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

Development of an abbreviated schizophrenia quality of life scale using a new method

The goal of the study was to develop and apply a predictive model approach to reduce the number of items collected for scales that yield a total summary score. A parsimonious subset of items from the 21-item Quality of Life Scale (QLS) that can accurately predict the total scale score was sought and evaluated in 198 patients with schizophrenia, using a statistical modeling approach. Two additional data sets were used for model validation: the subset of 101 patients used in the model construction who had the QLS administered approximately 1 year later and a new sample of 37 patients. Using only seven QLS items as predictors, the correlation was 0.9831 between the predicted and true QLS totals. Applying the model based for these seven QLS items, the correlations from the first and second validation data sets were 0.9791 and 0.9637, respectively. The study demonstrates that a small subset of items of the QLS predicts the entire 21-item scale with high accuracy. Two validation samples have confirmed the finding. This reduces the effort associated with scale administration and is likely to increase the assessment of an important functional domain. Such models can guide efforts for item reduction in other rating instruments.

Clinical trial response and dropout rates with olanzapine versus risperidone

BACKGROUND

In schizophrenia, comparing treatment dropouts between olanzapine and risperidone can be useful to better understand their relative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the differences in the rates of dropout from clinical trials and response between these 2 antipsychotics.

METHODS

Literature search was based on MEDLINE (1966-May 2002). Analysis 1 included 4 randomized studies (838 patients), analysis 2 included 2 randomized studies (n = 716), and analysis 3 assessed 5 clinical studies for olanzapine (n = 928) and 3 for risperidone (n = 290). Odds ratios were estimated by the fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

The risk of treatment discontinuation (analysis 1) was significantly greater for risperidone than for olanzapine (42% vs. 33%, respectively). The response rates were identical for the 2 drugs (analysis 2). A slightly better pattern of maintenance of response was found for olanzapine (analysis 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The pattern of dropout and maintenance of remission seems to be better controlled for olanzapine than for risperidone.

Clozapine treatment in patients with prior substance abuse

OBJECTIVE

This study examined outcomes following discharge on clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients with and without diagnosed substance abuse histories.

METHODS

Those discharged on clozapine from a research unit between April 1991 and March 1996 were followed with respect to hospitalization status. Of the treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia, 19 were diagnosed as individuals with substance abuse, while 26 patients had no history of abuse. Patients were openly treated with clozapine and were included in the study if they were stabilized and discharged on the medication.

RESULTS

Patients who had histories of abuse exhibited a better treatment response and a lower total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score at discharge, compared with the non-substance abuse group. One-year readmission rates were 21% and 23% in patients with and without prior substance abuse histories, respectively (P = ns).

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine may be a therapeutic option for the dually diagnosed population and may offer benefits to patients with schizophrenia who have a history of substance abuse.

The European Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (SOHO) study: rationale, methods and recruitment

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the European Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (SOHO) study is to understand the comparative costs and outcomes of antipsychotic drug treatment, with specific focus on olanzapine. The study will also provide a large database for research into the treatment and outcome of schizophrenia. The role of observational studies in the assessment of the effectiveness of antipsychotic agents is reviewed, and the rationale, design and recruitment issues surrounding the SOHO study are presented.

METHOD

SOHO is a 3-year, prospective, observational study of the health outcomes associated with antipsychotic treatment in Europe.

RESULTS

Over 10 000 patients have been recruited from 10 countries. Baseline evaluation included measures of clinical status, social functioning, quality of life, service use and pharmacological treatment. Patients will be followed for 3 years.

CONCLUSION

The SOHO study will complement randomized controlled trial findings on the treatment of schizophrenia and will address relevant clinical and policy research questions.

Novel, highly potent, selective 5-HT2A/D2 receptor antagonists as potential atypical antipsychotics

The discovery of N-substituted-pyridoindolines and their binding affinities at the 5-HT(2A), 5-HT(2C) and D(2) receptors, and in vivo efficacy as 5-HT(2A) antagonists is described. The structure-activity relationship of a series of core tetracyclic derivatives with varying butyrophenone sidechains is also discussed. This study has led to the identification of potent, orally bioavailable 5-HT(2A)/D(2) receptor dual antagonists as potential atypical antipsychotics.

Comparing the sensitivity of generic effectiveness measures with symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity of four generic effectiveness measures with clinically meaningful symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia.

METHOD

Baseline and 6-month interviews were conducted with 134 subjects diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The design was observational. The four generic effectiveness measures included the Quality of Well-Being scale (QWB), a quality-adjusted index score based on the SF-36 VAS, Veterans SF-36 mental health component summary score (MCS), and the World Health Organization Disablement Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS). Symptom measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Calgary Depression Scale (CDS). The side effect measure was the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). Data analysis included correlations between symptom, side effect, and generic effectiveness change scores; and an effect size calculation to detect a clinically significant improvement in the total PANSS.

RESULTS

All four effectiveness measures were correlated with changes in side effects. All but the SG-36 VAS were correlated with changes in depression. Only the QWB was correlated with changes in PANSS scores. The QWB required at least three times fewer subjects (n = 61) to detect a clinically significant improvement in total PANSS compared with the other effectiveness measures (n = 201-324).

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended that clinicians and researchers use the QWB to demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of schizophrenia interventions. The QWB allows for direct comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of schizophrenia interventions with other mental and physical health interventions and may contribute to a greater recognition of the value of mental health interventions.

