How effective is it to sequentially switch among Olanzapine, Quetiapine and Risperidone?--A randomized, open-label study of algorithm-based antipsychotic treatment to patients with symptomatic schizophrenia in the real-world clinical setting

Response rates to sequential trials of antipsychotic medications according to algorithms or treatment guidelines in psychotic disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a relative lack of research evaluating the outcomes when treatment guidelines or algorithms for psychotic disorders are followed. This systematic review and meta-analysis determined the response rates to antipsychotic medications at different stages of these algorithms and whether these response rates differ in first episode cohorts.

METHODS

Data sources: A systematic search strategy was conducted across four databases PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL. Studies that had sequential trials of different antipsychotic medications were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using random effects models and sub-group analysis in first episode psychosis studies.

RESULTS

Of the 4078 unique articles screened, fourteen articles, from nine unique studies, were eligible and included 2522 participants. The proportion who experienced a response to any antipsychotic in the first stage of an algorithm was 0.53 (95 % C.I.:0.38,0.68) and this decreased to 0.26 (95 % C.I.:0.15,0.39) in the second stage. When clozapine was used in the third stage, the proportion that achieved a response was 0.43 (95 % C.I. 0.19, 0.69) compared to 0.26 (95 % C.I.:0.05,0.54) if a different antipsychotic was used. Four studies included 907 participants with a first episode of psychosis and the proportions that achieved a response were: 1st stage: 0.63 (95 % C.I.: 0.45, 0.79); 2nd stage: 0.34 (95 % C.I.:0.16,0.55); clozapine 3rd stage: 0.45 (95 % C.I.:0.0,0.97), different antipsychotic 3rd stage: 0.15 (95 % C.I.,0.01,0.37).

DISCUSSION

These findings support the recommendation to have a trial of clozapine after two other antipsychotic medications have been found to be ineffective.

Early Non-Response to Antipsychotic Treatment in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evidence-Based Management Options

BACKGROUND

Early non-response is a well-established prognostic marker but evidence-based and consistent recommendations to manage it are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to generate evidence-based strategies for the management of schizophrenia patients with early non-response to 2 weeks of antipsychotic treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing antipsychotic dose escalation, switch, augmentation and continuation in individuals with study-defined early antipsychotic treatment non-response. Eligibility criteria were (1) clinical trials of primary psychosis treating for at least 2 weeks with antipsychotic monotherapy with study-defined operationalized criteria for early non-response; and (2) randomization to at least two of the following treatment strategies: dose escalation, switch, augmentation, or treatment continuation. Information sources were Pubmed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE, and risk of bias was assessed using Jadad scores. Results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis, comparing each intervention with treatment continuation for total symptom change as the primary outcome, generating standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Studies meeting the selection criteria but providing insufficient data for a meta-analysis were presented separately.

RESULTS

We screened 454 records by 1 August 2022, of which 12 individual datasets met the inclusion criteria, representing 947 research participants. Of those studies, five provided data to include in the meta-analysis (four with early non-response at 2 weeks, one at 3 weeks). Early non-response was defined within a timeline of 2 weeks in eight datasets, with the remaining datasets ranging between 3 and 4 weeks. The rates of early non-response ranged between 72.0 and 24.1%, and the endpoint ranged within 4-24 weeks post randomization. Quality was good (i.e., Jadad score of ≥3) in 8 of the 12 datasets. Overall, three studies compared antipsychotic switch versus continuation and two compared antipsychotic switch versus augmentation, in both cases without significant pooled between-group differences for total symptom severity (n = 149, SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.5). Individually, two relatively large studies for antipsychotic switch versus continuation found small advantages for switching antipsychotics for total symptom severity (n = 149, SMD -0.49, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.06). One relatively large study found an advantage for dose escalation, although this finding has not been replicated and was not included in the meta-analysis. None of the alternatives included antipsychotic switch to clozapine.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite robust accuracy of early antipsychotic non-response predicting ultimate response, the evidence for treatment strategies that should be used for early non-response after 2-3 weeks is limited. While meta-analytic findings were non-significant, some individual studies suggest advantages of antipsychotic switch or dose escalation. Therefore, any conclusions should be interpreted carefully, given the insufficient high-quality evidence.

Onset of Action of Selected Second-Generation Antipsychotics (Pines)-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Recommendations for duration of treatment with antipsychotics before considering a switch vary from 2 to 8 weeks, although several studies suggest a rapid onset of action. The objective of this review was to estimate time to onset of action and time to maximum antipsychotic effect of asenapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and zotepine (pines). We searched bibliographic databases for randomized, placebo-controlled trials in adults with schizophrenia estimating the antipsychotic effect of pines over time. Thirty-five studies including 6331 patients diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia were included. We estimated the standardized mean differences (SMD) of changes in symptom score from baseline to follow-up between intervention and placebo groups across studies using meta-analysis techniques. The summarized effect across all included pines administered as immediate-release formulations showed a statistically significant effect at week 1 (SMD, -0.20 [CI95% -0.28, -0.13]), which increased until week 3 (SMD, -0.42 [CI95% -0.50, -0.34]), after which the effect leveled off (week 6: SMD, -0.53 [CI95% -0.62, -0.44]). The sensitivity analyses of the individual pines confirm this finding, although data sparsity increases variability and limits conclusiveness of these analyses.

