Risperidone dose for schizophrenia

Polypharmacy in the Management of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Review and Update

Objective: Prescription of multiple medications concurrently for children and adolescents has increased in recent years. Examination of this practice has been undervalued relative to its incidence. This article reviews studies investigating effectiveness of medication combinations for youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: A literature search identified studies that combined two or more prescribed medications for the treatment of ADHD. Included studies focused on youth; had study design of randomized controlled trial (RCT), nonrandomized trial, or case review (n > 10); and included an outcome measure of treatment effectiveness. Results: Thirty-nine pertinent studies were identified. All studies combined two medications, with the vast majority including a stimulant (n = 37). The largest group (n = 16) combined stimulant and alpha-agonist, finding greater efficacy than alpha-agonist alone but not stimulant alone in all cases. A few RCTs found benefit from the addition of risperidone or divalproex to stimulant for comorbid aggression. Four studies adding atomoxetine found mixed reports of benefit, including the only small RCT showing no benefit. RCTs with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors found minimal evidence of benefit for mood or anxiety comorbidities. Conclusion: The best studied combination is stimulant and alpha-agonist; addition of alpha-agonist to stimulant seems effective for residual symptoms of ADHD. Stimulant plus risperidone has the most evidence of efficacy for comorbid aggression or disruptive behavior. Limited support exists for the effectiveness of other medication combinations, including no trials studying three or more medications concurrently. Combinations frequently yielded more side effects, leaving monotherapy preferable if a sufficient treatment response can be achieved.

Movement Disorders Associated With Antipsychotic Medication in People With Schizophrenia: An Overview of Cochrane Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Movement disorders associated with antipsychotic medications are relatively common, stigmatising, and potentially disabling. Their prevalence in people with psychosis who are prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) is uncertain, as is their level of recognition by clinicinas. We conducted meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials included in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses to estimate the prevalence of new-onset dystonia, akathisia, parkinsonism, and tremor with SGAs (amisulpride, asenapine, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, L-sulpiride, and ziprasidone) approved in Canada and the UK, comparing them with haloperidol and chlorpromazine. We used a random effects model because of the heterogeneity between-studies in drug dosage and method of ascertainment of movement disorders. Our systematic search yielded 37 Cochrane systematic reviews (28 for SGAs), which generated 316 informative randomised controlled trials (243 for SGAs). With respect to SGAs, prevalence estimates ranged from 1.4% (quetiapine) to 15.3% (L-sulpiride) for dystonia, 3.3% (paliperidone) to 16.4% (L-sulpiride) for akathisia, 2.4% (asenapine) to 29.3% (L-sulpiride) for parkinsonism, and 0.2% (clozapine) to 28.2% (L-sulpiride) for tremor. Prevalence estimates were not influenced by treatment duration, the use of a flexible or fixed dosing scheme, or whether studies used validated instruments for the screening/rating of movement disorders. Overall, we found high overlap on the prevalence of new-onset movement disorders across different SGAs precribed for established psychoses. Variations in prevalence figures across antipsychotic medications were observed for the different movement disorders. Differences in pharmacological properties, such as for the dopamine D2 R association rate and serotonin 5-HT2A antagonism, could contribute to this variation.

Mapping the evidence on pharmacological interventions for non-affective psychosis in humanitarian non-specialised settings: a UNHCR clinical guidance

BACKGROUND

Populations exposed to humanitarian emergencies are particularly vulnerable to mental health problems, including new onset, relapse and deterioration of psychotic disorders. Inadequate care for this group may lead to human rights abuses and even premature death. The WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG), and its adaptation for humanitarian settings (mhGAP-HIG), provides guidance for management of mental health conditions by non-specialised healthcare professionals. However, the pharmacological treatment of people with non-affective psychosis who do not improve with mhGAP first-line antipsychotic treatments is not addressed. In order to fill this gap, UNHCR has formulated specific guidance on the second-line pharmacological treatment of non-affective psychosis in humanitarian, non-specialised settings.

METHODS

Following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a group of international experts performed an extensive search and retrieval of evidence on the basis of four scoping questions. Available data were critically appraised and summarised. Clinical guidance was produced by integrating this evidence base with context-related feasibility issues, preferences, values and resource-use considerations.

