Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

'As required' medication regimens for seriously mentally ill people in hospital

BACKGROUND

Drugs used to treat psychotic illnesses may take weeks to be effective. In the interim, additional 'as required' doses of medication can be used to calm patients in psychiatric wards. The practice is widespread, with 20% to 50% of people on acute psychiatric wards receiving at least one 'as required' dose of psychotropic medication during their admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of 'as required' medication regimens with regular patterns of medication for the treatment of psychotic symptoms or behavioural disturbance, thought to be secondary to psychotic illness. These regimens may be given alone or in addition to any regular psychotropic medication for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials, in November 2001, March 2006, July 2012 andOctober 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include all relevant randomised controlled trials involving hospital inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing any regimen of medication administered for the short-term relief of behavioural disturbance, or psychotic symptoms, to be given at the discretion of ward staff ('as required', 'prn') with fixed non-discretionary patterns of drug administration of the same drug(s). This was in addition to regular psychotropic medication for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses where prescribed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts and papers for inclusion. If trials had been found, we would have extracted data from the papers and quality assessed the data. For dichotomous data we would have calculated the risk ratios (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We would have conducted analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. If data were available we would have completed a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have not been able to identify any randomised trials comparing 'as required' medication regimens to regular regimens of the same drug. Our main outcomes of interest were important changes in (i) mental state, (ii) behaviour, (iii) dose of medication used, (iv) adverse events, (v) satisfaction with care and (iv) cost of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from within randomised trials to support this common practice. Current practice is based on clinical experience and habit rather than high quality evidence.

Asenapine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a highly prevalent and chronic disorder that comprises a wide range of symptomatology. Asenapine is a recently developed atypical antipsychotic that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of asenapine for adults with schizophrenia or other schizophrenia-like disorders by comparing it with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (July 04, 2014) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitation for inclusion of records into the register. We inspected references of all included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our review includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing asenapine with placebo in adults (however defined) with schizophrenia or related disorders, including schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder and delusional disorder, again, by any means of diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected citations from the searches and identified relevant abstracts, and extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table which included our outcomes of interest, where possible. We used a fixed-effect model for our analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We obtained and scrutinised 41 potentially relevant records, and from these we could include only six trials (n = 1835). Five of the six trials had high risk of attrition bias and all trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Results showed a clinically important change in global state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, low-quality evidence) and mental state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.86, very low-quality evidence) at short-term amongst people receiving asenapine. People receiving asenapine demonstrated significant reductions in negative symptoms (1 RCT, n = 336, MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.09, very low-quality evidence) at short-term. Individuals receiving asenapine demonstrated significantly fewer incidents of serious adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 386, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) at medium-term. There was no clear difference in people discontinuing the study for any reason between asenapine and placebo at short-term (5 RCTs, n = 1046, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for extrapyramidal symptoms or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some, albeit preliminary, evidence that asenapine provides an improvement in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms, whilst minimising the risk of adverse effects. However due to the low-quality and limited quantity of evidence, it remains difficult to recommend the use of asenapine for people with schizophrenia. We identify a need for large-scale, longer-term, better-designed and conducted randomised controlled trials investigating the clinical effects and safety of asenapine.

How much do we know about schizophrenia and how well do we know it? Evidence from the Schizophrenia Library

BACKGROUND

True findings about schizophrenia remain elusive; many findings are not replicated and conflicting results are common. Well-conducted systematic reviews have the ability to make robust, generalizable conclusions, with good meta-analyses potentially providing the closest estimate of the true effect size. In this paper, we undertake a systematic approach to synthesising the available evidence from well-conducted systematic reviews on schizophrenia.

METHOD

Reviews were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents and PsycINFO. The decision to include or exclude reviews, data extraction and quality assessments were conducted in duplicate. Evidence was graded as high quality if reviews contained large samples and robust results; and as moderate quality if reviews contained imprecision, inconsistency, smaller samples or study designs that may be prone to bias.

RESULTS

High- and moderate-quality evidence shows that numerous psychosocial and biomedical treatments are effective. Patients have relatively poor cognitive functioning, and subtle, but diverse, structural brain alterations, altered electrophysiological functioning and sleep patterns, minor physical anomalies, neurological soft signs, and sensory alterations. There are markers of infection, inflammation or altered immunological parameters; and there is increased mortality from a range of causes. Risk for schizophrenia is increased with cannabis use, pregnancy and birth complications, prenatal exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, childhood central nervous system viral infections, childhood adversities, urbanicity and immigration (first and second generation), particularly in certain ethnic groups. Developmental motor delays and lower intelligence quotient in childhood and adolescence are apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that while our knowledge of schizophrenia is very substantial, our understanding of it remains limited.