Lithium for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them lithium.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of lithium for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (March 2002). This register is compiled by methodical searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, Sociofile, supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies to identify further trials and to obtain original patient data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing lithium to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Dichotomous data were analysed using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistics were calculated. Continuous data were analysed using weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 20 studies with a total of 611 participants. Most studies were small, of short duration and incompletely reported, but a number of authors were willing to share their data with us. Three studies comparing lithium with placebo as the sole treatment showed no difference in any of the outcomes we analysed. In eight studies comparing lithium with antipsychotic drugs as the sole treatment more participants in the lithium group left the studies early (n=270, RR 1.8, CI 1.2 to 2.9, NNT 9, CI 5 to 33). Several of the outcomes relating to these studies suggested that lithium is less effective than antipsychotic drugs, but it was difficult to summarise the data, because a variety of rating scales were used in the studies. Eleven studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotic drugs with lithium salts is more effective than antipsychotic drugs alone. More participants who received lithium augmentation had a clinically significant response (n=244, RR 0.8, CI 0.7 to 0.96, NNT 8, CI 4 to 33). However, statistical significance became borderline when participants with schizoaffective disorders were excluded in a sensitivity analysis (n=120, RR 0.8, CI 0.6 to 1.0, p=0.07). Furthermore, more participants in the lithium augmentation groups left the studies early (n=320, RR 2.0 CI 1.3 to 3.1, NNT 7, CI 4 to 14), suggesting a lower acceptability of lithium augmentation compared to those on antipsychotics alone. No superior efficacy of lithium augmentation in any specific aspect of the mental state was found. While based on very little data, there were no differences between groups for adverse events.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no randomised trial based evidence that lithium on its own is an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. The evidence available on augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium is inconclusive, but it justifies further, large, simple and well-designed trials. These should concentrate on two target groups: 1) people with no affective symptoms, so that trialists can determine whether lithium has an effect on the core symptoms of schizophrenia, 2) people with schizoaffective disorders for whom lithium is widely used in clinical practice, although there is no evidence to support this use.

Clozapine decreases rat brain dehydroepiandrosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels

We examined the influence of the atypical antipsychotic agent clozapine compared to haloperidol, on levels of dehydroepiandrosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate ester (both gamma-aminobutyric acid(A) (GABA(A)) receptor allosteric antagonists) in the rat cortex. i.p. injections of clozapine (5 and 15 mg/kg), but not haloperidol (1 mg/kg), for 8 days decreased rat brain cortical dehydroepiandrosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels. These findings support the role of neurosteroids and possibly GABA(A) receptor modulation in the mechanism of action of clozapine.

Relapse and rehospitalisation rates in patients with schizophrenia: effects of second generation antipsychotics

Recent studies suggest that the risk of relapse in patients with schizophrenia is approximately 3.5% per month. Predictors of more frequent relapses include poor compliance with antipsychotic drug treatment, severe residual psychopathology, poor insight into the illness and the need for treatment, comorbid substance abuse, and poor relationships between patients, families and care providers. Although conventional antipsychotic drugs, such as haloperidol and fluphenazine, are effective in preventing relapse, second generation antipsychotic drugs, such as clozapine, risperidone and olanzapine, appear to be superior in preventing relapse and improving the patient's quality of life. The development of adverse events can undermine treatment response and relapse prevention. Minimising adverse effects thus helps to improve treatment compliance and prevent relapse. Second generation antipsychotic drugs tend to have fewer adverse effects than conventional agents, especially pseudoparkinsonism and akathisia. The societal costs of treating patients with schizophrenia can be lessened by employing strategies that decrease relapse and the need for rehospitalisation, the most costly treatment alternative.

Managing treatment-resistant schizophrenia: evidence from randomized clinical trials

Clozapine was the first antipsychotic medication to be approved for the indication of treatment-refractory schizophrenia. This followed rigorous testing in patients who retrospectively and prospectively failed treatment trials of relatively high doses of conventional antipsychotics. In the past decade, other atypical antipsychotics have been approved, but they have not been designated specifically for patients with a history of prior poor treatment response. Better tolerated than clozapine, these new agents have been used with varying success in patients who would have otherwise received clozapine. Up until very recently there has not been a head-to-head controlled clinical trial comparing the two most commonly used atypical antipsychotics, risperidone and olanzapine, with clozapine in patients considered to have a suboptimal response to typical antipsychotics. This review summarizes the current advances made in the pharmacological management of these patients by examining recently published randomized controlled clinical trials that have measured psychopathology and cognition.

The cost-effectiveness of clozapine: a controlled, population-based, mirror-image study

A retrospective cohort study, with a mirror-image design, was used to measure inpatient service utilization in 63 consecutive patients started on clozapine from a geographical catchment area compared to a control group matched for previous inpatient service use. An intent-to-treat analysis, including those patients (n = 28) who discontinued clozapine during the study period, showed a significant reduction in number of admissions and total time spent in hospital in the 2 years following clozapine initiation compared to the previous 2 years and to the follow-up period in the control group. This translated into a reduction of 7,300 pounds in hospitalization costs per patient started on clozapine, over the 2-year period. In those patients who continued clozapine treatment for the whole of the 2-year period, there was a two-thirds reduction in number of admissions and total time spent in hospital compared to no change in the clozapine discontinuers. These findings suggest that clozapine is a clinically and cost-effective intervention for severe schizophrenia in routine clinical settings.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine for the treatment of psychotic symptoms in a county mental health population

BACKGROUND

The comparatively high acquisition costs of the newer antipsychotic medications have caused the mental health community to look closely at their potential benefits.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a naturalistic analysis of changes in mental health service utilization, economic costs, and clinical outcomes after the initiation of olanzapine therapy for psychotic symptoms in an indigent patient population from a large county-operated mental health care system.

METHODS

This was a prospective, uncontrolled investigation using a mirror-image cohort design. All captured costs from patients who began olanzapine therapy between November 1, 1996, and April 30, 1998, were analyzed in an intent-to-treat fashion to compare resource utilization in the 12 months immediately before and after the intervention. Clinical function was assessed at baseline and 6 months using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). In a subgroup analysis, the baseline characteristics of patients who completed 12 months of olanzapine treatment were compared with those of patients who (1) changed medication or (2) changed pay or source or were lost to follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-nine patients were started on olanzapine treatment during the 18-month study entry phase. Patients were primarily male (63.5%) and had a mean age of 35.9 years. Most (66.3%) had a formal diagnosis of thought disorder. Fifty-six patients received olanzapine for 12 consecutive months, and 22 were switched to other psychotropic medications. Of the remaining 111 patients, 70 changed payors (ie, qualified for Medicaid), and 41 were lost to follow-up. In the subgroup analysis, patients who completed 12 months of treatment (ie, responders) had significantly lower mean PANSS total scores at baseline compared with those who changed payors or were lost to follow-up (P = 0.047), and were significantly more likely to have a formal diagnosis of thought disorder (P = 0.039). Responders demonstrated a significant reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale scores at 6-month follow-up (both measures, P < 0.001). In the intent-to-treat analysis of resource utilization in all patients with complete data sets (n = 78), hospitalization costs and crisis costs decreased significantly during the 12-month follow-up period (P = 0.003 and P = 0.009, respectively), and both outpatient and medication costs increased significantly (P = 0.035 and P < 0.001, respectively). Overall, the change in total annual resource utilization during the 12 months after initiation of olanzapine was not statistically significant (mean decrease per patient, $1,991; 95% CI, -$5,258 to $1,122).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of olanzapine therapy was associated with favorable clinical outcomes in this population, particularly in patients with a formal diagnosis of thought disorder. Overall, there was a cost shift away from hospital and crisis costs toward medication and outpatient services costs. The decline in total resource utilization was not statistically significant, although it may be of practical importance.

