Atypical antipsychotics for psychosis in adolescents

Exploring Risk Factors for Adverse Reactions in Children with an Acute Psychotic Episode Using the Global Trigger Tool: Does Age Matter?

Aim: To establish significant risk factors for the development of adverse drug effects (ADEs) in children and adolescents with an acute psychotic episode taking antipsychotics. Materials and Methods: The research team randomly selected 15 patient records each month for 3 years (2016-2018). Overall, 450 patient records were included (223 boys and 227 girls, mean age was 14.52 ± 2.21 years). Adverse effects were identified using the standard algorithm of the Global Trigger Tool method. A "trigger" is an indication that an adverse reaction is likely to occur, e.g., an antihistamine prescription on a prescribing list. When a trigger was detected, the case history was studied in further detail to confirm the occurrence of ADEs. We divided patients into two groups: the "children" group (under 12 years old) and the "adolescents" group (13 years and older). Data were analyzed using the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0. Results: Of the 450 patient records, 402 (89.3%) had at least one trigger detected. In total, 126 case histories contained evidence of ADE (28%). The total number of ADEs per 1000 patient days was 5.39 and the number of ADEs per 100 admissions was 32.0. Among adolescents, two or more triggers per patient were significantly more frequently identified (61.3% vs. 44.6%; p = 0.001). ADEs were rare in "Children" compared with "Adolescents" (13.8% vs. 30.4%; p = 0.006). The logistic regression analysis confirmed high predictive role of "Adolescence" (odds ratio [OR] = 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-5.4; p = 0.013), "Polypharmacy" (OR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.23-3.1; p = 0.004), and "First-life hospitalization" (OR = 2.17; 95% CI 1.34-3.48; p = 0.001) for ADE fact in patient records. Conclusion: We found that significant risk factors for ADEs to antipsychotics in patients with acute psychotic episode were adolescence (13 years and older), polypharmacy, and first-life hospitalization. The fact that children (i.e., younger than 13 years of age) are less likely to experience ADEs was not associated with high-risk drugs or higher doses in our study.

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

Prevalence of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding and Its Associated Cognitive Risks and Predictive Factors in Women With Severe Mental Disorders

There has been limited studies examining treatment-induced heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in women with severe mental illnesses. The aim of this study was to examine HMB prevalence and HMB-associated factors in young women (18–34 years old) diagnosed with bipolar disorder (BP), major depressive disorder (MDD), or schizophrenia (SCZ) who have full insight and normal intelligence. Eighteen-month menstruation histories were recorded with pictorial blood loss assessment chart assessments of HMB. Multivariate analyses were conducted to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Drug effects on cognition were assessed with the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). HMB prevalence were: BP, 25.85%; MDD, 18.78%; and SCH, 13.7%. High glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level was a strong risk factor for HMB [BP OR, 19.39 (16.60–23.01); MDD OR, 2.69 (4.59–13.78); and SCZ OR, 9.59 (6.14–12.43)]. Additional risk factors included fasting blood sugar, 2-h postprandial blood glucose, and use of the medication valproate [BP: OR, 16.00 (95%CI 12.74–20.22); MDD: OR, 13.88 (95%CI 11.24–17.03); and SCZ OR, 11.35 (95%CI 8.84–19.20)]. Antipsychotic, antidepressant, and electroconvulsive therapy use were minor risk factors. Pharmacotherapy-induced visual learning impairment was associated with HMB [BP: OR, 9.01 (95%CI 3.15–13.44); MDD: OR, 5.99 (95%CI 3.11–9.00); and SCZ: OR, 7.09 (95%CI 2.99–9.20)]. Lithium emerged as a protective factor against HMB [BP: OR, 0.22 (95%CI 0.14–0.40); MDD: OR, 0.30 (95%CI 0.20–0.62); and SCZ: OR, 0.65 (95%CI 0.33–0.90)]. In SCZ patients, hyperlipidemia and high total cholesterol were HMB-associated factors (ORs, 1.87–2.22). Psychiatrist awareness of HMB risk is concerningly low (12/257, 2.28%). In conclusion, prescription of VPA should be cautioned for women with mental illness, especially BP, and lithium may be protective against HMB.

Pharmacological Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia: A Critical Review, Evidence-Based Clinical Guidance and Unmet Needs

Early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) – onset before age 18 – is linked with great disease burden and disability. Decision-making for EOS pharmacological treatment may be challenging due to conflicting information from evidence and guidelines and unidentified care needs may remain unmet.

We searched for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and umbrella reviews of EOS pharmacological treatment published in PubMed over the past 10 years and selected five clinical guidelines from Europe, North-America and Australia. Based on predefined outcomes, we critically compared the evidence supporting EOS-approved drugs in Europe and/or North-America with guidelines recommendations. We also evaluated the coverage of these outcomes to identify unmet needs.

