Benzodiazepines for schizophrenia

Association between benzodiazepine anxiolytic polypharmacy and concomitant psychotropic medications in Japan: a retrospective cross-sectional study

Introduction

Guidelines for various psychiatric disorders recommend short-term use of benzodiazepine anxiolytic monotherapy in few cases. Contrarily, benzodiazepine anxiolytic polypharmacy (BAP) is not recommended in any case. However, BAP is often used in real world. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the association between BAP and concomitant use of psychotropic medications.

Method

This retrospective cross-sectional study used claims data from the Japan Medical Data Center. Medical information of health insurance subscribers treated with benzodiazepine anxiolytics in June 2019 was extracted. Prescription of two or more benzodiazepine anxiolytics was defined as BAP. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with BAP, using age group, sex, type of subscriber, and number of concomitant hypnotics, antidepressants, and antipsychotics (none, one, and two or more) as covariates.

Result

The eligible participants were 104,796 adults who were prescribed benzodiazepine anxiolytics. Among them, 12.6% were prescribed two or more drugs. Logistic regression analysis revealed that BAP was significantly associated with those who received hypnotic monotherapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.001-1.09, p=0.04), antidepressant monotherapy and polypharmacy (aOR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.51-1.63, p<0.001 and aOR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.88-2.09, p<0.001, respectively), and antipsychotic monotherapy and polypharmacy (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.19, p<0.001 and aOR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30-1.54, p<0.001, respectively). Conversely, lower BAP was associated with those who received hypnotic polypharmacy (aOR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91, p<0.001).

Discussion

This study showed that the greater the number of concomitant antidepressants and antipsychotics, the greater the association with BAP. Since combination therapy with antidepressants or antipsychotics is generally not recommended, patients receiving combination therapy with these medications may be resistant to pharmacotherapy. Therefore, implementing the recommended non-pharmacological treatments may reduce BAP.

Efficacy difference of antipsychotics in Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia: explained with network efficiency and pathway analysis methods

Approximately 50% of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients will develop psychotic symptoms and these patients will experience severe rapid cognitive decline compared with those without psychosis (AD-P). Currently, no medication has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AD with psychosis (AD+P) specifically, although atypical antipsychotics are widely used in clinical practice. These drugs have demonstrated modest efficacy in managing psychosis in individuals with AD, with an increased frequency of adverse events, including excess mortality. We compared the differences between the genetic variations/genes associated with AD+P and schizophrenia from existing Genome-Wide Association Study and differentially expressed genes (DEGs). We also constructed disease-specific protein-protein interaction networks for AD+P and schizophrenia. Network efficiency was then calculated to characterize the topological structures of these two networks. The efficiency of antipsychotics in these two networks was calculated. A weight adjustment based on binding affinity to drug targets was later applied to refine our results, and 2013 and 2123 genes were identified as related to AD+P and schizophrenia, respectively, with only 115 genes shared. Antipsychotics showed a significantly lower efficiency in the AD+P network than in the schizophrenia network (P < 0.001) indicating that antipsychotics may have less impact in AD+P than in schizophrenia. AD+P may be caused by mechanisms distinct from those in schizophrenia which result in a decreased efficacy of antipsychotics in AD+P. In addition, the network analysis methods provided quantitative explanations of the lower efficacy of antipsychotics in AD+P.

Benzodiazepines Remain Important Therapeutic Options in Psychiatric Practice

Benzodiazepines and medications acting on benzodiazepine receptors that do not have a benzodiazepine structure (z-drugs) have been viewed by some experts and regulatory bodies as having limited benefit and significant risks. Data presented in this article support the use of these medications as treatments of choice for acute situational anxiety, chronic anxiety disorders, insomnia, alcohol withdrawal syndromes, and catatonia. They may also be useful adjuncts in the treatment of anxious depression and mania, and for medically ill patients. Tolerance develops to sedation and possibly psychomotor impairment, but not to the anxiolytic effect of benzodiazepines. Sedation can impair cognitive function in some patients, but assertions that benzodiazepines increase the risk of dementia are not supported by recent data. Contrary to popular opinion, benzodiazepines are not frequently misused or conduits to misuse of other substances in patients without substance use disorders who are prescribed these medications for appropriate indications; most benzodiazepine misuse involves medications that are obtained from other people. Benzodiazepines are usually not lethal in overdose except when ingested with other substances, especially alcohol and opioids. Benzodiazepines comprise one of the few classes of psychotropic medication the mechanisms of action of which are clearly delineated, allowing for greater precision in their clinical use. These medications, therefore, belong in the therapeutic armamentarium of the knowledgeable clinician.

Non-antipsychotic medicines and modified electroconvulsive therapy are risk factors for hospital-acquired pneumonia in schizophrenia patients

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) has a significant and detrimental impact on schizophrenia patients. Non-antipsychotic medicines and modified electroconvulsive therapy (MECT) are frequently used in conjunction with antipsychotics to treat schizophrenia. Whether non-antipsychotic medicines or MECT are risk factors for HAP in schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics is still unknown.

METHODS

Patients with schizophrenia who were admitted to the Fourth People's Hospital of Chengdu between January 2015 and April 2022 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Individuals with HAP were 1:1 matched to individuals without HAP (non-HAP) using propensity score matching (PSM). The risk factors for HAP were analyzed by comparing the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 7,085 schizophrenia patients were included in this study, with a mean age of 39.77 ± 14.45 years. 193 patients developed HAP on an average of 22.26 ± 21.68 days after admission with an incidence of 2.73%. After 1:1 PSM, 192 patients from each group (HAP and non-HAP) were included. The HAP group had significantly more patients with MECT and taking benzodiazepines, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and anti-parkinsonians both before and after PSM by Bonferroni correction (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that, combined with antipsychotics, non-antipsychotic medicines including benzodiazepines (OR = 3.13, 95%CI = 1.95-5.03, P < 0.001), mood stabilizers (OR =3.33, 95%CI =1.79-6.20, P < 0.001) and MECT (OR =2.58, 95%CI =1.49-4.46, P = 0.001) were associated with a significantly increased incidence of HAP.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of HAP in schizophrenia patients in our cohort was 2.73%. MECT and non-antipsychotic medicines, including benzodiazepines and mood stabilizers were risk factors for HAP in schizophrenia patients treated with antipsychotics.