The impact of side-effects of antipsychotic agents on life satisfaction of schizophrenia patients: a naturalistic study

This study compared the impact of side-effects of antipsychotic treatment, clinical and psychosocial factors on the subjective quality of life (QOL) of hospitalized patients. We surveyed 161 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia stabilized on conventional and atypical antipsychotic drugs using standardized measures of adverse events, psychopathology, psychosocial variables, and perceived QOL. We found that patients with adverse events reported less satisfaction with life domains of subjective feelings and general activities than asymptomatic patients. Patients treated with conventional and novel antipsychotic agents had comparable QOL ratings. Multiple regression analysis showed total variance in QOL ratings as follows: psychosocial factors, 20.9%; clinical symptoms and associated distress, 10.1%; adverse effects, 3.2%. Thus, medication side-effects influence subjective quality of life of schizophrenia inpatients significantly less than other clinical and psychosocial factors. Patient's subjective response to these events rather than their number is more predictive of QOL.

Accounting for unemployment among people with mental illness

Persons diagnosed with a serious mental illness experience significantly high rates of unemployment compared with the general population. The explanations for this situation have included a focus on the symptoms associated with these disorders, a focus on the lack of effective vocational rehabilitation programs for this population, and, most recently, a focus on employer discrimination and the financial disincentives to employment in various public policies. The authors of this manuscript review the evolution in thought pertaining to the labor market experiences of persons with a serious mental illness and propose as an additional set of factors that should be considered, those labor market liabilities that this population shares with others without disabilities who experience similar employment histories. The authors conclude that the inclusion of these factors in our understanding of issues that persons with serious mental illness face in the competitive labor market will likely lead to a further evolution in program and policy development.

Carbamazepine for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment and various additional medications are used to promote additional response. The antiepileptic carbamazepine is one such drug.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of carbamazepine and its derivatives for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Biological Abstracts (1980-2001), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (December 2001), EMBASE (1980-2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), PsycLIT (1886-2001) and PSYNDEX (1974-2001). Citations from included trials were also inspected and relevant companies and authors contacted for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing carbamazepine or compounds of the carbamazepine family to placebo or no intervention, whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Dichotomous data were analysed using Peto odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistics were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies with a total of 258 participants were included. One study comparing carbamazepine with placebo as the sole treatment for schizophrenia (n=31) was stopped early due to high relapse rate. No effect of carbamazepine was evident (OR relapse 1.5 CI 0.2 to 9.7). Another study (n=38) compared carbamazepine with antipsychotics as the sole treatment for schizophrenia. No differences in terms of mental state were found (OR 50% BPRS reduction 1.9 CI 0.5 to 7.2). More people who received the antipsychotic (perphenazine) had parkinsonism (OR 0.03 CI 0.01 to 0.1, NNH 1 CI 0.9 to 1.4). Eight studies compared adjunctive carbamazepine plus antipsychotics versus placebo plus antipsychotics. Adding carbamazepine was as acceptable as adding placebo (n=182, OR leaving the study early 0.4 CI 0.1 to 1.4). Carbamazepine augmentation of antipsychotics was superior compared with antipsychotics alone, but participant numbers were low (n=38, OR 0.1 CI 0.02 to 0.4, NNT 2 CI 1 to 5). There were no differences for mental state outcomes (6 RCTs, n=147, OR 50% BPRS reduction 0.99 CI 0.2 to 6.0). Less people in the carbamazepine augmentation group had movement disorders than those taking haloperidol alone (1 RCT, n=20, OR 0.15 CI 0.03 to 0.8). The effects of carbamazepine on subgroups of people with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviour, negative symptoms or EEG abnormalities or with schizoaffective disorder are unknown.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Based on currently available evidence from randomised trials, carbamazepine cannot be recommend for routine clinical use for sole treatment, or augmentation of antipsychotic treatment, of schizophrenia. Large, simple well-designed and reported trials are justified especially if focusing on those with violent episodes and people with schizoaffective disorders or on those with both schizophrenia and EEG abnormalities.

Economic Outcomes of Risperidone in Comparison to Typical Neuroleptic Agents for Treatment-Resistant Psychosis: A Community-Based Study

Objective:

To compare the costs of treatment for psychosis with risperidone and typical neuroleptics in severely ill outpatients treated in a community mental health setting.

Methods:

This was an open, retrospective, controlled cohort comparison of actual costs of psychiatric treatment in a group of 17 patients treated with risperidone for psychotic disorders and 15 typical neuroleptic-treated controls matched for severity of illness. Assignment to the two groups was nonrandomized, and outcome data were gathered for the duration of the study for each subject, with dropouts included.

Results:

Risperidone use did not lead to increased treatment expenses compared with typical neuroleptic use in a mean of approximately nine months follow-up. The median overall cost per patient per year was $2,703 in the risperidone group, compared with $2,551 in the typical neuroleptic group (p = 0.64). Increased drug costs (mean expenses per patient per year: $1,631 for risperidone vs. $357 for typical neuroleptics; p = 0.005) were offset by reduced expenses due to decreased hospitalization rates (mean expenses per patient per year: $1,379 for risperidone vs. $3,920 for typical neuroleptics; p = 0.04). Use of other outpatient services did not significantly differ between the two groups.

Conclusions:

Use of risperidone led to lower hospitalization rates in this severely ill sample and did not lead to greater overall expense than typical neuroleptic use.