One systematic review, nine meta-analyses and two umbrella reviews (k=203 trials, N=81,289 participants, including duplicated samples across selected articles) were retrieved. Evidence supported the efficacy of aripiprazole, clozapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, molindone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and paliperidone in EOS, all of which obtained approval for EOS either in Europe and/or in North-America. Cognition, functioning and quality of life, suicidal behaviour and mortality and services utilisation and cost-effectiveness were poorly covered/uncovered.

Among the antipsychotics approved for EOS, aripiprazole, lurasidone, molindone, risperidone, paliperidone and quetiapine emerged as efficacious and comparably safe options. Olanzapine is known for a high risk of weight gain and haloperidol for extrapyramidal side-effects. Treatment-resistant patients should be offered clozapine. Future long-term trials looking at cognition, functioning, quality of life, suicidal behaviour, mortality, services utilisation and cost-effectiveness are warranted. Closer multi-agency collaboration may bridge the gap between evidence, guidelines and approved drugs.

Trends in the Prevalence of Chronic Medication Use Within Children in Israel Between 2010 and 2019: Protocol for a Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Prescription of psychostimulants has significantly increased in most countries worldwide for both preschool and school-aged children. Understanding the trends of chronic medication use among children in different age groups and from different sociodemographic backgrounds is essential. It is essential to distinguish between selected therapy areas to help decision-makers evaluate not only the relevant expected medication costs but also the specific services related to these areas.

Objective

This study will analyze differences in trends regarding medications considered psychobehavioral treatments and medications considered nonpsychobehavioral treatments and will identify risk factors and predictors for chronic medication use among children.

Methods

This is a retrospective study. Data will be extracted from the Clalit Health Services data warehouse. For each year between 2010 and 2019, there are approximately 1,500,000 children aged 0-18 years. All medication classes will be identified using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code. A time-trend analysis will be performed to investigate if there is a significant difference between the trends of children’s psychobehavioral and nonpsychobehavioral medication prescriptions. A logistic regression combined with machine learning models will be developed to identify variables that may increase the risk for specific chronic medication types and identify children likely to get such treatment.

Results

The project was funded in 2019. Data analysis is currently underway, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2022. Understanding trends regarding medications considered psychobehavioral treatments and medications considered nonpsychobehavioral treatments will support the identification of risk factors and predictors for chronic medication use among children.

Conclusions

Analyzing the response of the patient (and their parents or caregivers) population over time will hopefully help improve policies for prescriptions and follow-up of chronic treatments in children.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/36756

Risk-to-befit ratios of consecutive antidepressants for heavy menstrual bleeding in young women with bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder

The occurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) induced by pharmacological agents has been reported in young adult women. This study aimed to investigate a possible association between the occurrence rates of HMB and different treatment methods such as antidepressant agents alone and in combination with other pharmacological agents. The examined cohort included young women (age 18-35 years, n = 1,949) with bipolar disorder (BP) or major depressive disorder (MDD). Menstruation history for 24 months was recorded and evaluated according to pictorial blood loss assessment charts of HMB. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. The examined antidepressant agents had varying ORs for patients with BP vs. those with MDD. For example, the ORs of venlafaxine-induced HMB were 5.27 and 4.58 for patients with BP and MDD, respectively; duloxetine-induced HMB, 4.72 and 3.98; mirtazapine-induced HMB, 3.26 and 2.39; fluvoxamine-induced HMB, 3.11 and 2.08; fluoxetine-induced HMB, 2.45 and 1.13; citalopram-induced HMB, 2.03 and 1.25; escitalopram-induced HMB, 1.85 and 1.99; agomelatine-induced HMB, 1.45 and 2.97; paroxetine-induced HMB, 1.19 and 1.75; sertraline-induced HMB, 0.88 and 1.13; reboxetine-induced HMB, 0.45 and 0.45; and bupropion-induced HMB, 0.33 and 0.37, in each case. However, when antidepressant agents were combined with valproate, the OR of HMB greatly increased, with distinct profiles observed for patients with BP vs. those with MDD. For example, the ORs of HMB induced by venlafaxine combined with valproate were 8.48 and 6.70 for patients with BP and MDD, respectively; for duloxetine, 5.40 and 4.40; mirtazapine, 5.67 and 3.73; fluvoxamine, 5.27 and 3.37; fluoxetine, 3.69 and 4.30; citalopram, 5.88 and 3.46; escitalopram, 6.00 and 7.55; agomelatine, 4.26 and 5.65; paroxetine, 5.24 and 3.25; sertraline, 4.97 and 5.11; reboxetine, 3.54 and 2.19; and bupropion, 4.85 and 3.46, in each case. In conclusion, some antidepressant agents exhibited potential risks of inducing HMB. Therefore, a combined prescription of antidepressant agents and valproate should be carefully considered for young women with HMB.