How robust are findings of pairwise and network meta-analysis in the presence of missing participant outcome data?

BACKGROUND

To investigate the prevalence of robust conclusions in systematic reviews addressing missing (participant) outcome data via a novel framework of sensitivity analyses and examine the agreement with the current sensitivity analysis standards.

METHODS

We performed an empirical study on systematic reviews with two or more interventions. Pairwise meta-analyses (PMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) were identified from empirical studies on the reporting and handling of missing outcome data in systematic reviews. PMAs with at least three studies and NMAs with at least three interventions on one primary outcome were considered eligible. We applied Bayesian methods to obtain the summary effect estimates whilst modelling missing outcome data under the missing-at-random assumption and different assumptions about the missingness mechanism in the compared interventions. The odds ratio in the logarithmic scale was considered for the binary outcomes and the standardised mean difference for the continuous outcomes. We calculated the proportion of primary analyses with robust and frail conclusions, quantified by our proposed metric, the robustness index (RI), and current sensitivity analysis standards. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to measure the agreement between the conclusions derived by the RI and the current sensitivity analysis standards.

RESULTS

One hundred eight PMAs and 34 NMAs were considered. When studies with a substantial number of missing outcome data dominated the analyses, the number of frail conclusions increased. The RI indicated that 59% of the analyses failed to demonstrate robustness compared to 39% when the current sensitivity analysis standards were employed. Comparing the RI with the current sensitivity analysis standards revealed that two in five analyses yielded contradictory conclusions concerning the robustness of the primary analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the current sensitivity analysis standards, the RI offers an explicit definition of similar results and does not unduly rely on statistical significance. Hence, it may safeguard against possible spurious conclusions regarding the robustness of the primary analysis results.

An age-period-cohort study of completed suicides in Greece: Patterns and implications for suicide prevention

Suicide is a dynamic phenomenon. Psychiatric medication intake, illicit drug and alcohol use or the preference for particular suicide methods shift continuously over time. To capture such variations -and their potential implications for suicide prevention-, we researched the forensic records of suicide cases for the period 1992-2016 at a large department of forensic medicine and conducted age-period-cohort (APC) analyses of our sample (1162 suicides, 77.45% males, 22.25% females). We primarily investigated socio-demographic and toxicological parameters. Benzodiazepine, alcohol and illicit drug use increased considerably towards the younger cohorts. The segment of individuals of foreign nationality raised significantly too; likewise, the proportion of prison suicides. Hanging appears increasingly preferred by the younger APCs (the opposite is true for jumping). Hanging seems more popular among males, prisoners, and those under the influence of illicit drugs; jumping by females and those less likely to have consumed alcohol or illicit drugs. Given that the method of a prior attempt, if a highly lethal one, usually gets repeated in the completed suicide, a history of an attempt by hanging should never be underestimated. The mental health needs of immigrants and prisoners look inadequately addressed. Young-middle aged immigrant prisoners appear a group at high suicide risk.

Beyond Dopamine Receptor Antagonism: New Targets for Schizophrenia Treatment and Prevention

Treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ) historically relies on the use of antipsychotic drugs to treat psychosis, with all of the currently available antipsychotics acting through the antagonism of dopamine D2 receptors. Although antipsychotics reduce psychotic symptoms in many patients, they induce numerous undesirable effects and are not effective against negative and cognitive symptoms. These highlight the need to develop new drugs to treat SCZ. An advanced understanding of the circuitry of SCZ has pointed to pathological origins in the excitation/inhibition balance in regions such as the hippocampus, and restoring function in this region, particularly as a means to compensate for parvalbumin (PV) interneuron loss and resultant hippocampal hyperactivity, may be a more efficacious approach to relieve a broad range of SCZ symptoms. Other targets, such as cholinergic receptors and the trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1), have also shown some promise for the treatment of SCZ. Importantly, assessing efficacy of novel compounds must take into consideration treatment history of the patient, as preclinical studies suggest prior antipsychotic treatment may interfere with the efficacy of these novel agents. However, while novel therapeutic targets may be more effective in treating SCZ, a more effective approach would be to prevent the transition to SCZ in susceptible individuals. A focus on stress, which has been shown to be a predisposing factor in risk for SCZ, is a possible avenue that has shown promise in preclinical studies. Therefore, therapeutic approaches based on our current understanding of the circuitry of SCZ and its etiology are likely to enable development of more effective therapeutic interventions for this complex disorder.