Impact of clozapine prescription on inpatient resource utilization

Although clozapine has been demonstrated to be clinically superior to typical neuroleptics in refractory schizophrenia, it is also more expensive. It had been hoped that the increased costs associated with its use would be offset by decreases in the utilization of other expensive resources, especially inpatient care. All patients who had clozapine initiated during an inpatient hospitalization within the VA for schizophrenia over a 4-year period (N = 1415) were matched with a comparison group (N = 2,830) on key service utilization variables and other possible confounding demographic and clinical variables using propensity scoring-an accepted statistical method, although still relatively little used in psychiatry. By using centralized VA databases, subsequent inpatient resource utilization for the 3 years after index discharge was examined. Veterans exposed to clozapine while inpatients recorded 33 (36%) more inpatient days in the subsequent 3 years after discharge than the comparison group (124 +/- 190 days vs. 91 +/- 181 days, p = .0002). When all patients exposed to clozapine were divided according to whether they had received 1 year of clozapine treatment after discharge, those that received less than 1 year's treatment recorded significantly more inpatient days than either those maintained on clozapine or controls. These results suggest that in actual practice clozapine treatment may cost substantially more than treatment with conventional neuroleptics.

Good tolerability equals good results: the patient's perspective

Although conventional antipsychotics are useful for the treatment of schizophrenia, many patients discontinue taking them within a few months. As well as the positive influence of a good doctor-patient relationship, evidence suggests that the patient's initial subjective experience during antipsychotic therapy is a major predictor of compliance. In addition to motor symptoms, conventional antipsychotics can cause significant adverse effects on drive, emotion and cognition, which are reflected in patients complaining of a reduced quality of life, although may not be detected by objective examination. This syndrome, which is similar to the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, is known by numerous terms including 'pharmacogenic depression' and 'pharmacogenic anhedonia'. The introduction of atypical antipsychotics broadened the criteria for effective antipsychotic treatment to include the subjective assessment of improvement in patients' quality of life. The previous lack of interest in this domain may have been due to the inability to improve it with conventional agents and the misconception that schizophrenic patients were unable to subjectively evaluate their quality of life. However, numerous studies have shown that 63-95% of patients in remission are able to self-rate their affective state of well being or quality of life. Atypical antipsychotics are superior to conventional antipsychotics in improving quality of life and reducing the stigma of schizophrenia, particularly from the patient's perspective and are strong reasons for the widespread use of these drugs.

The health economic implications of treatment with quetiapine: an audit of long-term treatment for patients with chronic schizophrenia

This retrospective, case series audit assessed the clinical and health-economic impact of long-term treatment with quetiapine ('Seroquel'), a new atypical antipsychotic, in patients with chronic schizophrenia. The study design was of a case series format, comprising patients entered from one centre into the open-label extension of a multicentre 6-week efficacy study. Twenty-one patients (15 male, six female; mean age 39 years) were studied, of whom 17 (81%) had been rated as 'partially responsive' to previous antipsychotics. Data on hospitalisations and information on symptoms were collected retrospectively for the 12 months before quetiapine treatment was initiated and for the 12 months after. Quetiapine was effective in reducing psychotic symptoms with mean BPRS scores reducing significantly, from 38 to 21 (P < 0.005). Motor function was also significantly improved with mean Simpson scale scores reducing from 15 to 12 (P < 0.005). Average inpatient days were reduced by 11% in year two (97 compared with 109 days) while the overall costs of treatment, including drug costs, fell by 5% (I pound sterling 20,843 to I pound sterling 19,827). Four patients had been hospitalised for longer than 5 years before starting quetiapine; these chronically institutionalised patients remained in hospital, despite improved clinical outcomes (mean BPRS scores after treatment of 34, compared with 43 before), for the full 12 months of quetiapine treatment. Were the data from this audit to be re-analysed excluding these four patients then average inpatient days would have been reduced by 33% (45 to 30 days) and overall cost of treatment by 19% (I pound sterling 8617 to I pound sterling 7011). This audit suggests that treatment with quetiapine over this 1-year period was associated with both clinical improvements and a decreased usage of inpatient services. The reduction in hospitalisation costs would appear to compensate for the increased cost of drug treatment. Significantly, potential savings appear to be greatest for those patients with a 'revolving door' pattern of repeated readmission.

Treatment of the special patient with schizophrenia

Special patient populations with schizophrenia have received little attention. These populations include adolescents, the elderly, substance abusers, and patients who are considered treatment-resistant. Interest in these populations is rapidly growing, especially with regard to their treatment with second-generation antipsychotics. This article describes the treatment of special patient populations and summarizes the research that has been done in this field.

Psychotropic drug use in Italy, 1984-99: the impact of a change in reimbursement status

After years of corruption surrounding drug reimbursement, in 1994, a change in drug reimbursement status was implemented in Italy according to cost-effectiveness criteria. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of these changes on the use of psychotropic drugs. National trends in antipsychotic, antidepressant and benzodiazepine prescriptions were analysed from 1984 to 1999. During the study period, prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs were stable from 1984 to 1994 but, in the subsequent 5 years, increased by 54%. Although the use of atypical compounds in 1999 accounted for only 6% of total antipsychotics sold, the cost of these new drugs accounted for almost one-half the total antipsychotic expenditure. The use of benzodiazepines increased by 53%. In 1999, the psychotropic drugs lorazepam and alprazolam were the most sold by value. From 1984 to 1999, the total antidepressants sold increased by 55%. Although the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and newer antidepressants in 1999 accounted for less than 50% of total antidepressants sold, the cost of these drugs accounted for 65% of total antidepressant expenditure. This analysis highlights specific areas of concern which should become the object of public health programs.

Refractory schizophrenia and atypical antipsychotics

Treatment resistant or refractory schizophrenia is a difficult to define condition of largely unknown prevalence. For 10 years, clozapine has been the standard treatment in this condition and is recognized unequivocally as being effective. However, clozapine is sometimes poorly tolerated and has the potential for severe toxicity. Partly as a result of this, other atypicals have recently been evaluated as treatments for refractory schizophrenia. In order to evaluate the evidence base relating to the drug treatment of refractory schizophrenia, we developed a refractoriness rating based on previous work. Using this rating, we assessed all trials of atypicals in schizophrenia unresponsive to at least one drug. Overall, clozapine was consistently shown to be effective in refractory schizophrenia, even when stringently defined. Data relating to olanzapine and risperidone are equivocal at best, and there is some evidence to suggest that they are less effective than clozapine. There is essentially no cogent evidence to support the use of any other atypical in refractory schizophrenia. Clozapine remains the drug of choice in this condition.

Schizophrenia costs and treatment cost-effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

The paper sets out to summarize evidence on the costs of schizophrenia and on the cost-effectiveness of three broad treatment areas.

METHOD

Evidence from a number of countries was examined, both published and unpublished, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses were consulted.