A borderline personality assessment for adolescents: Validity and reliability of the Chinese languages borderline personality features scale (short form version) for adolescents/children

BACKGROUND

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by behavioral patterns that promote suffering in many adolescents and their guardians. Currently, early diagnosis of BPD mainly depends on the effective assessment of pathological personality traits (i.e., borderline personality features) and using the indicated scales. The Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children-Short Form (BPFSC-SF) is widely used and the introduction of a Chinese version of the BPFSC-SF, can improve the diagnosis and prognosis of Chinese patients with BPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the BPFSC-SF.

METHOD

120 adolescents with BPD were enrolled in the present study and completed the BPFSC-SF and the Personality Belief Questionnaire-Short Form (PBQ-SF) assessments. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test assessment validity. Test-retest correlations and the Cronbach's α coefficients were used to determine reliability.

RESULTS

CFA analysis identified primary factors of BPFSC, with each item ranging from 0.597~0.899. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.877 between CL-BFSFC-SF and the state vs. trait loneliness scale. The Cronbach's α of the scale was 0.854 in the clinical group. The test-retest reliability correlation coefficient (interclass correlation coefficients.ICC) was 0.937.

CONCLUSION

The Chinese version of BPFSC-SF is a valid and reliable tool for adolescent Chinese patients with BPD.

Efficacy and safety of clozapine in psychotic disorders-a systematic quantitative meta-review

A recent increase in the literature regarding the evidence base for clozapine has made it increasingly difficult for clinicians to judge "best evidence" for clozapine use. As such, we aimed at elucidating the state-of-the-art for clozapine with regard to efficacy, effectiveness, tolerability, and management of clozapine and clozapine-related adverse events in neuropsychiatric disorders. We conducted a systematic PRISMA-conforming quantitative meta-review of available meta-analytic evidence regarding clozapine use. Primary outcome effect sizes were extracted and transformed into relative risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD). The methodological quality of meta-analyses was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist. Of the 112 meta-analyses included in our review, 61 (54.5%) had an overall high methodological quality according to AMSTAR-2. Clozapine appears to have superior effects on positive, negative, and overall symptoms and relapse rates in schizophrenia (treatment-resistant and non-treatment-resistant subpopulations) compared to first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and to pooled FGAs/second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Despite an unfavorable metabolic and hematological adverse-event profile compared to other antipsychotics, hospitalization, mortality and all-cause discontinuation (ACD) rates of clozapine surprisingly show a pattern of superiority. Our meta-review outlines the superior overall efficacy of clozapine compared to FGAs and most other SGAs in schizophrenia and suggests beneficial efficacy outcomes in bipolar disorder and Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). More clinical studies and subsequent meta-analyses are needed beyond the application of clozapine in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and future studies should be directed into multidimensional clozapine side-effect management to foster evidence and to inform future guidelines.

Gender differences in the use of atypical antipsychotics in early-onset schizophrenia: a nationwide population-based study in Brazil

BACKGROUND

The use of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other mental disorders in populations under 18 years of age is increasing worldwide. Little is known about treatment patterns and the influence of gender differences, which may be a predictor of clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate gender differences in the use of atypical antipsychotics in patients with early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) assisted by the public health system in Brazil.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of outpatients with EOS aged 10 to 17 years who received at least one provision of atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine or ziprasidone) from a large Brazilian pharmaceutical assistance programme. Data were retrieved from a nationwide administrative database from 2008 to 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 49,943 patients with EOS, 63.5% were males, and the mean age was 13.6 years old. The patients were using risperidone (62.5%), olanzapine (19.6%), quetiapine (12.4%), ziprasidone (3.3%) and clozapine (2.2%). We found gender differences, especially in the 13-17 year age group (65.1% for males vs. 34.9% for females, p < 0.001), in the use of risperidone (72.1% for males vs. 27.9% for females, p < 0.001) and olanzapine (66.5% for males vs. 33.5% for females, p < 0.001). Only in the 13 to 17 years age group were the prescribed doses of olanzapine (p = 0.012) and quetiapine (p = 0.041) slightly higher for males than for females.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed gender differences among patients diagnosed with EOS and who received atypical antipsychotics. More attention should be devoted to gender differences in research and clinical practice.

Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychosocial, and brain stimulation interventions in children and adolescents with mental disorders: an umbrella review

Top-tier evidence on the safety/tolerability of 80 medications in children/adolescents with mental disorders has recently been reviewed in this jour-nal. To guide clinical practice, such data must be combined with evidence on efficacy and acceptability. Besides medications, psychosocial inter-ventions and brain stimulation techniques are treatment options for children/adolescents with mental disorders. For this umbrella review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses (NMAs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 48 medications, 20 psychosocial interventions, and four brain stimulation techniques in children/adolescents with 52 different mental disorders or groups of mental disorders, reporting on 20 different efficacy/acceptability outcomes. Co-primary outcomes were disease-specific symptom reduction and all-cause discontinuation ("acceptability"). We included 14 NMAs and 90 MAs, reporting on 15 mental disorders or groups of mental disorders. Overall, 21 medications outperformed placebo regarding the co-primary outcomes, and three psychosocial interventions did so (while seven outperformed waiting list/no treatment). Based on the meta-analytic evidence, the most convincing efficacy profile emerged for amphetamines, methylphenidate and, to a smaller extent, behavioral therapy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; aripiprazole, risperidone and several psychosocial interventions in autism; risperidone and behavioral interventions in disruptive behavior disorders; several antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders; fluoxetine, the combination of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and interpersonal therapy in depression; aripiprazole in mania; fluoxetine and group CBT in anxiety disorders; fluoxetine/selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, CBT, and behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention in obsessive-compulsive disorder; CBT in post-traumatic stress disorder; imipramine and alarm behavioral intervention in enuresis; behavioral therapy in encopresis; and family therapy in anorexia nervosa. Results from this umbrella review of interventions for mental disorders in children/adolescents provide evidence-based information for clinical decision making.

Safety of 80 antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: a large scale systematic meta-review of 78 adverse effects

Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis-orders in this age group and are used not infrequently off-label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta-review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications - including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers - in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta-analyses, 39 meta-analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti-ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti-ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti-ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta-review of top-tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.

[Challenges of the use of antipsychotics in children and adolescents]

The more frequent prescription of antipsychotics with high proportion of off label use, in particular for children and adolescents, is seen in many countries, including European Union, United States and Russian Federation. In accordance to current clinical guidelines, second-generation antipsychotics are preferred in clinical practice due to the higher tolerability compared to the first-generation antipsychotics. However, second-generation antipsychotics in children and adolescents, especially in continuous use, are associated with cardiac abnormalities and metabolic disorders, including hyperglycemia, and the risk of type 2 diabetes, weight gain and obesity, an increase in prolactin synthesis and hyperlipidemia. The adverse effects of antipsychotics in children and adolescents determine the need for more balanced approaches to their use, careful monitoring of the safety of treatment and the development of measures to prevent and correct side-effects of these drugs.

Early Identification and Intervention of Schizophrenia: Insight From Hypotheses of Glutamate Dysfunction and Oxidative Stress

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder which leads to functional deterioration. Early detection and intervention are vital for better prognosis. However, the diagnosis of schizophrenia still depends on clinical observation to date. Without reliable biomarkers, schizophrenia is difficult to detect in its early phase. Further, there is no approved medication for prodromal schizophrenia because current antipsychotics fail to show satisfactory efficacy and safety. Therefore, to develop an effective early diagnostic and therapeutic approach for schizophrenia, especially in its prodromal phase, is crucial. Glutamate signaling dysfunction and dysregulation of oxidative stress have been considered to play important roles in schizophrenic prodrome. The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) is one of three types of ionotropic glutamate receptors. In this article, we reviewed literature regarding NMDAR hypofunction, oxidative stress, and the linkage between both in prodromal schizophrenia. The efficacy of NMDAR enhancers such as D-amino acid oxidase inhibitor was addressed. Finally, we highlighted potential biomarkers related to NMDAR and oxidative stress regulation, and therefore suggested the strategies of early detection and intervention of prodromal schizophrenia. Future larger-scale studies combining biomarkers and novel drug development for early psychosis are warranted.

Assessing the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders treated with atypical antipsychotics: a population-based nested case-control study

To examine the associations between atypical antipsychotic (AAP) exposure and the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Korean pediatric patients with psychiatric disorders, we conducted a nested case-control study using the claims data of the National Health Insurance system of Korea between 2010 and 2014. A cohort of patients with psychiatric disorders was identified, and enrollment was taken as the date of the first psychiatric diagnosis. Cases involved patients with a diagnosis of T2DM or prescriptions for glucose lowering drugs after enrollment, and the identification of T2DM was defined as the index date. We performed a conditional logistic regression analysis for matched case-control data to assess associations between AAP exposure and T2DM, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. From 1,092,019 patients aged 2-19 years, we identified 20,263 cases with T2DM and 80,043 controls, matched by sex, age, enrollment date, and primary psychiatric diagnosis. After adjusting for comorbidities, psychotropic medication history, and the healthcare institution characteristics, the aOR of having T2DM was significantly higher in multi-AAP users compared with non-users (aOR 1.89; 95% CI 1.63-2.20). Particularly high ORs for T2DM were observed in clozapine users compared with non-users (aOR 3.47; 95% CI 1.88-6.41). We observed a linear relationship between the increase in risperidone dose and the increase in the risk of developing T2DM. Our findings suggest a significantly increased risk of developing T2DM in child or adolescent patients with psychiatric disorders exposed to AAPs compared with those not exposed to AAPs.