RESULTS

When first-line treatments recommended by mhGAP (namely haloperidol and chlorpromazine) are not effective, no other first-generation antipsychotics are likely to provide clinically meaningful improvements. Risperidone or olanzapine may represent beneficial second-line options. However, if these second-line medications do not produce clinically significant beneficial effects, there are two possibilities. First, to switch to the alternative (olanzapine to risperidone or vice versa) or, second, to consider clozapine, provided that specialist supervision and regular laboratory monitoring are available in the long term. If clinically relevant depressive, cognitive or negative symptoms occur, the use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor may be considered in addition or as an alternative to standard psychological interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Adapting scientific evidence into practical guidance for non-specialised health workers in humanitarian settings was challenging due to the paucity of relevant evidence as well as the imprecision and inconsistency of results between studies. Pragmatic outcome evaluation studies from low-resource contexts are urgently needed. Nonetheless, the UNHCR clinical guidance is based on best available evidence and can help to address the compelling issue of undertreated, non-affective psychosis in humanitarian settings.

Intuitive pharmacogenetic dosing of risperidone according to CYP2D6 phenotype extrapolated from genotype in a cohort of first episode psychosis patients

Risperidone (R) is the most prescribed antipsychotic drug for patients with a first episode of psychosis (FEP). In a naturalistic cohort of chronic psychiatric inpatients, we demonstrated that clinicians adjust R dosage by CYP2D6 activity, despite being blinded to the genotype, which we described as an "intuitive pharmacogenetic" process. The aim of the present study is to replicate our previous findings of intuitive pharmacogenetic in a cohort of FEP patients using CYP2D6 phenotype extrapolated from genotypes. 70 FEP patients, under baseline treatment with R monotherapy were genotyped using the iPLEX® ADME PGx multiplex panel and TaqMan® Genotyping and Copy Number Assays. Plasma concentrations of R and its metabolite, 9-hydroxyrisperidone (9-OH), were determined. The predictive properties of those variables associated with R dosage were tested using a multiple linear regression model as well as regression trees. Significant differences in the mean daily dosage of R among CYP2D6 phenotypes were observed (Kruskal-Wallis test p=0.02): PM (4.00±2.3mg/mL), IM (4.56±2.44), EM (6.22±4.0mg/day) and UM (10.20±4.91mg/day). However, non-significant differences were observed in the R/9-OH ratio or in the Concentration/Dose ratio. Regression tree provided better estimations of R dosage than the multiple linear regression model (MAE=0.958 and R²=0.871). We confirm the "intuitive pharmacogenetic" dosing of R according to the CYP2D6 phenotype in a FEP cohort. The results presented provides a rationale for the clinical use of CYP2D6 genotyping in personalized medicine.

Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84).When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43).We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

Risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long-acting injection formulation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of depot risperidone for treatment of schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medication.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and cost-effectiveness of risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2002, 2012, and October 28, 2015). We also checked the references of all included studies, and contacted industry and authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing depot risperidone with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, with a total of 5723 participants were randomised to the following comparison treatments: Risperidone depot versus placebo Outcomes of relapse and improvement in mental state were neither measured or reported. In terms of other primary outcomes, more people receiving placebo left the study early by 12 weeks (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.74 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, very low quality evidence), experienced severe adverse events in short term (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.59 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93, very low quality evidence). There was however, no difference in levels of weight gain between groups (1 RCT, n=400, RR 2.11 95% CI 0.48 to 9.18, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus general oral antipsychotics The outcome of improvement in mental state was not presented due to high levels of attrition, nor were levels of severe adverse events explicitly reported. Most primary outcomes of interest showed no difference between treatment groups. However, more people receiving depot risperidone experienced nervous system disorders (long-term:1 RCT, n=369, RR 1.34 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58, very-low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral risperidoneData for relapse and severe adverse events were not reported. All outcomes of interest were rated as moderate quality evidence. Main results showed no differences between treatment groups with equivocal data for change in mental state, numbers leaving the study early, any extrapyramidal symptoms, weight increase and prolactin-related adverse events. Risperidone depot versus oral quetiapine Relapse rates and improvement in mental state were not reported. Fewer people receiving risperidone depot left the study early (long-term: 1 RCT, n=666, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence). Experience of serious adverse events was similar between groups (low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone experienced EPS (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.83 95% CI 1.07 to 3.15, low quality evidence), had greater weight gain (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.25 95% CI 0.25 to 2.25, low quality evidence) and more prolactin-related adverse events (1 RCT, n=666, RR 3.07 95% CI 1.13 to 8.36, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral aripiprazoleRelapse rates, mental state using PANSS, leaving the study early, serious adverse events and weight increase were similar between groups. However more people receiving depot risperidone experienced prolactin-related adverse events compared to those receiving oral aripiprazole (2 RCTs, n=729, RR 9.91 95% CI 2.78 to 35.29, very low quality of evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral olanzapineRelapse rates were not reported in any of the included studies for this comparison. Improvement in mental state using PANSS and instances of severe adverse events were similar between groups. More people receiving depot risperidone left the study early than those receiving oral olanzapine (1 RCT, n=618, RR 1.32 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58, low quality evidence) with those receiving risperidone depot also experiencing more extrapyramidal symptoms (1 RCT, n=547, RR 1.67 95% CI 1.19 to 2.36, low quality evidence). However, more people receiving oral olanzapine experienced weight increase (1 RCT, n=547, RR 0.56 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75, low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus atypical depot antipsychotics (specifically paliperidone palmitate)Relapse rates were not reported and rates of response using PANSS, weight increase, prolactin-related adverse events and glucose-related adverse events were similar between groups. Fewer people left the study early due to lack of efficacy from the risperidone depot group (long term: 1 RCT, n=749, RR 0.60 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone required use of EPS-medication (2 RCTs, n=1666, RR 1.46 95% CI 1.18 to 1.8, moderate quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus typical depot antipsychoticsOutcomes of relapse, severe adverse events or movement disorders were not reported. Outcomes relating to improvement in mental state demonstrated no difference between groups (low quality evidence). However, more people receiving depot risperidone compared to other typical depots left the study early (long-term:1 RCT, n=62, RR 3.05 95% CI 1.12 to 8.31, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Depot risperidone may be more acceptable than placebo injection but it is hard to know if it is any more effective in controlling the symptoms of schizophrenia. The active drug, especially higher doses, may be associated with more movement disorders than placebo. People already stabilised on oral risperidone may continue to maintain benefit if treated with depot risperidone and avoid the need to take tablets, at least in the short term. In people who are happy to take oral medication the depot risperidone is approximately equal to oral risperidone. It is possible that the depot formulation, however, can bring a second-generation antipsychotic to people who do not reliably adhere to treatment. People with schizophrenia who have difficulty adhering to treatment, however, are unlikely to volunteer for a clinical trial. Such people may gain benefit from the depot risperidone with no increased risk of extrapyramidal side effects.

Empirical evidence about inconsistency among studies in a pair-wise meta-analysis

This paper investigates how inconsistency (as measured by the I² statistic) among studies in a meta‐analysis may differ, according to the type of outcome data and effect measure. We used hierarchical models to analyse data from 3873 binary, 5132 continuous and 880 mixed outcome meta‐analyses within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Predictive distributions for inconsistency expected in future meta‐analyses were obtained, which can inform priors for between‐study variance. Inconsistency estimates were highest on average for binary outcome meta‐analyses of risk differences and continuous outcome meta‐analyses. For a planned binary outcome meta‐analysis in a general research setting, the predictive distribution for inconsistency among log odds ratios had median 22% and 95% CI: 12% to 39%. For a continuous outcome meta‐analysis, the predictive distribution for inconsistency among standardized mean differences had median 40% and 95% CI: 15% to 73%. Levels of inconsistency were similar for binary data measured by log odds ratios and log relative risks. Fitted distributions for inconsistency expected in continuous outcome meta‐analyses using mean differences were almost identical to those using standardized mean differences. The empirical evidence on inconsistency gives guidance on which outcome measures are most likely to be consistent in particular circumstances and facilitates Bayesian meta‐analysis with an informative prior for heterogeneity. © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dose Equivalents for Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs: The Classical Mean Dose Method

BACKGROUND

The concept of dose equivalence is important for many purposes. The classical approach published by Davis in 1974 subsequently dominated textbooks for several decades. It was based on the assumption that the mean doses found in flexible-dose trials reflect the average optimum dose which can be used for the calculation of dose equivalence. We are the first to apply the method to second-generation antipsychotics.

METHODS

We searched for randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia that examined 13 oral second-generation antipsychotics, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine (last search June 2014). We calculated the mean doses of each drug weighted by sample size and divided them by the weighted mean olanzapine dose to obtain olanzapine equivalents.