Benzodiazepines for treatment of patients with delirium excluding those who are cared for in an intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a very common condition associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. Current critical care guidelines recommend first and foremost the use of nonpharmacological strategies in both the prevention and treatment of delirium. Pharmacological interventions may augment these approaches and they are currently used widely in clinical practice to manage the symptoms of delirium. Benzodiazepines are currently used in clinical practice to treat behavioural disturbances associated with delirium but current guidelines do not recommend their use for this indication. The use of these medicines is controversial because there is uncertainty about whether they are effective for patients or have the potential to harm them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium (excluding delirium related to withdrawal from alcohol or benzodiazepines) in any healthcare settings other than intensive care units (ICU).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register up to 10 April 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), numerous trial registries (including national, international and pharmaceutical registries), and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in healthcare settings that ranged from nursing homes and long-term care facilities to any hospital setting except for ICUs, involving adult patients with delirium excluding those with delirium related to alcohol or benzodiazepine withdrawal. Included RCTs had to assess the effect of benzodiazepines, at any dose and given by any route, compared with placebo or another drug intended to treat delirium.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We decided whether or not to pool data on the basis of clinical heterogeneity between studies. We used GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only two trials that satisfied the selection criteria. We did not pool the data because of the substantial clinical differences between the trials. In one trial, participants (n = 58) were patients in an acute palliative care unit with advanced cancer who had a mean age of 64 years. All of the participants had delirium, were treated with haloperidol, and were randomised to receive either lorazepam or placebo in combination with it. Due to very serious imprecision, all evidence was of low certainty. We were unable to determine whether there were clinically important differences in the severity of delirium (mean difference (MD) 2.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 5.16; n = 50), length of hospital admission (MD 0.00, 95% CI -3.45 to 3.45; n = 58), mortality from all causes (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.02; participants = 58) or any of a number of adverse events. Important effects could not be confirmed or excluded. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode. In the other trial, participants (n = 30) were patients in general medical wards with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) who had a mean age of 39.2 years. Investigators compared three drug treatments: all participants had delirium, and were randomised to receive lorazepam, chlorpromazine, or haloperidol. Very low-certainty evidence was identified, and we could not determine whether lorazepam differed from either of the other treatments in the effect on severity of delirium, any adverse event, or mortality from all causes. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode or the length of hospital admission.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no enough evidence to determine whether benzodiazepines are effective when used to treat patients with delirium who are cared for in non-ICU settings. The available evidence does not support their routine use for this indication. Because of the scarcity of data from randomised controlled trials, further research is required to determine whether or not there is a role for benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings.

Misuse of benzodiazepines: Prevalence and impact in an inpatient population with psychiatric disorders

AIMS

Use and misuse of benzodiazepine might be very prevalent in patients with acute psychiatric symptoms, whereas they might be associated with specific adverse events in this population. The study investigated their prevalence in these patients. Secondary objectives were to identify risk factors for misuse of benzodiazepines, and its impact.

METHODS

A cohort study was based on the hospital's electronic patient records and conducted in patients aged 18 years and over and admitted to a psychiatric hospital. They were followed up for 84 days or until the end of hospitalisation. Four variables of misuse were built: excessive duration of treatment, type of product, excessive dosage and concomitant benzodiazepines. Backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess risk factors for each misuse criterion, on the 1 hand, and impact of benzodiazepine misuse, on the other.

RESULTS

In total, 511 psychiatric inpatients were included with 89.0% of them exposed to benzodiazepine. Discharge prescription included no benzodiazepine or a dosage lower than the maximum dosage prescribed during hospitalisation for 78.2% of patients exposed to benzodiazepine during their stay. Of benzodiazepine treatments, 31.4% were associated with at least 1 misuse criterion. Excessive dosage was associated with age ≥65 years (OR 11.57; 95% confidence interval 4.92-27.17), substance/alcohol use disorders (3.35; 95% confidence interval 1.70-6.62) and parenthood (0.49; 0.25-0.97). Some criteria of benzodiazepine misuse were associated with a higher frequency of adverse events occurring after treatment initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Misuse of benzodiazepines is very common in inpatients with psychiatric disorders. These findings should alert clinicians to comply with clinical recommendations.

Prescription Benzodiazepine Use in Privately Insured U.S. Children and Adolescents

INTRODUCTION

Benzodiazepines are commonly prescribed in the U.S. but entail safety concerns, including dependency. In pediatrics, many indications lack trial data. Authors aimed to describe youth initiating prescription benzodiazepine treatment, identify potential indications and prescribing concerns, estimate the duration of treatment by potential indication, and identify factors that predict long-term use.

METHODS

The study cohort included children (aged 3-12 years) and adolescents (aged 13-17 years) initiating prescription benzodiazepine treatment (≥3 days' supply) from January 2010 to September 2015 in a U.S. commercial claims database. Potential indications included selected ICD-9-CM diagnoses (≤30 days prior). Long-term (≥6 months) benzodiazepine treatment was estimated with Kaplan-Meier estimation and modified Poisson regression identified independent predictors of long-term benzodiazepine treatment (analysis completed in 2018).

RESULTS

Of 24,504 children and 61,046 adolescents initiating benzodiazepines, 62% of the children and 68% of the adolescents had a potential indication. Anxiety disorders were the most common indication, with mental health indications more common among adolescents (45%) than children (23%) and epilepsy and movement disorders higher in children. Recent opioid prescriptions were common before benzodiazepine initiation (children, 22%; adolescents, 21%). Six percent of the initiators became long-term benzodiazepine users. Potential indication, provider contact, psychotropic medication, and chronic conditions independently predicted long-term benzodiazepine treatment in adolescents and children.

CONCLUSIONS

U.S. children and adolescents are prescribed benzodiazepines for various mental health and other medical conditions, many lacking evidence of pediatric efficacy. Long-term benzodiazepine treatment, concurrent opioid prescriptions, psychotropic use, and prior substance use disorder diagnoses suggest safety risks among some youth prescribed benzodiazepines.

The Fragile Brain: Stress Vulnerability, Negative Affect and GABAergic Neurocircuits in Psychosis

Persons with schizophrenia exhibit sensitivity to stress and negative affect (NA), both strongly correlated with poor functional outcome. This theoretical review suggests that NA reflects a "fragile brain," ie, vulnerable to stress, including events not experienced as stressful by healthy individuals. Based on postmortem evidence of altered gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function in parvalbumin positive interneurons (PVI), animal models of PVI abnormalities and neuroimaging data with GABAergic challenge, it is suggested that GABAergic disruptions weaken cortical regions, which leads to stress vulnerability and excessive NA. Neurocircuits that respond to stressful and salient environmental stimuli, such as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the amygdala, are highly dysregulated in schizophrenia, exhibiting hypo- and hyper-activity. PVI abnormalities in lateral prefrontal cortex and hippocampus have been hypothesized to affect cognitive function and positive symptoms, respectively; in the medial frontal cortex (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and dorsal medial prefrontal cortex), these abnormalities may lead to vulnerability to stress, NA and dysregulation of stress responsive systems. Given that postmortem PVI disruptions have been identified in other conditions, such as bipolar disorder and autism, stress vulnerability may reflect a transdiagnostic dimension of psychopathology.