Olanzapine Versus Risperidone in Children and Adolescents with Psychosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and risperidone in children and adolescents (aged ≤18 years) with psychosis by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Several English and Chinese databases were searched for studies published before February 8th, 2017. Two independent investigators screened the studies according to prespecified criteria and extracted the data. Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct the data synthesis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 457 participants (225 participants in the olanzapine group and 232 participants in the risperidone group) were included. No significant differences were observed in the mean scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.06, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = [-0.31, 0.19], p = 0.63), the positive symptom scores (SMD = -0.09, 95% CI = [-0.32, 0.15], p = 0.48), or the negative symptom scores (SMD = -0.11 95% CI = [-0.34, 0.13], p = 0.38) between the two groups. Regarding adverse effects, the mean increases in weight (MD = 2.90, 95% CI = [1.41, 4.39], p = 0.0001), body mass index (MD = 0.90, 95% CI = [0.42, 1.38], p = 0.0003), and incidence of hypersomnia (risk ratios [RR] = 1.98, 95% CI = [1.15, 3.43], p = 0.01) were higher in the olanzapine group, while the incidence of insomnia (RR = 0.31, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.85], p = 0.02), prolactin elevation (RR = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.85], p = 0.03), myotonia (RR = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.49], p = 0.003), tremor (RR = 0.22, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.63], p = 0.005), and akathisia (RR = 0.27, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.57], p = 0.0007) was higher in the risperidone group.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in efficacy between olanzapine and risperidone for the treatment of children and adolescents with psychosis, but the side effect profiles of these two medications differ. High-quality RCTs are needed before recommending clinical treatment in children and adolescents.

Patient, Treatment, and Health Care Utilization Variables Associated with Adherence to Metabolic Monitoring Practices in Children and Adolescents Taking Second-Generation Antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE

Children and adolescents with a range of psychiatric disorders are increasingly being prescribed atypical or second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). While SGAs are effective at treating conduct and behavioural symptoms, they infer significant cardiometabolic risk. This study aims to explore what patient, treatment, and health care utilization variables are associated with adherence to Canadian Alliance for Monitoring Effectiveness and Safety of Antipsychotics in Children (CAMESA) metabolic monitoring guidelines.

METHOD

A retrospective chart review of 294 children and adolescents accessing a large outpatient psychiatry setting within a 2-year study period (2014-2016) was conducted. Baseline and follow-up metabolic monitoring, demographic, treatment, and health care utilization variables were then assessed over a 1-year period of interest.

RESULTS

Metabolic monitoring practices did not adhere to CAMESA guidelines and were very poor over the 1-year observation period. There were significant differences between children (ages 4-12 years, n = 99) and adolescents (ages 13-18 years, n = 195). In adolescents, factors associated with any baseline metabolic monitoring were a higher number of psychiatry visits (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 1.41), longer duration of contact (OR, 14; 95% CI, 2.31 to 82.4), and use of other non-SGA medications (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.94). Among children, having an emergency room visit (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.01 to 11.71) and taking aripiprazole (OR, 7.4; 95% CI, 2.02 to 27.45) increased the odds of receiving baseline metabolic monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study highlight the need for better metabolic monitoring for children and adolescents taking SGAs. Enhanced focus on opportunities for multidisciplinary collaboration is needed to improve the quality of care offered to this population.

Risperidone versus olanzapine among patients with schizophrenia participating in supported employment: Eighteen-month outcomes

This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine versus risperidone among patients with schizophrenia who are established in outpatient psychiatric care and entering supported employment. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted among 107 outpatients with schizophrenia, who were cross-titrated to flexible dose risperidone or olanzapine over 2 weeks. Clinical endpoints included time to hospitalization and persistence on assigned medication. Weight, laboratory tests, psychopathology, neurologic side effects, social adjustment and role functioning were assessed at 3-6 month intervals. Data were analyzed first by randomized treatment, and then reassessed controlling for prior medication treatment. The proportion of patients on assigned medication at 18 months was 30.9% for risperidone and 37.3% for olanzapine. Mean doses were 6.4 ± 3.2 mg daily for risperidone, and 17.0 ± 5.0 mg daily for olanzapine. The groups did not differ significantly in time to medication discontinuation, first hospitalization or first employment. There were few differences in psychopathology, laboratory, or neurological assessments between groups at 18 months. Patients randomized to olanzapine gained modestly more weight. Controlling for pre-randomization medication suggested improvement in some aspects of psychopathology from switching medications; however, switching from olanzapine to risperidone was associated with more hospitalizations. Risperidone and olanzapine have similar efficacy and tolerability in patients with schizophrenia who are participating in supported employment. Randomization to olanzapine was associated with more weight gain, but randomization from olanzapine to risperidone appeared to be associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization. Careful monitoring of metabolic effects and participation in supported employment may have contributed to minimal weight gain and metabolic effects.