RESULTS

The costs of schizophrenia are high and wide-ranging. They fall not only to health-care agencies but also to other parts of the public sector, to families, to sufferers themselves and to the wider society. However, there are interventions--a counselling intervention to address non-compliance with medication, family interventions to reduce levels of expressed emotion, and atypical antipsychotic drugs--that have been found to be not only effective (improving patient outcomes) but also appear to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Resource constraints and policy pressures make it increasingly common for economic as well as clinical questions to be asked about new modes of treatment. This is the new reality of mental health practice. Reliable evidence is now available to address these economic questions and can be factored into decision-making processes.

Discontinuity of Outpatient Antipsychotic Pharmacotherapy: Risperidone Maintenance after Hospitalization

Objective:

To investigate continuity of outpatient antipsychotic pharmacotherapy with risperidone in patients discharged from state psychiatric hospitals.

Methods:

Of 1,201 patients discharged from Illinois state psychiatric hospitals while taking risperidone during the first year of the medication's commercial availability, 627 public aid–eligible patients were trackable on the basis of public aid billing data. Data on risperidone continuation and other medication use for these patients were collected for the two-year period following each patient's discharge.

Results:

Forty-four percent of the patients discontinued risperidone within two weeks of hospital discharge, with one-half receiving no medications and most of the remainder switching to other antipsychotics. More than 75% of the patients discontinued risperidone within one year of hospital discharge, and fewer than 1% received continuous risperidone pharmacotherapy for the two-year follow-up period.

Conclusions:

Although the study methods do not permit us to draw conclusions regarding specific reasons for risperidone discontinuation in this patient sample, 66% of whom had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and 86% of whom had psychotic diagnoses, the rapid drop-off and discontinuity in medication management following hospital discharge is almost certainly inconsistent with optimum clinical care for this group of patients. Discontinuities in maintenance pharmacotherapy may compromise medical effectiveness, even for newer antipsychotic medications such as risperidone.

From clinical trials to real-world practice: use of atypical antipsychotic medication nationally in the Department of Veterans Affairs

BACKGROUND

Although clinical trials evaluate pharmacotherapeutic interventions under highly controlled conditions, there remains a need to evaluate medication use in actual practice.

METHODS

Patients prescribed atypical antipsychotic medications in the VA system during a 4-month period in 1999 (n = 73,981) were classified into 32 groups on the basis of clinical diagnosis and recent level of inpatient use. Variation was examined across groups in drug costs, agents, dosages, and duration of use. The potential impact of these medications on VA costs was estimated by calculating medication costs and subtracting estimated inpatient savings.

RESULTS

A majority of patients were diagnosed with schizophrenia (57.2%), but substantial off-label use of these medications to treat other psychiatric illnesses was also evident (42.8%). Compared with published trials reporting average annual costs from $3,000 to $7,000, average annualized pharmacy costs were only $1,395 per patient because of a 58.5% VA price discount; relatively low dosing, especially for people with diagnoses other than schizophrenia; and medication prescription coverage for only 75% of the days in the study period. The sample averaged only 6.96 inpatient days; as a result, potential inpatient savings were limited. Assuming 0% to 18% inpatient savings, annual net drug costs are estimated to range from $500 to $1,152 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication costs in actual practice can be substantially lower than in clinical trials. Atypical antipsychotic medications in actual VA practice incur net costs estimated at $500 to $1,152 per patient per year with substantial variation across clinical subgroups.

Antidepressant drugs: does it matter if they inhibit the reuptake of noradrenaline or serotonin?

The current popularity of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of depression should not conceal the fact that noradrenergic neurones also seem to influence depressed mood. Selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NRIs) such as reboxetine thus seem to be at least as effective as the SSRIs. It has been suggested that NRIs influence depression by indirectly facilitating serotonergic transmission, or that SSRIs act by facilitating noradrenaline; however, the marked differences between SSRIs and NRIs with respect to effects and side-effect profile do not support any of these assumptions, but rather suggest that SSRIs and NRIs influence depression by parallel, independent pathways. In this review the possibility that certain symptoms within the depressive syndrome (and certain subtypes of depression) respond better to NRIs, whereas other symptoms (and subtypes) respond better to SSRIs, will be discussed. In addition, the putative usefulness of NRIs for indications other than depression will be commented upon.

Health care utilization in patients with schizophrenia maintained on atypical versus conventional antipsychotics

1. Patients with schizophrenia who had been stabilized on their antipsychotic medication and subsequently maintained on it for a period of at least 18 months were identified: clozapine (N=15); risperidone (N=15); depot conventional (N=18); oral conventional (N=18). 2. Groups were compared on a clinical measure as well as the use of various health care services: hospitalizations; days in hospital, emergency room visits; physician and non-physician visits. 3. No differences between groups were found for hospitalizations, days in hospital, or emergency room visits, while physician and non-physician visits were highest in the clozapine group, in keeping with the need for routine hematologic monitoring in this population. The clozapine group had the highest baseline clinical scores and greatest number of previous hospitalizations. These treatment groups may reflect different clinical populations. However, the findings suggest that in drawing conclusions regarding long-term benefits of different agents, clinical or economic, it would prove useful to include in the evaluation a comparison of patients who have been stabilized on each of the treatments.

Impact of family burden and patient symptom status on clinical outcome in bipolar affective disorder

Studies have suggested that family burden adversely affects clinical outcome in the major mental disorders. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of family burden reported at baseline (acute model), or 7 months (stabilization model), on the risk of having a subsequent affective episode, in a sample of 264 patients with Research Diagnostic Criteria-diagnosed bipolar illness. Higher levels of baseline burden and a depressive index episode significantly increased the risk for a major episode at 7 months. Higher 7-month burden significantly increased the risk for a major episode at 15 months among patients with relatively low 7-month BPRS symptom levels. Caregiver burden reported at times of symptom relapse and during stabilization predicts subsequent adverse clinical outcomes among patients with bipolar disorder and suggests a need for family support.

Atypical Antipsychotic Use in the Treatment of Psychosis in Primary Care

Atypical antipsychotics are a class of novel agents increasingly employed for the treatment of psychotic disorders. The pharmacodynamic properties of the atypicals appear to impact a broader spectrum of psychotic symptoms than had been appreciated with older generation antipsychotics. In addition, the atypical agents appear to have a reduced risk of neurologic side effects compared with conventional antipsychotic use. Both of these features enhance the appeal of the atypical antipsychotics and may be associated with enhanced patient compliance. The atypical antipsychotics appear to be effective for schizophrenia as well as other psychotic disorders, including schizoaffective disorder and mood disorders with psychotic features. Consequently, atypical antipsychotics are now considered to be the first-line treatment for schizophrenia, with the exception of clozapine, which is considered a second-line agent because of risks associated with its use. This review will discuss the literature on atypical antipsychotic efficacy in psychotic disorders. Issues related to antipsychotic use, dosing, adverse effects, and drug interactions are also discussed.