Forced Medication in Psychiatry: Patients' Rights and the Law Not Respected by Appeals Board in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

We investigated if the law and the patients' rights are being respected in Denmark when patients appeal forced medication orders.

METHOD

We assessed 30 consecutive cases described on the webpage of the Psychiatric Appeals Board.

RESULTS

No clear and convincing evidence was presented in any case that the proposed treatment was in the patient's best interests. Furthermore, according to Danish law, forced medication should be with drugs with the fewest possible adverse effects, but this condition was violated in 29 of the 30 cases (97%).In seven cases (23%), where the board disagreed with an earlier decision made by the Psychiatric Patients' Complaints Board and resolved that the conditions for forced treatment with an antipsychotic had not been met, the issues were formal and minor, and the Appeals Board argued, also in these cases, that force was justified because the patient was insane and that the prospect of cure or a significant and decisive improvement in the condition would otherwise be significantly impaired. This view lacks support in reliable science.The board seems mainly to have a cosmetic function, rubber stamping what the psychiatrists want. It focused on uncontroversial issues it could easily check and not on what is important for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' rights and the law were not being respected. We suggest forced medication be abandoned, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Benefits and harms of antipsychotic drugs in drug-naïve patients with psychosis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To study the benefits and harms of antipsychotics in drug-naïve patients with psychosis.

METHODS

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality, activities of daily living, quality of life, core psychiatric events, and relapse and recovery rates.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), two trial registers and references in potentially eligible articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two researchers extracted data independently. The outcomes were planned to be meta-analysed using Review Manager based on a fixed effect model.

RESULTS

Our searches resulted in 493 unique records of which 447 were clearly not eligible. We read the full text of the 46 potentially eligible articles and found one eligible trial in drug-naïve patients, which was unreliable. It was a Chinese trial comparing olanzapine with placebo in 261 patients with first-episode schizophrenia. After 12 weeks, there was an extremely large difference favouring placebo, but the authors reported the opposite, that olanzapine was effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antipsychotics cannot be justified based on the evidence we currently have. Withdrawal effects in the placebo groups make existing placebo-controlled trials unreliable.

Benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic prescribing from acute psychiatric inpatient discharge to long-term care in the community

Background:

Benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic prescribing has slowly decreased over the past 20 years, however long-term chronic prescribing still occurs and is at odds with prescribing guidance.

Objectives:

To identify the pattern of benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic prescribing in psychiatric inpatients at discharge and 12 months post-discharge.

Methods:

Retrospective observational longitudinal cohort study of patients admitted to two adult psychiatric wards between June and November 2012 (inclusive) who were discharged with a prescription for a benzodiazepine or z-hypnotic drug. Routinely collected prescription data available from NHS Scotland Prescribing Information System was used to identify and follow community prescribing of benzodiazepine and z-hypnotics for a 12 month period post-discharge. Data were entered in Excel^® and further analysed using SPSS 23. Ethical approval was not required for this service evaluation however Caldicott Guardian approval was sought and granted.

Results:

Eighty patients were admitted during the study period however only those patients with a single admission were included for analysis (n=74). Thirty per cent (22/74) of patients were prescribed a benzodiazepine or z-hypnotics at discharge; 14 of whom received ‘long-term’ benzodiazepine and z-hypnotics i.e. continued use over the 12 month period. Seven patients received a combination of anxiolytics and hypnotics (e.g., diazepam plus temazepam or zopiclone). Long-term use was associated with a non-significant increase in median benzodiazepine or z-hypnotic dose, expressed as diazepam equivalents.

Conclusions:

One in three patients were prescribed a benzodiazepine or z-hypnotics at discharge with 1 in 5 receiving continuous long-term treatment (prescriptions) for 12 months post-discharge. As chronic long-term B-Z prescribing and use still remains an issue, future strategies using routine patient-level prescribing data may support prescribers to review and minimise inappropriate long-term prescribing.

A Review of Clinical and Economic Evaluations Applied to Psychotropic Therapies Used in the Treatment of Schizophrenia in Argentina

Schizophrenia is considered a serious mental disorder that affects over 21 million people worldwide, and is associated with disability that frequently affects the patient's educational and working performance. In Argentina, two of the most widely used antipsychotics in the treatment of this disorder are haloperidol and risperidone. Both are provided free to patients without health coverage in public healthcare facilities. In this paper we seek to review the clinical and economic benefits of prescribing psychotropic therapies based on haloperidol (a first-generation antipsychotic that is part of the butyrophenone group of drugs) versus risperidone [an atypical or second-generation antipsychotic (neuroleptic) drug] in adult patients who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. To achieve this objective, an exhaustive search of relevant articles published between 2006 and April 2017 was conducted. This literature search showed that intermittent treatment usually fails to prevent relapses due to irregular protection, therefore continuous treatment is more effective. Although the injectable formats of both drugs [haloperidol depot and long-acting injectable risperidone (LAIR)] have not proven to have significant differences with regard to clinical effectiveness vis-à-vis the tablet formats, they showed a lower cost-effectiveness ratio by reducing patients' relapses. Moreover, LAIR exhibits superior cost effectiveness compared with haloperidol depot. Haloperidol is less expensive than risperidone but is less cost effective; in comparison with haloperidol, treatment with risperidone produces (1) an improvement in quality-adjusted life-years, and (2) a significant reduction in negative symptoms. In most cases, antipsychotic treatments are effective in controlling the positive and negative symptoms associated with schizophrenia, allowing patients to live in their communities without any impairments. However, it is extremely important to combine pharmacological treatment with other measures that constitute psychosocial therapy.