When to Use Amisulpride in Adolescents: A Retrospective Chart Examination of Inpatients

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Despite increasing interest in amisulpride, current knowledge about its use in the pediatric population is scarce. This chart review aimed to investigate the use of amisulpride in a naturalistic adolescent population.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

Electronic medical records of a tertiary care adolescent inpatient unit were screened between January 2015 and April 2021. Sociodemographic data and all clinical information were collected via data collection forms, and targeted symptoms were obtained from patients' files. Patients with early-onset psychotic disorders (n = 58), bipolar I disorder (n = 29), major depressive disorder (n = 14), and other psychiatric diagnoses (n = 9) were included. Treatment response was defined as a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement of at least much improvement after treatment.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Median titration rate of amisulpride was 400 mg/wk, and the maximum administered daily dose ranged between 100 and 1200 mg/d. The maximum daily dose and number of previous antipsychotics were higher in the early-onset psychotic disorder group. Persistent positive symptoms and resistance to previous treatments were leading causes for amisulpride treatment. Other indications were also impulsive/disruptive behaviors, antipsychotic adverse effects, depressive symptoms, somatic complaints, and abnormalities in liver function tests. Finally, patients with lower daily treatment doses and more previous antipsychotic trials are less likely to benefit from the treatment.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Persistent psychotic/mood symptoms, impulsive/disruptive behaviors, and abnormalities in liver function tests were reasons for the amisulpride treatment in adolescents. Randomized placebo-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment in adolescents.

Efficacy and safety of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials in Japan

BACKGROUND

We examined the efficacy and safety of using antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia using only randomized trials of antipsychotic for schizophrenia conducted in Japan to avoid the biological and environmental heterogeneities caused by pooling data from various races and ethnicities.

METHODS

We searched for eligible studies on Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL. Primary outcomes were improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score (PANSS-T) and all-cause discontinuation. Other outcomes were improvement in PANSS subscale scores, discontinuation due to adverse events or inefficacy, and the incidence of 16 adverse events.

RESULTS

We calculated mean difference or risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. We identified 34 RCTs (6798 patients; mean study duration, 9.0 ± 4.24 weeks; proportion of male patients, 53.7%; mean age, 43.3 years). Besides placebo, studies included aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, clocapramine (no PANSS data), clozapine (no PANSS data), haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, quetiapine, and risperidone. Efficacy and safety profiles differed for antipsychotics used with schizophrenia in Japanese patients. All active treatments other than haloperidol and quetiapine outperformed placebo to improve PANSS-T. Asenapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. Asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS positive subscale scores. Aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS negative subscale scores. The confidence in evidence of most outcomes was low or very low.

CONCLUSION

Our results are similar to those of previous network meta-analysis involving various races and ethnicities.

Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trials to Compare Antipsychotic Treatments (SMART-CAT) in first-episode schizophrenia patients: Rationale and trial design

Accumulated studies have investigated pharmacological interventions for first-episode schizophrenia (FES) patients. However, studies on subsequent treatment steps, which are essential to guide clinicians, are largely missing. This Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trials comparing Antipsychotic Treatments (SMART-CAT) program intends to evaluate the effectiveness of commonly used antipsychotic drugs in FES patients. The major goals of this study are to examine: 1) what would be the optimal subsequent sequential treatment if the first antipsychotic drug failed; 2) whether clozapine could be used in those first-trial failed and have superior efficacy compared to other atypical antipsychotics. In this article we will report the detail protocol of SMART-CAT. The SMART-CAT is a randomized controlled clinical multicenter trial in which 9 institutions in China will participate. A total of 720 FES patients will be enrolled and followed up for 12 months in this study. The trial includes three treatment phases (each phase lasting for 8 weeks) and a naturalistic follow-up phase; participants who do well on an assigned treatment will remain on that treatment for the duration of the 12-month treatment period, while non-responders will move to the next phase of the study to receive a new treatment. Phase 1 is a randomized controlled trial; patients will be randomly assigned to one of the treatments with oral olanzapine, risperidone, amisulpride, aripiprazole or perphenazine. Subjects who fail to respond after 8 weeks will enter the phase 2 randomization. Phase 2 is an equipoise-stratified randomization trial, and patients will be randomly assigned to oral olanzapine, amisulpride or clozapine for 8 weeks. Subjects who fail to respond after phase 2 will enter an open label trial (phase 3); patients who receive clozapine in phase 2 and fail to respond will be assigned to an extended clozapine treatment or modified electroconvulsive therapy add-on therapy (Phase 3A). Patients who were not assigned to clozapine in phase 2 will be assigned to treatment with clozapine or another SGAs not previously used in phase 1 and 2 (Phase 3B). The primary outcome for the treatment phase is the treatment efficacy rate, which is defined as at least 40% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. We hypothesize that clozapine is more therapeutically effective than any other SGAs to patients who failed to meet efficacy criteria in Phase 1, and earlier treatment with clozapine can improve the functional outcomes of schizophrenia patients. As for the naturalistic follow-up phase, time to all-cause treatment failure, marked by its discontinuation is selected as the primary outcome, since it reflects both efficacy and side effects. The all-cause discontinuation is defined as discontinuing for any reasons, including poor efficacy, intolerance of adverse reactions, poor compliance and other reasons. The results of the SMART-CAT trial will provide evidence for the selection of antipsychotics in FES patients who fail to respond to the first trial of an antipsychotic drug. It will also provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of using clozapine in the early phase of schizophrenia treatment by comparing with other SGAs. The study is based on the combination of sequential therapy and dynamic therapy, which can be more suitable to assess the effectiveness of treatment options in the real-world clinical setting. As a result, we hope that this study can provide guidance for an optimal treatment algorithm in first-episode schizophrenia patients. Trial registration: ID NCT03510325 in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: Updated recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