Acupuncture for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture, with many categories such as traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture, laser acupuncture, and acupoint injection, has been shown to be relatively safe with few adverse effects. It is accessible and inexpensive, at least in China, and is likely to be widely used there for psychotic symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of acupuncture, alone or in combination treatments compared with placebo (or no treatment) or any other treatments for people with schizophrenia or related psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registries. We also inspected references of identified studies and contacted relevant authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials involving people with schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing acupuncture added to standard dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics alone, acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics, acupuncture with antipsychotics, acupuncture added to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) drug with TCM drug, acupuncture with TCM drug, electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably extracted data from all included studies, discussed any disagreement, documented decisions and contacted authors of studies when necessary. We analysed binary outcomes using a standard estimation of risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences with 95% CI. For homogeneous data we used fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

After an update search in 2012 the review now includes 30 studies testing different forms of acupuncture across six different comparisons. All studies were at moderate risk of bias.When acupuncture plus standard antipsychotic treatment was compared with standard antipsychotic treatment alone, people were at less risk of being 'not improved' (n = 244, 3 RCTs, medium-term RR 0.40 CI 0.28 to 0.57, very low quality evidence). Mental state findings were mostly consistent with this finding as was time in hospital (n = 120, 1 RCT, days MD -16.00 CI -19.54 to -12.46, moderate quality evidence). If anything, adverse effects were less for the acupuncture group (e.g. central nervous system, insomnia, short-term, n = 202, 3 RCTs, RR 0.30 CI 0.11 to 0.83, low quality evidence).When acupuncture was added to low dose antipsychotics and this was compared with standard dose antipsychotic drugs, relapse was less in the experimental group (n = 170, 1 RCT, long-term RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.89, very low quality evidence) but there was no difference for the outcome of 'not improved'. Again, mental state findings were mostly consistent with the latter. Incidences of extrapyramidal symptoms - akathisia, were less for those in the acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics group (n = 180, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.49, low quality evidence) - as dry mouth, blurred vision and tachycardia.When acupuncture was compared with antipsychotic drugs of known efficacy in standard doses, there were equivocal data for outcomes such as 'not improved' using different global state criteria. Traditional acupuncture added to TCM drug had benefit over use of TCM drug alone (n = 360, 2 RCTs, RR no clinically important change 0.11 CI 0.02 to 0.59, low quality evidence), but when traditional acupuncture was compared with TCM drug directly there was no significant difference in the short-term. However, we found that participants given electroacupuncture were significantly less likely to experience a worsening in global state (n = 88, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.80, low quality evidence).In the one study that compared electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy there were significantly different rates of spinal fracture between the groups (n = 68, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.33 CI 0.14 to 0.81, low quality evidence). Attrition in all studies was minimal. No studies reported death, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, or economic outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence suggests that acupuncture may have some antipsychotic effects as measured on global and mental state with few adverse effects. Better designed large studies are needed to fully and fairly test the effects of acupuncture for people with schizophrenia.

Addressing non-adherence to antipsychotic medication: a harm-reduction approach

This paper discusses the evidence base for interventions addressing non-adherence to prescribed antipsychotics. A case study approach is used, and the extent to which adherence improvement interventions might be used in collaboration with a specific patient is considered. The principles and application of harm-reduction philosophy in mental health are presented in a planned non-adherence harm-reduction intervention. This intervention aims to acknowledge the patient's ability to choose and learn from experience and to reduce the potential harm of antipsychotic withdrawal. The intervention evaluation method is outlined.

Antipsychotic medication for early episode schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications in early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders is common, but both short and long-term effects on the illness are unclear. There have been numerous suggestions that people with early episodes of schizophrenia appear to respond differently than those with multiple prior episodes. The number of episodes may moderate response to drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antipsychotic medication treatment on people with early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register (July 2007) as well as references of included studies. We contacted authors of studies for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies with a majority of first and second episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders comparing initial antipsychotic medication treatment with placebo, milieu, or psychosocial treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we critically appraised records from 681studies, of which five studies met inclusion criteria. John Rathbone from the Schizophrenia Group supported us with the data extraction. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD). We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies with a combined N = 998 met inclusion criteria. Four studies (N = 724) provided leaving the study early data and results suggested that individuals treated with a typical antipsychotic medication are less likely to leave the study early than those treated with placebo (Chlorpromazine: 3 RCTs N = 353, RR 0.4 CI 0.3 to 0.5, NNT 3.2, Fluphenaxine: 1 RCT N = 240, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNT 5; Thioridazine: 1 RCT N = 236, RR 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 4.3, Trifulperazine: 1 RCT N = 94, RR 0.96 CI 0.3 to 3.6). Two studies (Cole 1964; May 1976) contributed data to assessment of side effects and present a general pattern of more frequent side effects among individuals treated with typical antipsychotic medications compared to placebo. Rappaport 1978 suggested a higher rehospitalisation rate for those receiving chlorpromazine compared to placebo (N = 80, RR 2.29 CI 1.3 to 4.0, NNH 2.9). However, a higher attrition in the placebo group is likely to have introduced a survivor bias into this comparison, as this difference becomes non-significant in a sensitivity analysis on intent-to-treat participants (N = 127, RR 1.69 CI 0.9 to 3.0). One study (May 1976) contributes data to a comparison of trifluoperazine to psychotherapy on long-term health in favour of the trifluoperazine group (N = 92, MD 5.8 CI 1.6 to 0.0); however, data from this study are also likely to contain biases due to selection and attrition. One study (Mosher 1995) contributes data to a comparison of typical antipsychotic medication to psychosocial treatment on six-week outcome measures of global psychopathology (N = 89, MD 0.01 CI -0.6 to 0.6) and global improvement (N = 89, MD -0.03 CI -0.5 to 0.4), indicating no between-group differences. On the whole, there is very little useable data in the few studies meeting inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only a few studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited useable data in these studies, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that people with early episode schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotic medications are less likely to leave the study early, but more likely to experience medication-related side effects. Data are too sparse to assess the effects of antipsychotic medication on outcomes in early episode schizophrenia.