Current and potential pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for anxiety symptoms and disorders in patients with schizophrenia: structured review

OBJECTIVE

Between 30% and 62% of patients with schizophrenia present with co-morbid anxiety disorders that are associated with increased overall burden. Our aim was to summarize current and potential interventions for anxiety in schizophrenia.

DESIGN

Structured review, summarizing pharmacological and psychosocial interventions used to reduce anxiety in schizophrenia and psychosis.

RESULTS

Antipsychotics have been shown to reduce anxiety, increase anxiety, or have no effect. These may be augmented with another antipsychotic, anxiolytic, or antidepressant. Novel agents, such as L-theanine, pregabalin, and cycloserine, show promise in attenuating anxiety in schizophrenia. Psychosocial therapies have been developed to reduce the distress of schizophrenia. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has shown that benefit and refinements in the therapy have been successful, for example, for managing worry in schizophrenia. CBT usually involves more than 16 sessions, as short courses of CBT do not attenuate the presentation of anxiety in schizophrenia. To address time and cost, the development of manualized CBT to address anxiety in schizophrenia is being developed.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of coexisting anxiety symptoms and co-morbid anxiety disorders should be ascertained when assessing patients with schizophrenia or other psychoses as a range of pharmacological and psychosocial treatments are available.

Efficacy of 42 Pharmacologic Cotreatment Strategies Added to Antipsychotic Monotherapy in Schizophrenia: Systematic Overview and Quality Appraisal of the Meta-analytic Evidence

IMPORTANCE

Limited treatment responses in schizophrenia prompted the testing of combining an antipsychotic drug treatment with a second psychotropic medication. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of multiple medication combinations is missing.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and compare the meta-analytically determined efficacy of pharmacologic combination strategies of antipsychotic drugs in adults with schizophrenia.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search of PubMed and PsycInfo until May 13, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs combined with other antipsychotic or nonantipsychotic medications vs placebos or antipsychotic monotherapy among adults with schizophrenia.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the methods of the included meta-analyses using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), adding 6 new items to rate their quality. Effect sizes, expressed as standardized mean difference /Hedges g or risk ratio, were compared separately for combinations with any antipsychotic drug and for combinations with clozapine.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was total symptom reduction. Secondary outcomes included positive and negative symptoms, treatment recommendations by authors, study-defined inefficacies, cognitive and depressive symptoms, discontinuation of treatment because of any cause, and inefficacies or intolerabilities.

RESULTS

Of 3397 publications, 29 meta-analyses testing 42 combination strategies in 381 individual trials and among 19 833 participants were included. For total symptom reductions, 32 strategies that augmented any antipsychotic drug and 5 strategies that augmented clozapine were examined. Fourteen combination treatments outperformed controls (standard mean difference/Hedges g, -1.27 [95% CI, -2.35 to -0.19] to -0.23 [95% CI, -0.44 to -0.02]; P = .05). No combination strategies with clozapine outperformed controls. The quality of the methods of the meta-analyses was generally high (mean score, 9 of a maximum score of 11) but the quality of the meta-analyzed studies was low (mean score, 2.8 of a maximum score of 8). Treatment recommendations correlated with the effect size (correlation coefficient, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.35-0.10; P < .001), yet effect sizes were inversely correlated with study quality (correlation coefficient, -0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to -0.12; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Meta-analyses of 21 interventions fully or partially recommended their use, with recommendations being positively correlated with the effect sizes of the pooled intervention. However, the effect sizes were inversely correlated with meta-analyzed study quality, reducing confidence in these recommendations. Higher-quality trials and patient-based meta-analyses are needed to determine whether subpopulations might benefit from combination treatment, as no single strategy can be recommended for patients with schizophrenia based on the current meta-analytic literature.

Benzodiazepine Use and Risk of Developing Alzheimer's Disease: A Case-Control Study Based on Swiss Claims Data

BACKGROUND

A possible association between benzodiazepine use and Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been hypothesized in previous studies.

OBJECTIVES

Using claims data from the Helsana Group, a large Swiss health insurance provider, we examined the association between previous benzodiazepine use and the risk of AD.

METHODS

We conducted a matched case-control study and identified 1438 incident AD cases between 2013 and 2014 based on recorded first-time use of drugs used to treat AD [i.e., acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine) and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine] and matched one control to each case on age, sex, index date, and residence (canton). Because the initiation of benzodiazepine use shortly before the AD diagnosis date may occur as a result of symptomatic treatment of prodromal symptoms of early major neurocognitive disorder, we introduced an induction period of 2 years before the AD diagnosis date. Additionally, we categorized medication use by duration of use prior to the index date using prescriptions. We applied conditional logistic regression analyses to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and adjusted for use of antidepressants.

RESULTS

The crude odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of developing AD for patients starting benzodiazepine treatment was 1.71 (1.17-2.99) in the year before diagnosis and 1.19 (0.82-1.72) in the third year before diagnosis. After accounting for benzodiazepine use initiated during the prodromal phase, benzodiazepine use was not associated with an increased risk of developing AD; long-term benzodiazepine use (≥30 prescriptions) yielded an adjusted odds ratio of 0.78 (0.53-1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

After taking into consideration a possible protopathic bias in the 2 years preceding the AD diagnosis date, benzodiazepine use was not associated with an increased risk of developing AD.