Olanzapine versus risperidone. A prospective comparison of clinical and economic outcomes in schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine and risperidone treatment for schizophrenia.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An international, multicentre, double-blind, prospective study. To facilitate economic comparisons, our sample was restricted to patients enrolled in US sites. 150 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder were randomised to therapy with either olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day (n = 75) or risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day (n = 75) for a maximum of 28 weeks. In addition to tolerability and efficacy assessments, use of health services was assessed at baseline and prospectively, at 8-week intervals and at study completion. Clinically important response, defined as a 40% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, maintenance of response and rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms were compared between groups. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices to resource units. Median total, inpatient/outpatient service and medication acquisition costs were compared between treatment groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

The mean modal dosages for the olanzapine and risperidone treatment groups were 17.7 +/- 3.4 mg/day and 7.9 +/- 3.2 mg/day, respectively. Olanzapine-treated patients were more likely to maintain response compared with risperidone-treated patients (p = 0.048). In addition, a smaller proportion of olanzapine-treated patients required anticholinergic therapy compared with risperidone-treated patients (25.3 vs 45.3%; p = 0.016). Total per patient medical costs over the study interval were $US2843 (1997 values) [36%] lower in the olanzapine treatment group than in the risperidone treatment group (p = 0.342). Medication costs were significantly higher for olanzapine-treated patients ($US2513 vs $US1581; p < 0.001), but this difference was offset by a reduction of $US3774 (52%) in inpatient/outpatient service costs for olanzapine-treated patients in comparison with risperidone-treated patients ($US3516 vs $US7291, p = 0.083). Median cost findings were consistent with results observed using other robust measures of central tendency and provide conservative estimates of potential savings that may be obtained from olanzapine therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, olanzapine-treated patients experienced clinical improvements that translated into savings in costs of care for both inpatient and outpatient services. These savings offset the difference in medication acquisition cost between olanzapine and risperidone.

Conformationally constrained butyrophenones with affinity for dopamine (D(1), D(2), D(4)) and serotonin (5-HT(2A), 5-HT(2B), 5-HT(2C)) receptors: synthesis of aminomethylbenzo[b]furanones and their evaluation as antipsychotics

A series of novel conformationally restricted butyrophenones (6-aminomethyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrobenzo[b]furan-4-ones bearing 4-(6-fluorobenzisoxazolyl)piperidine, 4-(p-fluorobenzoyl)piperidine, 4-(o-methoxyphenyl)piperazine, 4-(2-pyridyl)piperazine, 4-(2-pyrimidinyl)piperazine, or linear butyro(or valero)phenone fragments) were prepared and evaluated as antipsychotic agents by in vitro assays for affinity for dopamine receptors (D(1), D(2), D(4)) and serotonin receptors (5-HT(2A), 5-HT(2B), 5-HT(2C)), by neurochemical studies, and by in vivo assays for antipsychotic potential and the risk of inducing extrapyramidal side effects. Potency and selectivity depended mainly on the amine fragment connected to the cyclohexanone structure. Compounds 20b, with a benzoylpiperidine moiety, and 20c, with a benzisoxazolyl fragment, were selective for 5-HT(2A) receptors. The in vitro and in vivo pharmacological profiles of N-[(4-oxo-4,5,6, 7-tetrahydrobenzo[b]furan-6-yl)methyl]-4-(p-fluorobenzoyl)piperidine (20b, QF1003B) and N-[(4-oxo-4,5,6, 7-tetrahydrobenzo[b]furan-6-yl)methyl]-4-(6-fluorobenzisoxazol-3-yl)p iperidine (20c, QF1004B) suggest that they may be effective as antipsychotic (neuroleptic) drugs.

Prodromal schizophrenia and atypical antipsychotic treatment

Early recognition and intervention in psychosis is the focus of more intensive research. In this paper, we critically review the ideas that have emerged in this field. We also propose a model or hypothesis for testing in the prodromal phase of schizophrenia. Attention to practical and ethical issues, particularly with the use of atypical antipsychotics in one arm of the protocol, is addressed. Studies by Yung and Falloon describe prodromal intervention with psychosocial strategies and time-limited low potency neuroleptics, respectively, that suggest benefits of such a model. Although we have respect for the DSM system, this paper is written more from a Bleulerian than Kraepelinian perspective in that we emphasize affective, cognitive, and negative symptoms in addition to positive symptoms. The paper recognizes the strong conceptual disagreements implicit in this area stemming not only from Kraepelin and Bleuler but work from the 1930s by Cameron. The clinical research advocated is timely in that the atypicals are more congruent to the Bleulerian conception with a neurodevelopmental hypothesis of schizophrenia. We also have exciting new imaging and genetic technologies to refine our concepts of schizophrenia and its prodromal and premorbid phases.

Designing naturalistic prospective studies of economic and effectiveness outcomes associated with novel antipsychotic therapies

The cornerstone of recent pharmacoeconomic work in schizophrenia is the hypothesis that the improved efficacy of novel antipsychotic medications will lead to a reduction in medical services utilization, thereby reducing direct medical costs associated with treatment. Creating the most valid design to prospectively examine the effectiveness and costs of competing pharmacotherapies requires a dialectic of opposing research paradigms. The final protocol must represent a series of decisions that strike a careful balance between being scientifically sound (internal validity) and generalizable to the real world of clinical treatment (external validity). The results must be useful to decision-makers in determining to what extent reductions in healthcare expenditures can offset higher drug acquisition costs within their type of treatment environment. This article is a review of several methodological challenges in the design of medical effectiveness trials, including whether to blind the study, definition of the patient population, degree of physician discretion in treatment, and how to collect and analyze data for patients who discontinue their originally assigned medication. The article also provides a discussion of how clinical practices can inform decisions made to meet these challenges. The issues are illustrated through a prospective study designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the newer antipsychotics in general and olanzapine in particular. Cost-effectiveness studies of novel antipsychotic medications, particularly those with naturalistic designs, will increase in importance as the use of these second-generation agents continues to expand.