Aripiprazole and Acute Extrapyramidal Symptoms in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Both the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have approved aripiprazole for use in adolescents for specific indications. Given the assumed favorable side-effect profile of aripiprazole, its use in children and adolescents has increased for both official and off-label indications (anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders). However, several cases of children and adolescents with new-onset extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) after commencing treatment with aripiprazole have been reported, and a more systematic appraisal of this possible risk is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the evidence for acute EPS (acute dystonia, akathisia, Parkinsonism) associated with the use of aripiprazole in children and adolescents.

METHOD

We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases (2003-10 April 2016) for clinical trials in pediatric patients (aged 0-18 years) using the keywords 'aripiprazole' (regardless of the formulation) and 'extrapyramidal symptoms'. We evaluated the abstracts of papers using the following exclusion criteria: (1) study design: case report, letter to the editor, editorial, or poster presentation data; (2) unrelated PICOS (population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, study) structure. We performed a meta-analysis, in which we used effect sizes with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). To examine the homogeneity of the effect size distribution, we used a Q-statistic. When we observed heterogeneity in effect sizes, we assessed the possible influence of moderator variables (age and sex, mean dose, study duration, and method of measuring EPS incidence) and evaluated the suitability of either a fixed or a random model. Finally, we assessed the incidence of EPS in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole compared with placebo.

RESULTS

An initial search via PubMed and Embase yielded 328 hits. A manual search of the reference lists of review papers revealed seven additional relevant articles. We included 41 studies, with 2114 pediatric patients, in the meta-analysis. For the analysis of the mean incidence of EPS, data were provided by 24 studies, with a total of 1446 pediatric patients. Meta-analysis revealed a mean EPS incidence of 17.1 % (95 % CI 0.128-0.223). In terms of the incidence of various extrapyramidal side effects, overall, no significant effects of age, sex, mean dose, study duration, or measuring method could be demonstrated. The side effects 'EPS', 'parkinsonism', and 'tremor' were significantly more common in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole than in those treated with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis provides evidence for a non-negligible incidence of acute EPS in children and adolescents treated with aripiprazole. Although the study has several limitations and further investigation is needed, these findings may help clinicians make more balanced treatment choices and more closely monitor the use of this drug in youth.

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis to Assess the Relative Efficacy of Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Positive and Negative Symptoms in Early-Onset Schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) is a serious debilitating disorder with considerable morbidity and a reduced life expectancy; therefore, early diagnosis and effective treatments are particularly important. Negative symptoms are more prominent in adolescents and children (compared with adults), and are key predictors of worse functional and clinical outcomes in EOS. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of antipsychotics used in the treatment of EOS, with a focus on studies reporting effectiveness using the Positive and Negative Syndrome scale (PANSS), a scale that includes an overall symptom measure, in addition to separate subscales for positive and, importantly, negative symptoms.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify trials conducted in children and adolescents with schizophrenia, and symptom control was reported using the PANSS. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, synthesising data for a number of outcomes, including mean change from baseline in PANSS scores, treatment discontinuation and weight gain.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the evidence synthesis, comprising 1714 patients across eight active interventions (aripiprazole, haloperidol, molindone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone) and placebo. All treatments showed a greater reduction in total PANSS scores vs placebo; however, only three interventions (molindone, olanzapine and risperidone) were associated with a statistically significant reduction in total PANSS scores at 6 weeks vs placebo. Haloperidol had the greatest reduction vs placebo; however, this result was not statistically significant [mean difference, -15.6, 95% credible interval (-35.4, 4.1)]. Haloperidol, olanzapine and risperidone showed a statistically significant reduction in positive PANSS scores vs placebo; however, whilst all interventions showed a trend of reduction in negative PANSS scores vs placebo, no comparisons were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the treatments are efficacious in controlling symptoms, and all showed a trend of superiority vs placebo for total, positive and negative PANSS scores, although only olanzapine and risperidone yielded statistically significant results vs placebo for both total and positive PANSS scores. Varying results for discontinuation and weight gain demonstrate a need to balance efficacy with side-effect profiles.

Safety and Efficacy from an 8 Week Double-Blind Trial and a 26 Week Open-Label Extension of Asenapine in Adolescents with Schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of asenapine in adolescents with schizophrenia.

