for population differences most likely explain why these results differ from those observed in clinical trials. While the analytic strategies demonstrated here may have wider applicability to comparative performance assessment, this study provides a cautionary tale concerning the limits of conclusions that can be drawn from large scale outcomes monitoring efforts.

Differential effects of atypical versus typical antipsychotic medication on earnings of schizophrenia patients : estimates from a prospective naturalistic study

BACKGROUND

Rising public and private expenditure on antipsychotic medications is concentrated on the cost of second generation or 'atypical' medications, which are more expensive than first generation medications and make up a rapidly growing share of all antipsychotic prescriptions. Previous studies have examined whether the higher acquisition costs of atypicals are offset by other cost and/or utilisation benefits. This paper extends this literature by examining possible effects of atypicals on earnings and related measures of labour supply in a large naturalistic study with a long-term follow-up period.

METHODS

We analysed data on earnings and other characteristics from the Schizophrenia Care and Assessment Program (SCAP), a 3-year longitudinal study (with data collection during the years 1997-2003) of 2327 adults with schizophrenia (including schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders) recruited from behavioural healthcare provider systems in six areas of the US. We used empirical criteria and data from the SCAP database to identify 336 patients aged < 50 years who were in the stable or 'maintenance' phase of their antipsychotic treatment during the 6 months prior to baseline. Effects of atypicals compared with typicals were estimated from Tobit regression models that included additional covariates and the baseline-dependent variable values. Regression-dependent variables were reported earnings per month, hours worked per month, days worked per month and a binary indicator of employment. To control for the effect of selection bias in choice of type of atypical, we employed an instrumental variables (IV) estimation procedure.

RESULTS

For all dependent variables, our IV Tobit regressions yielded consistently positive coefficient estimates for atypical use that were either marginally significant (p < 0.1) or significant (p < 0.05) for earnings, significant for hours and days of work and not as consistently significant for employment status. Results from these regressions imply a positive effect of atypical use on monthly earnings in the range of Dollars US 107-122. In regressions that did not control for selection bias by using IVs, coefficients for atypical use were often negative and never statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that higher drug costs of atypicals for maintenance-phase treatment are at least partially offset by higher earnings among patients. These effects represent benefits to consumers as well as savings to taxpayer-supported income transfer programmes. Future studies should seek to determine if treatment with atypicals increases patients' earnings via better control over negative symptoms and/or improved patient cognition. Both appear to be connected with employment and labour supply in patients with schizophrenia, and both may be improved through use of atypicals.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, Part 1: acute treatment of schizophrenia

These guide lines for the biological treatment of schizophrenia were developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBO). The goal during the development of these guidelines was to review systematically all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of schizophrenia, and to reach a consensus on a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating people with schizophrenia. The data used for developing these guidelines have been extracted primarily from various national treatment guidelines and panels for schizophrenia, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews and randomised clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into four levels of evidence (A-D). This first part of the guidelines covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology and course of schizophrenia, as well as the management of the acute phase treatment. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication, other pharmacological treatment options, electroconvulsive therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

Augmentation strategies in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia

The introduction of antipsychotics in the 1950s revolutionised the treatment of schizophrenia, but it soon became apparent that a substantial number of patients demonstrated a suboptimal response to these antipsychotics. Clozapine proved to be beneficial in patients whose symptoms were treatment resistant, but it too had limitations, with as many as 40-70% of those treated with clozapine demonstrating inadequate response to this drug as well. The availability of other 'atypical' antipsychotics offers options, but clozapine appears to remain the most effective option in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This, of course, raises the question of what to do when clozapine is only partially effective. To address the issue of treatment in patients who have demonstrated a suboptimal response to clozapine, efforts have focused on a variety of augmentation strategies, including numerous medications and electroconvulsive therapy. The current body of evidence consists largely of data from smaller open trials and case series/reports, although data from a limited number of controlled studies are now available. Not surprisingly, the evidence drawn from the former is more supportive of augmentation strategies, although the controlled trials are not without positive findings. The available information is certainly not so overwhelming as to endorse any single augmentation approach. Indeed, it argues for more controlled data and cautions us regarding the cost-benefit ratio in adopting this strategy. Over and above the added adverse effects of another treatment, there is evidence to indicate that actual clinical worsening can occur. Without compelling evidence, clinicians must resort to guiding principles. The potential benefits of augmentation cannot be ruled out, but it should be approached with caution and in a systematic fashion. Factors compromising clozapine response should first be ruled out, and any augmentation trials should be guided by existing evidence and a treatment plan that incorporates a clear understanding of target symptoms. A means of evaluating outcome effectively needs to be in place, and the trial should be circumscribed to prevent needless polypharmacy. A priori, an endpoint needs to be established and the trial discontinued unless results firmly support added benefits.

From clinical research to clinical practice: a 4-year review of ziprasidone

Ziprasidone is a second-generation antipsychotic that received Food and Drug Administration approval in February 2001. It has a unique receptor profile that includes high-affinity antagonist activity at dopamine D2 receptors, inverse agonist activity at serotonin (5-HT)2A receptors, agonist activity at 5-HTlA receptors, and a relatively high affinity for the serotonin and norepinephrine transporters. The 5-HTIA affinity, together with the inhibitory effect on mono-amine reuptake, may underlie the hypothesized beneficial effects on comorbid affective and cognitive abnormalities in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. The short-term efficacy of ziprasidone for core positive symptoms of schizophrenia appears to be comparable to other conventional and atypical antipsychotics. The short-term efficacy of ziprasidone in acute mania has been established based on two 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.Open-label treatment for up to 52 weeks confirms the sustained efficacy and safety of ziprasidone in bipolar disorder. Maintenance studies in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder indicate that long-term ziprasidone therapy is effective in preventing relapse, while maintaining cognitive and psychosocial benefits. The safety database suggests that the overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk associated with ziprasidone is lower than with other atypicals, with notably lower risk of drug-related increases in weight, glucose, or lipids. The data also suggest a modestly increased risk of QTc prolongation that is not dose related or linked to torsades de pointes. Switching to ziprasidone from other atypicals appears to improve both clinical symptoms and metabolic parameters, though more studies are needed to fully characterize these benefits. This monograph summarizes the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar mania.