RESULTS

We included 75 studies with 16 555 participants. The doses equivalent to 1 mg/d olanzapine were: amisulpride 38.3 mg/d, aripiprazole 1.4 mg/d, asenapine 0.9 mg/d, chlorpromazine 38.9 mg/d, clozapine 30.6 mg/d, haloperidol 0.7 mg/d, quetiapine 32.3mg/d, risperidone 0.4 mg/d, sertindole 1.1 mg/d, ziprasidone 7.9 mg/d, zotepine 13.2 mg/d. For iloperidone, lurasidone, and paliperidone no data were available.

CONCLUSIONS

The classical mean dose method is not reliant on the limited availability of fixed-dose data at the lower end of the effective dose range, which is the major limitation of "minimum effective dose methods" and "dose-response curve methods." In contrast, the mean doses found by the current approach may have in part depended on the dose ranges chosen for the original trials. Ultimate conclusions on dose equivalence of antipsychotics will need to be based on a review of various methods.

Treatment resistant schizophrenia: a comprehensive survey of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a common serious mental health condition which has significant morbidity and financial consequences. The mainstay of treatment has been antipsychotic medication but one third of people will have a 'treatment resistant' and most disabling and costly illness. The aim of this survey was to produce a broad overview of available randomised evidence for interventions for people whose schizophrenic illness has been designated 'treatment resistant'.

METHOD

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's comprehensive Trials Register, selected all relevant randomised trials and, taking care not to double count, extracted the number of people randomised within each study. Finally we sought relevant reviews on the Cochrane Library and investigated how data on this subgroup of people had been presented.

RESULTS

We identified 542 relevant papers based on 268 trials (Average size 64.8 SD 61.6, range 7-526, median 56 IQR 47.3, mode 60). The most studied intervention is clozapine with 82 studies (total n = 6299) comparing it against other anti-psychotic medications. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) supplementing a standard care and risperidone supplementation of clozapine has also been extensively evaluated within trials. Many approaches, however, were clearly under researched. There were only four studies investigating combinations of non-clozapine antipsychotics. Only two psychological approaches (CBT and Family Rehabilitation Training) had more than two studies. Cochrane reviews rarely presented data specific to this important clinical sub-group.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a broad taxonomy of how much evaluative research has been carried out investigating interventions for people with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Over 280 trials have been undertaken but, with a few exceptions, most treatment approaches--and some in common use--have only one or two relevant but small trials. Too infrequently the leading reviews fail to highlight the paucity of evidence in this area--as these reviews are maintained this shortcoming should be addressed.

Antipsychotic switching versus augmentation among early non-responders to risperidone or olanzapine in acute-phase schizophrenia

PURPOSE

We examined whether augmentation with olanzapine would be superior to switching to olanzapine among early non-responders (ENRs) to risperidone, and whether augmentation with risperidone would be superior to switching to risperidone among ENRs to olanzapine. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized clinical trial at psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia. ENRs to the initial antipsychotic (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale: ≥ 4 at 2 weeks) were allocated to receive either augmentation with or switching to the other antipsychotic (RIS+OLZ vs. RIS-OLZ; OLZ+RIS vs.

OLZ-RIS) RESULTS

Sixty patients who completed 2 weeks of risperidone treatment were divided into 33 early responders (RIS-ER) and 27 ENRs (RIS+OLZ, n=14; RIS-OLZ, n=13). Although time to treatment discontinuation for any cause was significantly shorter in RIS+OLZ group (54.1 days [95% confidence interval, 41.3-67.0]) than in RIS-ER group (68.7 [61.2-76.2]; P=0.050), it was not significantly shorter in RIS-OLZ group (58.5 [43.1-73.9]) than in RIS-ER group (P=0.19). Sixty patients who completed 2 weeks of olanzapine treatment were divided into 36 early responders (OLZ-ER) and 24 ENRs (OLZ+RIS, n=11; OLZ-RIS, n=13). Although time to treatment discontinuation for any cause was significantly shorter in OLZ-RIS group (56.1days [40.7-71.5]) than in OLZ-ER group (74.9 [68.5-81.3]; P=0.008), it was not significantly shorter in OLZ+RIS group (64.6 [49.6-79.6]) than in OLZ-ER group (P=0.20).

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of pharmacokinetic investigation of dose adequacy in this study, it is possible that switching to olanzapine among ENRs to risperidone might have a small advantage over augmentation with olanzapine, while augmentation with risperidone might have a small advantage over switching to risperidone among ENRs to olanzapine. Further research is required before it would be appropriate to modify routine practice in the direction of these findings.