Neurocognitive performance, subjective well-being, and psychosocial functioning after benzodiazepine withdrawal in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: a randomized clinical trial of add-on melatonin versus placebo

Chronic benzodiazepine use is common in patients with mental illness and is associated with cognitive impairment. It is unclear whether benzodiazepine-induced cognitive impairment is reversible. Amelioration of cognitive dysfunction may be facilitated during benzodiazepine tapering by add-on melatonin due to its anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties. We examined how melatonin and benzodiazepine withdrawal affect cognition, subjective well-being, and psychosocial functioning. Eighty patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were randomized to add-on treatment once daily with either prolonged-release melatonin or placebo in a 24-week, double-blind clinical trial. All participants gradually tapered usual benzodiazepine dosage in a closely monitored treatment setting. We used the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) to assess neurocognitive performance with additional assessments of subjective well-being and psychosocial functioning. BACS composite and subscale scores (except motor speed) significantly improved in parallel with benzodiazepine dose reduction, but there was no additional effect of melatonin. Cognitive performance was still markedly impaired post-tapering compared with normative data. Neither benzodiazepine withdrawal nor treatment group affected subjective well-being or psychosocial functioning. In conclusion, add-on melatonin does not seem to affect cognition, well-being, or psychosocial functioning in patients with severe mental illness. The observed improvement in cognitive performance could not be distinguished from retest effects, which may in turn have been facilitated by the benzodiazepine tapering.

Valproate 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, and valproate is one of these.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether:1. valproate alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. valproate augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (July 2002; February 2007; July 2012; March 04, 2016). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing valproate to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as the sole agent or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers, and re-inspected and quality-assessed these. At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2012 update search identified 19 further relevant studies, most of which were from China. Thus the review currently includes 26 studies with a total of 2184 participants. All trials examined the effectiveness of valproate as an adjunct to antipsychotics. With the exception of two studies, the studies were small, the participants and personnel were not blinded (neither was outcome assessment), and most were short-term and incompletely reported.For this update we prespecified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response (clinically significant response, aggression/agitation), leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment, overall tolerability), adverse events (sedation, weight gain) and quality of life.Adding valproate to antipsychotic treatment resulted in more clinically significant response than adding placebo to antipsychotic drugs (14 RCTs, n = 1049, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, I2 = 12%, low-quality evidence). However, this effect was removed after excluding open RCTs in a sensitivity analysis. In terms of acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason) valproate was just as acceptable as placebo (11 RCTs, n = 951, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.24, I2 = 55%). Also overall tolerability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early for adverse events) between valproate and placebo was similar (6 RCTs, n = 974, RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.97, I2 = 0).Participants in the valproate group were found to be less aggressive than the control group based on the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (3 RCTs, n = 186, MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.19, I2 = 82%, very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving valproate more frequently experienced sedation (8 RCTs, n = 770, RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.79, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence) but were no more likely to gain weight than those receiving placebo (4 RCTs, n = 427, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.82, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence). No study reported on the important outcome of quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence, based on a number of trials, that the augmentation of antipsychotics with valproate may be effective for overall clinical response, and also for specific symptoms, especially in terms of excitement and aggression. However, this evidence was entirely based on open RCTs. Moreover, valproate was associated with a number of adverse events among which sedation and dizziness appeared significantly more frequently than in the control groups. Further randomised studies which are blinded are necessary before any clear recommendation can be made. Ideally these would focus on people with schizophrenia and aggression, on those with treatment-resistant forms of the illness and on those with schizoaffective disorders.

A Pharmacovigilance Study in First Episode of Psychosis: Psychopharmacological Interventions and Safety Profiles in the PEPs Project

BACKGROUND

The characterization of the first episode of psychosis and how it should be treated are principal issues in actual research. Realistic, naturalistic studies are necessary to represent the entire population of first episode of psychosis attended in daily practice.

METHODS

Sixteen participating centers from the PEPs project recruited 335 first episode of psychosis patients, aged 7 to 35 years. This article describes and discusses the psychopharmacological interventions and safety profiles at baseline and during a 60-day pharmacovigilance period.

RESULTS

The majority of first episode of psychosis patients received a second-generation antipsychotic (96.3%), orally (95%), and in adjusted doses according to the product specifications (87.2%). A total of 24% were receiving an antipsychotic polytherapy pattern at baseline, frequently associated with lower or higher doses of antipsychotics than the recommended ones. Eight patients were taking clozapine, all in monotherapy. Males received higher doses of antipsychotic (P=.043). A total of 5.2% of the patients were being treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics; 12.2% of the patients received anticholinergic drugs, 12.2% antidepressants, and 13.7% mood stabilizers, while almost 40% received benzodiazepines; and 35.52% reported at least one adverse drug reaction during the pharmacovigilance period, more frequently associated with higher antipsychotic doses and antipsychotic polytherapy (85.2% vs 45.5%, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that the overall pharmacologic prescription for treating a first episode of psychosis in Spain follows the clinical practice guideline recommendations, and, together with security issues, support future research of determinate pharmacological strategies for the treatment of early phases of psychosis, such as the role of clozapine, long-acting injectable antipsychotics, antipsychotic combination, and the use of benzodiazepines.

Risk factors associated with benzodiazepine use among people who inject drugs in an urban Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

Though known to have abuse potential, benzodiazepine medications remain widely prescribed. Furthermore, issues related to benzodiazepine use by people who inject drugs (PWID) remain to be fully characterized. We therefore sought to examine the prevalence of and risk factors associated with benzodiazepine use in a street-involved urban population.