Placebo control groups in randomized treatment trials: a statistician's perspective

Because a statistical tie between standard treatment and an innovation is uninterpretable, most trials intended to demonstrate efficacy of innovations in psychopharmacology employ a placebo control group, despite the existence of standard medications for many disorders. In this review I consider the statistical issues that inform the ethics of the decision to use a placebo condition and make the following points: 1) the investigator is relying on the assumption that the effects of delayed standard treatment are neither long-lasting nor harmful; 2) the usual practice of truncating follow-up when a patient ceases to adhere to a study treatment makes it difficult to empirically test that assumption; 3) placebo control trials often suffer from methodological weaknesses (including nonrandom truncation) that reduce their inferential power; 4) these subtleties place a substantial burden on the informed consent process; 5) alternative designs are available but not well explored, due to the dominant role of "regulatory" trial methodology; and 6) researchers should consider other goals besides helping to introduce another treatment that improves on placebos but not the standard treatment.

Tolerability of atypical antipsychotics

Atypical antipsychotics are expected to be better tolerated than older antipsychotics because of their lower propensity to cause certain adverse effects. All atypical drugs have been shown to cause fewer acute extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) than a standard typical agent (usually haloperidol) and some (clozapine, sertindole and quetiapine) appear to cause these effects no more often than placebo. In the longer term, clozapine, olanzapine and (less robustly) other atypical antipsychotics are thought to cause less tardive dyskinesia than typical antipsychotics. Problems caused by hyperprolactinaemia occur less often with some atypical antipsychotics than with typical drugs although risperidone and amisulpride appear to have no advantages in this respect. Other adverse effects may occur as frequently with some atypical antipsychotics as with some typical drugs. Clozapine, risperidone and quetiapine are known to cause postural hypotension; clozapine, olanzapine and quetiapine are clearly sedative; and anticholinergic effects are commonly seen with clozapine, and, much less frequently, with olanzapine. Some adverse effects are more frequent with atypical drugs. Idiosyncratic effects seem particularly troublesome with clozapine and, to a lesser extent, sertindole, olanzapine and zotepine. Bodyweight gain is probably more problematic with atypical antipsychotics than with typical drugs. Overall tolerability, as judged by withdrawals from therapy, is not clearly proven to be better with atypical drugs, although some individual trials do indicate an advantage with atypical agents. Differences in tolerability between individual atypical antipsychotics have not been clearly shown. The tolerability profile of atypical drugs certainly benefits from a lower incidence of acute EPS effects, along with less certain or less uniform benefits in symptomatic hyperprolactinaemia or tardive dyskinesia. Other, perhaps more trivial, adverse effects militate against their good tolerability, and effects such as bodyweight gain may severely reduce tolerability. Without clear advantages in tolerability in patient groups used in trials, drug choice in regard to adverse effects should continue to be on a patient to patient basis.

Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence

The argument that prescription drugs are cost-effective has been made both by the pharmaceutical industry to support rising drug prices and expenditures, and by advocates of expanded drug coverage for elderly and low-income persons. A new database of 228 published cost-utility analyses sheds light on the issue. According to published data, some drugs do save money or are cost-effective, but the issue depends critically on the context in which the drug is used and the intervention with which it is compared. Cost-utility analyses funded by the drug industry tend to report more favorable results than do those funded by nonindustry sources. Cost-effectiveness analysis can help policymakers to determine whether drugs and other interventions offer value for money.

Treatment refractory schizophrenia

Treatment resistance constitutes a significant dilemma in schizophrenia since it affects a substantial number of patients, their families and the health care professionals involved in their care. Nonresponsiveness needs to be approached as a multidimensional syndrome by specifying which symptoms in the spectrum of positive symptoms, negative symptoms, excitement/hostility, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety/depression are failing to respond to treatment. This review presents some of the clinical, demographic and biological correlates of nonresponse, in addition to compliance issues, psychosocial factors or side effects and as-yet-untreated comorbidities as a source for nonresponse. The effects of the atypicals clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine as compared to typicals are reviewed using available double-blind studies in this treatment refractory group of schizophrenia patients. The limited number of reports on the comparison of atypical compounds amongst each other are critically presented. Given that a subset of patients still do not respond to these agents, clinicians are using various augmentation strategies. We review studies with augmentation strategies which remain difficult to interpret given the open label and uncontrolled nature of most of these studies.

The new atypical antipsychotics: a review of pharmacoeconomic studies

The pharmacoeconomic evaluation of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia involves documentation of clinical effectiveness, quality of life and medical cost outcomes. The findings of pharmacoeconomic studies assist psychiatrists and mental healthcare decision-makers in identifying therapies that provide the greatest benefit to patients at the most acceptable cost. The cost-effectiveness of the newer atypical antipsychotics has been examined using non-controlled cohort studies (either retrospective or prospective), modelling studies or randomised clinical trials. The evidence, from a variety of studies, indicates that clozapine is a cost-effective treatment for neuroleptic refractory schizophrenia. Risperidone and olanzapine may be cost neutral, or at best slightly cost saving, compared with conventional antipsychotics, although they do improve patient clinical effectiveness and quality of life outcomes. There is too little data on pharmacoeconomic outcomes for sertindole and quetiapine to make any conclusions about their cost-effectiveness in treating schizophrenia.

Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with conventional antipsychotics has limitations: 25-33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an atypical 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 for schizophrenia in comparison to typical antipsychotic drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications in all languages were searched from the following databases: Biological Abstracts (1982-1999), The Cochrane Library CENTRAL (Issue 2, 1999), Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Specialised Register (1999), EMbase (1980-1999), ISI Citation Index, LILACS (1982-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), and PsycLIT (1974-1999). Reference list screening of included papers was performed. Authors of recent trials and the manufacturer of clozapine contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing clozapine with typical antipsychotic drugs were included by independent assessment by at least two reviewers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Authors of trials published since 1980 were contacted for additional and missing data. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogeneous dichotomous data were calculated with the Peto method. A random effects model was used for heterogeneous dichotomous data. Where possible the numbers needed to treat (NNT) or needed to harm (NNH) were also calculated. Weighted or standardised means were calculated for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Currently the review includes 31 studies, 26 of which are less than 13 weeks in duration. These studies include 2589 participants, most of whom were men (74%). The average age was 38 years. There was no difference in the effects of clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs for broad outcomes such as mortality, ability to work or suitability for discharge at end of the study. Clinical improvement was seen more frequently in those taking clozapine (random effects OR 0.4 CI 0.2-0.6, NNT 6) both in the short and the long term. Also, in the short term, participants on clozapine had fewer relapses than those on typical antipsychotic drugs (OR 0.6 CI 0.4-0.8, NNT 20 CI 17-38), and this may be true for long-term treatment as well. Symptom assessment scales showed a greater reduction of symptoms in clozapine-treated patients. Clozapine treatment was more acceptable than low-potency antipsychotics such as chlorpromazine (OR 0.6 CI 0.4-0.9) but did not differ from acceptability of high-potency neuroleptics such as haloperidol (random effects OR 0.8 CI 0.4-1.5). Clozapine was more acceptable in long-term treatment than conventional antipsychotic drugs (random effects OR 0.4 CI 0.2-0.7, NNT 6 CI 3-111). Patients were more satisfied with clozapine treatment (OR 0.5 CI 0.3-0.8, NNT 12 CI 7-37), but they experienced more hypersalivation, temperature increase, and drowsiness than those given conventional neuroleptics. However, clozapine patients experience fewer motor side effects and less dry mouth. The clinical efficacy of clozapine was more pronounced in participants resistant to typical neuroleptics in terms of clinical improvement (random effects OR 0.2 CI 0.1-0.5, NNT 5 CI 4-7) and symptom reduction. Thirty-two percent of treatment resistant people had a clinical improvement with clozapine treatment.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review confirms that clozapine is convincingly more effective than typical antipsychotic drugs in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia, producing clinically meaningful improvements and postponing relapse. Patients were more satisfied with clozapine treatment than with typical neuroleptic treatment. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED

Pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia

The pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia remains a critical component in the short- and long-term management of this disease. Considerable progress has been made in delineating different domains of this illness, ranging from positive and negative symptoms to cognitive dysfunction and psychosocial vulnerabilities. Increasingly, treatments are being studied in relation to a variety of different outcome measures with functional ability and quality of life achieving appropriate emphasis. The introduction of a new generation of antipsychotic drugs has helped to raise optimism and expectations. Overall, second-generation drugs do provide clear advantages in terms of reducing adverse effects (particularly drug-induced Parkinsonism, anesthesia, and, hopefully, tardive dyskinesia). Advantages in alleviating refractory symptoms, negative symptoms, depression, and suicidal behavior are found in some reports; however, much remains to be done methodologically in establishing the relative merits of specific drugs in the multiple domains of interest.

Hospital days in risperidone-treated patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare inpatient hospital days of a group of "real world" schizophrenia-spectrum patients for 3 years prior to and 3 years after risperidone initiation.

METHOD

This is a retrospective cohort study using a mirror-image design of hospital days in 120 patients over a 6-year period. Hospital admission and discharge information was obtained from chart review and database extraction at 3 outpatient treatment sites. The sample comprised all patients attending these clinics who were prescribed risperidone during the first year of the drug's release.

RESULTS

Patients separated into 3 treatment groups: those who were prescribed risperidone for 3 uninterrupted years (N = 35), those who interrupted but resumed risperidone use and were prescribed the drug at 3 years (N = 8), and those who discontinued risperidone during the 3-year follow-up period (N = 77). The group continuing risperidone to 3 years demonstrated a significant decrease in hospital days after risperidone treatment, in contrast to the other 2 groups. The reduction in inpatient days for the total sample was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In this outpatient clinic sample, the 29% of patients who continued on risperidone showed a significant reduction in inpatient hospital days, from an average of 17.2 days per year in the 3 years before risperidone treatment to an average of 2.1 days per year for the 3 years of risperidone treatment.

Double-blind study of clozapine dose response in chronic schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the relative efficacy of three different doses of clozapine.

METHOD

Fifty patients who met Kane et al.'s criteria for treatment-refractory schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were studied. All subjects were randomly assigned to 100, 300, or 600 mg/day of clozapine for 16 weeks of double-blind treatment. Forty-eight patients completed this first 16 weeks. Of the 50 patients, 36 went on to second and third 16-week trials of double-blind treatment at the remaining doses.

RESULTS

Four subjects (8%) responded to the first 16-week condition, and one subject (2%) responded to the next 16-week crossover condition. A chi-square comparison of the response rates from the three dose groups failed to show a significant effect. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) total change scores from baseline to last observation carried forward showed a significant dose effect (600>300>100 mg/day) at 16 weeks of treatment. A crossover ANOVA of the BPRS-A total scores from the 48-week study also showed that the main effect for dose was highly significant; the 100-mg/day dose gave the higher (poorer) values, and the 300- and 600-mg/ day doses gave equal (better) values. Gender played a role in clinical response to treatment at 100 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine treatment at 100 mg/day was less effective than at 300 or 600 mg/day. At 100 mg/day, women responded better than did men. The 600 mg/day group had the best results, but an occasional patient required up to 900 mg/day. Overall response rates were lower than expected.

Clozapine in community practice: a 3-year follow-up study in the Australian Capital Territory

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to present the first data on the long-term use of clozapine in an entire cohort of patients encountered in a community, the Australian Capital Territory. It examines the clinical and financial outcomes 3 years after the prescription of clozapine to a cohort of 37 patients.

METHOD

Experience during the 2 years before clozapine was prescribed was compared with experience in the following 3 years on the basis of a retrospective review of official records. Data included hospital and hostel bed use and an estimate of treatment costs. In addition, changes in living circumstances and employment status were assessed and treating psychiatrists reported the presence of side effects and their impressions of clinical change since clozapine was prescribed.

RESULTS

Compared with the preclozapine period, there were significant reductions postclozapine in hospital admissions (year 3) and hospital bed-days (year 2) by the total cohort and in hospital bed-days and hospital expenditure for those patients (n = 25) who remained on clozapine (years 2 and 3). There was no significant increase or decrease postclozapine in the estimated combined cost of treatment attributable to bed use (hospital or hostel), clozapine tablets, blood monitoring, and the employment of a Clozapine Coordinator. Clinically, all patients who stayed on clozapine were reported to be moderately or markedly improved. Five of nine patients who were not taking clozapine at study's end were unimproved or deteriorated.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of significant clinical improvement without evidence of increased cost lend support for the selective use of clozapine in community practice.