Combination treatment of tamoxifen with risperidone in breast cancer

Tamoxifen has long been used and still is the most commonly used endocrine therapy for treatment of both early and advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in pre- and post-menopause women. Tamoxifen exerts its cytotoxic effect primarily through cytostasis which is associated with the accumulation of cells in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle. Apoptotic activity can also be exerted by tamoxifen which involves cleavage of caspase 9, caspase 7, caspase 3, and poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP). Down-regulation of anti-apoptotic proteins Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL and up-regulation of pro-apoptotic proteins Bax and Bak have also been observed. In addition, stress response protein of GRP 94 and GRP 78 have also been induced by tamoxifen in our study. However, side effects occur during tamoxifen treatment in breast cancer patients. Researching into combination regimen of tamoxifen and drug(s) that relieves tamoxifen-induced hot flushes is important, because drug interactions may decrease tamoxifen efficacy. Risperidone has been shown to be effective in reducing or eliminating hot flushes on women with hormonal variations. In this present study, we demonstrated that combination of tamoxifen with risperidone did not interfered tamoxifen-induced cytotoxic effects in both in vitro and in vivo models, while fluoxetine abrogated the effects of tamoxifen. This is the first paper suggesting the possibility of combination treatment of tamoxifen with risperidone in breast cancer patients, providing a conceivable resolution of tamoxifen-induced side effects without interfering the efficacy of tamoxifen against breast cancer.

Dose equivalents for second-generation antipsychotics: the minimum effective dose method

BACKGROUND

Clinicians need to know the right antipsychotic dose for optimized treatment, and the concept of dose equivalence is important for many clinical and scientific purposes.

METHODS

We refined a method presented in 2003, which was based on the minimum effective doses found in fixed-dose studies. We operationalized the selection process, updated the original findings, and expanded them by systematically searching more recent literature and by including 13 second-generation antipsychotics. To qualify for the minimum effective dose, a dose had to be significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome of at least one randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose trial. In a sensitivity analysis, 2 positive trials were required. The minimum effective doses identified were subsequently used to derive olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine equivalents.

RESULTS

We reviewed 73 included studies. The minimum effective daily doses/olanzapine equivalents based on our primary approach were: aripiprazole 10 mg/1.33, asenapine 10 mg/1.33, clozapine 300 mg/40, haloperidol 4 mg/0.53, iloperidone 8 mg/1.07, lurasidone 40 mg/5.33, olanzapine 7.5 mg/1, paliperidone 3 mg/0.4, quetiapine 150 mg/20, risperidone 2 mg/0.27, sertindole 12 mg/1.60, and ziprasidone 40 mg/5.33. For amisulpride and zotepine, reliable estimates could not be derived.

CONCLUSIONS

This method for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence entails an operationalized and evidence-based approach that can be applied to the various antipsychotic drugs. As a limitation, the results are not applicable to specific populations such as first-episode or refractory patients. We recommend that alternative methods also be updated in order to minimize further differences between the methods and risk of subsequent bias.

Add-on fluvoxamine treatment for schizophrenia: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We performed an updated meta-analysis of fluvoxamine add-on therapy in patients with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics based on two previous meta-analyses (Sepehry et al., in J Clin Psychiatry 68:604-610, 2007 and Singh et al., in Br J Psychiatry J Mental Sci 197:174-179, 2010). We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library database, and PsycINFO up to January 2013. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials comparing fluvoxamine add-on therapy with placebo. The risk ratio (RR), 95 % confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated. Seven studies (total n = 272) were identified. These included two clozapine studies, one olanzapine study, one second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) monotherapy study, and three first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) monotherapy studies. There were significant effect of fluvoxamine add-on therapy on overall (SMD = -0.46, CI = -0.75 to -0.16, p = 0.003, I (2) = 0 %, 5 studies, n = 180) and negative symptoms (SMD = -0.44, CI = -0.74 to -0.14, p = 0.004, I (2) = 0 %, 5 studies, n = 180). However, fluvoxamine add-on therapy showed no significant effects on positive symptoms, depressive symptoms, and discontinuations from any cause or adverse events. Fluvoxamine add-on therapy in patients primarily treated with SGAs improved overall (p = 0.02) but not negative symptoms (p = 0.31). On the other hand, fluvoxamine add-on therapy in patients primarily treated with FGAs improved both overall (p = 0.04) and negative symptoms (p = 0.004) compared with control groups. Our results suggest that fluvoxamine add-on therapy is more beneficial on the psychopathology (especially negative symptoms) than controls in patients with schizophrenia who are primarily treated with FGAs. Given that a small number of studies were included in this meta-analysis, the results should be treated with caution.

Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection

BACKGROUND

Central venous access (CVA) is widely used. However, its thrombotic, stenotic and infectious complications can be life-threatening and involve high-cost therapy. Research revealed that the risk of catheter-related complications varied according to the site of CVA. It would be helpful to find the preferred site of insertion to minimize the risk of catheter-related complications. This review was originally published in 2007 and was updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

1. Our primary objective was to establish whether the jugular, subclavian or femoral CVA routes resulted in a lower incidence of venous thrombosis, venous stenosis or infections related to CVA devices in adult patients.2. Our secondary objective was to assess whether the jugular, subclavian or femoral CVA routes influenced the incidence of catheter-related mechanical complications in adult patients; and the reasons why patients left the studies early.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 9), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE (from inception to September 2011), four Chinese databases (CBM, WANFANG DATA, CAJD, VIP Database) (from inception to November 2011), Google Scholar and bibliographies of published reviews. The original search was performed in December 2006. We also contacted researchers in the field. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing central venous catheter insertion routes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors assessed potentially relevant studies independently. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Dichotomous data on catheter-related complications were analysed. We calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 5854 citations from the initial search strategy; 28 references were then identified as potentially relevant. Of these, we Included four studies with data from 1513 participants. We undertook a priori subgroup analysis according to the duration of catheterization, short-term (< one month) and long-term (> one month) defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).No randomized controlled trial (RCT) was found comparing all three CVA routes and reporting the complications of venous stenosis.Regarding internal jugular versus subclavian CVA routes, the evidence was moderate and applicable for long-term catheterization in cancer patients. Subclavian and internal jugular CVA routes had similar risks for catheter-related complications. Regarding femoral versus subclavian CVA routes, the evidence was high and applicable for short-term catheterization in critically ill patients. Subclavian CVA routes were preferable to femoral CVA routes in short-term catheterization because femoral CVA routes were associated with higher risks of catheter colonization (14.18% or 19/134 versus 2.21% or 3/136) (n = 270, one RCT, RR 6.43, 95% CI 1.95 to 21.21) and thrombotic complications (21.55% or 25/116 versus 1.87% or 2/107) (n = 223, one RCT, RR 11.53, 95% CI 2.80 to 47.52) than with subclavian CVA routes. Regarding femoral versus internal jugular routes, the evidence was moderate and applicable for short-term haemodialysis catheterization in critically ill patients. No significant differences were found between femoral and internal jugular CVA routes in catheter colonization, catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombotic complications, but fewer mechanical complications occurred in femoral CVA routes (4.86% or 18/370 versus 9.56% or 35/366) (n = 736, one RCT, RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.88).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Subclavian and internal jugular CVA routes have similar risks for catheter-related complications in long-term catheterization in cancer patients. Subclavian CVA is preferable to femoral CVA in short-term catheterization because of lower risks of catheter colonization and thrombotic complications. In short-term haemodialysis catheterization, femoral and internal jugular CVA routes have similar risks for catheter-related complications except internal jugular CVA routes are associated with higher risks of mechanical complications.

Clinical utility of the risperidone formulations in the management of schizophrenia

Risperidone is one of the early second-generation antipsychotics that came into the limelight in the early 1990s. Both the oral and long-acting injectable formulations have been subject to numerous studies to assess their safety, efficacy, and tolerability. Risperidone is currently one of the most widely prescribed antipsychotic medications, used for both acute and long-term maintenance in schizophrenia. Risperidone has better efficacy in the treatment of psychotic symptoms than placebo and possibly many first-generation antipsychotics. Risperidone fares better than placebo and first-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of negative symptoms. Risperidone's long acting injectable preparation has been well tolerated and is often useful in patients with medication nonadherence. Risperidone has a higher risk of hyperprolactinemia comparable to first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) but fares better than many second-generation antipsychotics with regards to metabolic side effects. In this article, we briefly review the recent literature exploring the role of risperidone formulations in schizophrenia, discuss clinical usage, and highlight the controversies and challenges associated with its use.