METHODS

Between May 1996 and November 2013, data were derived from two open prospective cohort studies in Vancouver, Canada, restricted to PWID. Multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to determine factors independently associated with benzodiazepine use.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 2806 individuals were recruited, including 949 (34%) women. Of these, 1080 (38.5%) participants reported benzodiazepine use at least once during the study period. In the multivariable analysis, Caucasian ethnicity, ≥ daily heroin injection, ≥ daily cocaine injection, non-fatal overdose, incarceration, syringe sharing, and unsafe sex were all independently associated with benzodiazepine use. Conversely, older age, homelessness, and ≥ daily crack smoking were negatively associated with benzodiazepine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of benzodiazepines was common in this urban setting and was associated with several markers of addiction severity and significant health and social vulnerabilities including syringe sharing and unsafe sex. These findings underscore the need to promote treatment for benzodiazepine use, safer benzodiazepine prescribing, including greater recognition of the limited indications for evidence-based use of this medication class.

Lithium for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether:1. Lithium alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia, schizophrenia-like psychoses and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. Lithium augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. This search was updated on January 20, 2015. For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies to identify further trials and obtain original participant data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lithium compared with antipsychotics or placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication, in the treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated random-effects meta-analyses, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The update search in 2012 detected two further studies that met our inclusion criteria. We did not find any further studies that met our inclusion criteria in the 2015 search. This review now includes 22 studies, with a total of 763 participants (median mean age: 35 years, range: 26 to 72 years). Most studies were small, of short duration, and incompletely reported. As we detected a high risk of bias in many studies, the overall methodological quality of the included sample was rather low.Three small 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 (eight RCTs; n = 270, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.11, low quality evidence).Thirteen 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 (10 RCTs; n = 396, RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.97, low quality evidence). However, this effect became non-significant when we excluded participants with schizoaffective disorders in a sensitivity analysis (seven RCTs; n = 272, RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.81), when we excluded non-double-blind studies (seven RCTs; n = 224, RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.96), or when we excluded studies with high attrition (nine RCTs; n = 355, RR 1.67, CI 0.93 to 3.00). The overall acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the studies early) was not significantly different between groups (11 RCTs; n = 320, RR 1.89, CI 0.93 to 3.84, very low quality evidence). Few studies reported on side effects. There were no significant differences, but the database is too limited to make any judgement in this regard. For example, there were no data on thyroid dysfunction and kidney problems - two major and well-known side effects of lithium.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for the use of lithium in schizophrenia is limited to 22 studies of overall low methodological quality. There is no randomised trial-based evidence that lithium on its own is an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. There is some GRADE low quality evidence that augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium is effective, but the effects are not significant when more prone-to-bias open RCTs are excluded. Nevertheless, further large and well-designed trials are justified. 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, and (2) people with schizoaffective disorders for whom lithium is widely used in clinical practice, although there is no evidence to support this use.

The use of Bayesian networks to assess the quality of evidence from research synthesis: 1

BACKGROUND

The grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach is widely implemented in systematic reviews, health technology assessment and guideline development organisations throughout the world. A key advantage to this approach is that it aids transparency regarding judgments on the quality of evidence. However, the intricacies of making judgments about research methodology and evidence make the GRADE system complex and challenging to apply without training.

METHODS

We have developed a semi-automated quality assessment tool (SAQAT) l based on GRADE. This is informed by responses by reviewers to checklist questions regarding characteristics that may lead to unreliability. These responses are then entered into the Bayesian network to ascertain the probabilities of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias conditional on review characteristics. The model then combines these probabilities to provide a probability for each of the GRADE overall quality categories. We tested the model using a range of plausible scenarios that guideline developers or review authors could encounter.

RESULTS

Overall, the model reproduced GRADE judgements for a range of scenarios. Potential advantages over standard assessment are use of explicit and consistent weightings for different review characteristics, forcing consideration of important but sometimes neglected characteristics and principled downgrading where small but important probabilities of downgrading are accrued across domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Bayesian networks have considerable potential for use as tools to assess the validity of research evidence. The key strength of such networks lies in the provision of a statistically coherent method for combining probabilities across a complex framework based on both belief and evidence. In addition to providing tools for less experienced users to implement reliability assessment, the potential for sensitivity analyses and automation may be beneficial for application and the methodological development of reliability tools.

Re-examining the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepine prescribing for schizophrenia occurs in clinical practice and antipsychotic trials. This review examined the clinical outcomes for benzodiazepines in schizophrenia.

METHOD

A systematic search identified randomised controlled trials that evaluated benzodiazepines in comparison with placebo or antipsychotics, and also as adjuncts to antipsychotics. Relevant clinical outcome data was extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty six studies were included with some reporting multiple comparisons. Seven short-term studies compared benzodiazepines with placebo: benzodiazepine superiority was found in two out of five studies for global improvements and two out of four studies for psychiatric/behavioural outcomes. Eleven studies compared benzodiazepines with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs): four out of nine studies (including two long-term studies) reported greater global improvements for antipsychotics; four out of five studies showed no treatment differences for psychiatric/behavioural outcomes. Fourteen studies compared benzodiazepines (as adjunct to antipsychotics) vs antipsychotics alone (mostly FGAs); benzodiazepine superiority was found for global improvement in one out of eight studies and inferiority in two out of eight short-term studies whereas superiority was found for psychiatric/behavioural outcomes in three out of 12 short-term studies and inferiority in three out of 12 studies.

CONCLUSION

Benzodiazepine superiority over placebo was found for global, psychiatric and behavioural outcomes, but inferiority to antipsychotics on longer-term global outcomes. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the addition of benzodiazepines to antipsychotics; thus the use of benzodiazepines in clinical practice and antipsychotic trials should be limited.

Diazepam improves aspects of social behaviour and neuron activation in NMDA receptor-deficient mice

NR1 knockdown (NR1KD) mice are genetically modified to express low levels of the NR1 subunit of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, and show deficits in affiliative social behaviour. In this study, we determined which brain regions were selectively activated in response to social stimulation and asked whether differences in neuronal activation could be observed in mice with reduced sociability. Furthermore, we aimed to determine whether brain activation patterns correlated with the amelioration of social deficits through pharmacological intervention. The cingulate cortex, lateral septal nuclei, hypothalamus, thalamus and amygdala showed an increase in c-Fos immunoreactivity that was selective for exposure to social stimuli. NR1KD mice displayed a reduction in social behaviour and a reduction in c-Fos immunoreactivity in the cingulate cortex and septal nuclei. Acute clozapine did not significantly alter sociability; however, diazepam treatment did increase sociability and neuronal activation in the lateral septal region. This study has identified the lateral septal region as a neural substrate of social behaviour and the GABA system as a potential therapeutic target for social dysfunction.