METHODS

In an 8 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, subjects (12-17 years of age) meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, asenapine 2.5 mg b.i.d., or asenapine 5 mg b.i.d. Subjects who completed the 8 week acute study could participate in a 26 week flexible-dose asenapine-only open-label extension (OLE).

RESULTS

A similar percentage of subjects completed treatment on day 56 (2.5 mg b.i.d. (n=98): 83%; 5 mg b.i.d. [n=106]: 79%; placebo [n=102]: 79%). In the mixed model for repeated measures analysis of the primary end-point (with Hochberg correction for multiplicity), least squares (LS) mean differences between asenapine and placebo on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at day 56 were not significant (-4.8 for 2.5 mg b.i.d., p=0.070; -5.6 for 5 mg b.i.d., p=0.064). Significant improvement in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score was observed in the 5 mg b.i.d. group versus placebo on day 56 (LS mean -0.3, p=0.024). In the acute phase, ≥7% weight gain and the composite event of somnolence, sedation, and hypersomnia were more common in both asenapine groups than in the placebo group. Akathisia, fasting glucose elevation, and extrapyramidal syndrome were more common in the 5 mg b.i.d. group than in the placebo group. There were no unexpected adverse events in the OLE, and PANSS total scores decreased by -16.1 points in the group previously treated with placebo (n=62) and by -11.2 points in the continuous asenapine group (n=131) from OLE baseline to week 26.

CONCLUSIONS

Although improvements in PANSS total score at day 56 of the acute phase were numerically greater for both asenapine 2.5 and 5 mg b.i.d. than for placebo and were maintained in the OLE, the primary end-point did not achieve statistical significance in the acute phase. No new or unexpected safety concerns were detected during the acute phase or after an additional 26 weeks of asenapine treatment in the adolescent population with schizophrenia.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

NCT01190254 and NCT1190267 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Child and adolescent psychiatrists' reported monitoring behaviors for second-generation antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE

The number of children and adolescents (hereafter referred to as "children") who have been prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) has increased over the last decade, but little is known about monitoring practices in pediatric patients who are vulnerable to adverse effects. We examined factors associated with psychiatrists' self-reported monitoring of children who were prescribed SGAs.

METHODS

A survey was mailed to a national, randomly selected sample of 1600 child and adolescent psychiatrists from the American Medical Association mailing list. Using logistic regression, we tested whether psychiatrist characteristics, attitudes, and practice characteristics were associated with monitoring (baseline and/or periodic) the following: Patient history, height and weight, blood pressure, waist circumference, lipid and glucose levels, and electrocardiogram.

RESULTS

Among the analytic sample of 308, at least two thirds reported monitoring patient history, height and weight, blood pressure, and fasting plasma lipids and glucose; 23% reported monitoring waist circumference; and 12% reported conducting an electrocardiogram. More than one third stated that they routinely monitored thyroid levels and more than half reported monitoring complete blood count and electrolytes/blood urea nitrogen. Psychiatrists reporting that they were able to measure vital signs on site were more likely to measure height and weight. Those who reported feeling comfortable conducting a physical examination were more likely to measure blood pressure. Those answering that the risk of metabolic syndrome was low were less likely to measure blood pressure and waist circumference. Being board certified and able to measure vital signs on site were associated with more monitoring of glucose and lipid levels. Conversely, years in practice and feeling that patients were nonadherent with blood work were associated with less monitoring of glucose and lipid levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, inconsistent monitoring patterns of children prescribed SGAs were found. Efforts to communicate guidelines' evidence base and improve office capacity to measure and track adverse effects are needed to increase appropriate adverse effect monitoring in children who have been prescribed SGAs.

Antipsychotic treatment for children and adolescents with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomised trials

INTRODUCTION

Antipsychotic treatment in early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) lacks a rich evidence base, and efforts to rank different drugs concerning their efficacy have not proven any particular drug superior. In contrast to the literature regarding adult-onset schizophrenia (AOS), comparative effectiveness studies in children and adolescents are limited in number and size, and only a few meta-analyses based on conventional methodologies have been conducted.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will conduct a network meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate antipsychotic therapies for EOS to determine which compounds are efficacious, and to determine the relative efficacy and safety of these treatments when compared in a network meta-analysis. Unlike a contrast-based (standard) meta-analysis approach, an arm-based network meta-analysis enables statistical inference from combining both direct and indirect comparisons within an empirical Bayes framework. We will acquire eligible studies through a systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Eligible studies should randomly allocate children and adolescents presenting with schizophrenia or a related non-affective psychotic condition to an intervention group or to a control group. Two reviewers will-independently and in duplicate-screen titles and abstracts, complete full text reviews to determine eligibility, and subsequently perform data abstraction and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will conduct meta-analyses to establish the effect of all reported therapies on patient-relevant efficacy and safety outcomes when possible.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No formal ethical procedures regarding informed consent are required as no primary data collection is undertaken. The review will help facilitate evidence-based management, identify key areas for future research, and provide a framework for conducting large systematic reviews combining direct and indirect comparisons. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013006676.