Carbamazepine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses and whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine augmentation of neuroleptic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original version we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (December 2001), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1980-2001), Biological Abstracts (1980-2001), PsycLIT (1886-2001) and PSYNDEX (1974-2001). For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials in July 2012. We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carbamazepine or compounds of the carbamazepine family with 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

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect, risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed the risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated search did not reveal any further studies that met our inclusion criteria. The number of included studies therefore remains at 10 with the number of participants randomised still 283.One study comparing carbamazepine with placebo as the sole treatment for schizophrenia was abandoned early due to high relapse rate with 26 out of 31 participants relapsing by three months. No effect of carbamazepine was evident with no difference in relapse between the two groups (1 RCT n = 31, RR 1.07 CI 0.78 to 1.45). Another study compared carbamazepine with antipsychotics as the sole treatment for schizophrenia. No differences in terms of mental state were found when comparing 50% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores (1 RCT n = 38, RR 1.23 CI 0.78 to 1.92). A favourable effect for carbamazepine was found when more people who received the antipsychotic (perphenazine) had parkinsonism (1 RCT n = 38, RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.043). Eight studies compared adjunctive carbamazepine versus adjunctive placebo, we were able use GRADE for quality of evidence for these results. Adding carbamazepine to antipsychotic treatment was as acceptable as adding placebo with no difference between the numbers leaving the study early from each group (8 RCTs n = 182, RR 0.47 CI 0.16 to 1.35, very low quality evidence). Carbamazepine augmentation was superior compared with antipsychotics alone in terms of overall global improvement, but participant numbers were low (2 RCTs n = 38, RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.88). There were no differences for the mental state outcome of 50% reduction in BPRS scores (6 RCTs n = 147, RR 0.86 CI 0.67 to 1.12, low quality evidence). Less people in the carbamazepine augmentation group had movement disorders than those taking haloperidol alone (1 RCT n = 20, RR 0.38 CI 0.14 to 1.02). No data were available for the effects of carbamazepine on subgroups of people with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviour, negative symptoms or EEG abnormalities or with schizoaffective disorder.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Adjunctive use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analytic investigation of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To meta-analytically assess the efficacy and tolerability of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) vs placebo in schizophrenia.

METHOD

Searching PubMed, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, and the US National Institute of Mental Health clinical trials registry from database inception to December 31, 2012, we conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled studies assessing the efficacy of adjunctive NSAIDs. Primary outcome was the change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. Secondary outcomes included change in PANSS positive and negative subscores, all-cause discontinuation, and tolerability outcomes. Random effects, pooled, standardized mean changes (Hedges' g) and risk ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Across 8 studies, including 3 unpublished reports (n = 774), the mean effect size for PANSS total score was -0.236 (95% CI: -0.484 to 0.012, P = .063, I(2) = 60.6%), showing only trend-level superiority for NSAIDs over placebo. The mean effect sizes for the PANSS positive and negative scores were -0.189 (95% CI: -0.373 to -0.005, P = .044) and -0.026 (95% CI: -0.169 to 0.117, P = .72), respectively. The relative risk for all-cause discontinuation was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.794 to 1.599, P = .503). Significant superiority of NSAIDs over placebo regarding PANSS total scores was moderated by aspirin treatment (N = 2, P = .017), inpatient status (N = 4, P = .029), first-episode status (N = 2, P = .048), and (in meta-regression analyses) lower PANSS negative subscores (N = 6, P = .026).

INTERPRETATION

These results indicate that adjunctive NSAIDs for schizophrenia may not benefit patients treated with first-line antipsychotics judged by PANSS total score change. NSAIDs may have benefits for positive symptoms, but the effect was minimal/small. However, due to a limited database, further controlled studies are needed, especially in first-episode patients.

Current approaches to treatments for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, part I: an overview and medical treatments

During the last three decades, an increasing understanding of the etiology, psychopathology, and clinical manifestations of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, in addition to the introduction of second-generation antipsychotics, has optimized the potential for recovery from the illness. Continued development of various models of psychosocial intervention promotes the goal of schizophrenia treatment from one of symptom control and social adaptation to an optimal restoration of functioning and/or recovery. However, it is still questionable whether these new treatment approaches can address the patients' needs for treatment and services and contribute to better patient outcomes. This article provides an overview of different treatment approaches currently used in schizophrenia spectrum disorders to address complex health problems and a wide range of abnormalities and impairments resulting from the illness. There are different treatment strategies and targets for patients at different stages of the illness, ranging from prophylactic antipsychotics and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the premorbid stage to various psychosocial interventions in addition to antipsychotics for relapse prevention and rehabilitation in the later stages of the illness. The use of antipsychotics alone as the main treatment modality may be limited not only in being unable to tackle the frequently occurring negative symptoms and cognitive impairments but also in producing a wide variety of adverse effects to the body or organ functioning. Because of varied pharmacokinetics and treatment responsiveness across agents, the medication regimen should be determined on an individual basis to ensure an optimal effect in its long-term use. This review also highlights that the recent practice guidelines and standards have recommended that a combination of treatment modalities be adopted to meet the complex health needs of people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. In view of the heterogeneity of the risk factors and the illness progression of individual patients, the use of multifaceted illness management programs consisting of different combinations of physical, psychological, and social interventions might be efficient and effective in improving recovery.

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

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