The effects of novel and newly approved antipsychotics on serum prolactin levels: a comprehensive review

Since the 1970s, clinicians have increasingly become more familiar with hyperprolactinemia (HPRL) as a common adverse effect of antipsychotic medication, which remains the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment for patients with schizophrenia. Although treatment with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a group is, compared with use of the first-generation antipsychotics, associated with lower prolactin (PRL) plasma levels, the detailed effects on plasma PRL levels for each of these compounds in reports often remain incomplete or inaccurate. Moreover, at this moment, no review has been published about the effect of the newly approved antipsychotics asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone on PRL levels. The objective of this review is to describe PRL physiology; PRL measurement; diagnosis, causes, consequences and mechanisms of HPRL; incidence figures of (new-onset) HPRL with SGAs and newly approved antipsychotics in adolescent and adult patients; and revisit lingering questions regarding this hormone. A literature search, using the MEDLINE database (1966-December 2013), was conducted to identify relevant publications to report on the state of the art of HPRL and to summarize the available evidence with respect to the propensity of the SGAs and the newly approved antipsychotics to elevate PRL levels. Our review shows that although HPRL usually is defined as a sustained level of PRL above the laboratory upper limit of normal, limit values show some degree of variability in clinical reports, making the interpretation and comparison of data across studies difficult. Moreover, many reports do not provide much or any data detailing the measurement of PRL. Although the highest rates of HPRL are consistently reported in association with amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone, while aripiprazole and quetiapine have the most favorable profile with respect to this outcome, all SGAs can induce PRL elevations, especially at the beginning of treatment, and have the potential to cause new-onset HPRL. Considering the PRL-elevating propensity of the newly approved antipsychotics, evidence seems to indicate these agents have a PRL profile comparable to that of clozapine (asenapine and iloperidone), ziprasidone and olanzapine (lurasidone). PRL elevations with antipsychotic medication generally are dose dependant. However, antipsychotics having a high potential for PRL elevation (amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone) can have a profound impact on PRL levels even at relatively low doses, while PRL levels with antipsychotics having a minimal effect on PRL, in most cases, can remain unchanged (quetiapine) or reduce (aripiprazole) over all dosages. Although tolerance and decreases in PRL values after long-term administration of PRL-elevating antipsychotics can occur, the elevations, in most cases, remain above the upper limit of normal. PRL profiles of antipsychotics in children and adolescents seem to be the same as in adults. The hyperprolactinemic effects of antipsychotic medication are mostly correlated with their affinity for dopamine D2 receptors at the level of the anterior pituitary lactotrophs (and probably other neurotransmitter mechanisms) and their blood-brain barrier penetrating capability. Even though antipsychotics are the most common cause of pharmacologically induced HPRL, recent research has shown that HPRL can be pre-existing in a substantial portion of antipsychotic-naïve patients with first-episode psychosis or at-risk mental state.

Evidence base for using atypical antipsychotics for psychosis in adolescents

Atypical antipsychotic medications have been the first line of treatment for adolescents with psychosis in the past couple of decades. Till the late 90s, there were very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of adolescents with psychosis, although a fifth of schizophrenia starts during adolescence. Most of the treatment guidelines for adolescents with psychosis were derived from data on adults. In the past 10 years, there has been increasing number of studies on adolescents with psychosis. The current paper summarizes the findings of trials on adolescents with psychosis in 4 groups: (a) atypical antipsychotic medications vs placebo, (b) atypical antipsychotic medication vs typical antipsychotic medications, (c) one atypical antipsychotic medication vs another atypical antipsychotic medication, and (d) Low dose vs standard dose of atypical antipsychotic medication. We included 13 RCTs, with a total of 1112 participants. Although our review suggest that atypical antipsychotic medications are as effective as typical antipsychotic medications as regards clinical efficacy, atypical antipsychotic medications have a preferred side effect profile and lesser drop-out rate from trials. Obviously, this is extremely important as treatment adherence is key to successful remission of psychotic symptoms and also in some case prevent relapse of illness. Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, and clozapine is often associated with weight gain. Aripiprazole is not associated with increased prolactin or with dyslipidemia. Adolescents may respond better to standard-dose as opposed to lower dose risperidone, but for aripiprazole and ziprasidone, lower doses may be equally effective. Future trial should be longer term and have uniform ways of reporting side effects.