These updated guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology replace the original version published in 2011. They address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting was held in 2017, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment. They were asked to review key areas and consider the strength of the evidence on the risk-benefit balance of pharmacological interventions and the clinical implications, with an emphasis on meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials where available, plus updates on current clinical practice. The guidelines cover the pharmacological management and treatment of schizophrenia across the various stages of the illness, including first-episode, relapse prevention, and illness that has proved refractory to standard treatment. It is hoped that the practice recommendations presented will support clinical decision making for practitioners, serve as a source of information for patients and carers, and inform quality improvement.

Switching Antipsychotics to Blonanserin in Patients with Schizophrenia: An Open-label, Prospective, Multicenter Study

Objective

This study was performed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of blonanserin in schizophrenic patients who were previously treated with other antipsychotics but, due to insufficient response, were switched to blonanserin.

Methods

A total of 52 patients with schizophrenia who were unresponsive to treatment with antipsychotic monotherapy or combination therapy were recruited into this 12-week, open-label, prospective, multicenter study. Patients were switched to blonanserin from their existing antipsychotics over a maximum 2-week tapering-off period. Efficacy was primarily evaluated using the 18-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Assessments were performed at baseline, and at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12.

Results

Switching to blonanserin resulted in a significant decrease in the mean total score on the BPRS from baseline (56.8 ± 9.4) to week 12 (42.1 ± 13.8, p < 0.001). The most common adverse events were extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 12, 23.1%), insomnia (n = 10, 19.2%), and emotional arousal (n = 6, 11.5%). Overweight or obese patients (body mass index ≥ 23 kg/m², n = 33) who switched to blonanserin exhibited significant weight loss from 75.2 ± 9.3 kg at baseline to 73.5 ± 9.2 kg at week 12 (p = 0.006). The total cholesterol (baseline, 236.1 ± 47.6 mg/dl; endpoint [week 12], 209.9 ± 28.0 mg/dl; p = 0.005) and prolactin levels (baseline, 80.0 ± 85.2 ng/ml; endpoint [week 12], 63.2 ± 88.9 ng/ml; p = 0.003) were also significantly improved in patients with hypercholesterolemia or hyperprolactinemia.

Conclusion

The results of the present study suggest that switching to blonanserin may be an effective strategy for schizophrenic patients unresponsive to other antipsychotic treatments.

Placebo effects in adult and adolescent patients with schizophrenia: combined analysis of nine RCTs

OBJECTIVE

To examine characteristics of placebo responders and seek optimal criteria of early improvement with placebo for predicting subsequent placebo response in patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

Data of 672 patients with schizophrenia randomized to placebo in nine double-blind antipsychotic trials were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between placebo response at week 6 (i.e., a ≥ 25% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] score) and gender, age, study locations, baseline PANSS total or Marder 5-Factor scores, and per cent PANSS score reduction at week 1. Predictive power of improvement at week 1 for subsequent response was investigated; sensitivity and specificity of incremental 5% cutoff points between 5% and 25% reduction in the PANSS total score at week 1 were calculated.

RESULTS

Per cent PANSS total score reduction at week 1 and lower PANSS Marder disorganized thought scores at baseline were significantly associated with subsequent placebo response. A 10% reduction in a per-protocol analysis or a 15% reduction in last-observation-carried-forward analysis in the PANSS total score at week 1 showed the highest predictive power.

CONCLUSION

These findings are informative to identify potential placebo responders at the earliest opportunity for optimal trial design for schizophrenia.

Switching and augmentation strategies for antipsychotic medications in acute-phase schizophrenia: latest evidence and place in therapy

In terms of effectiveness of antipsychotics in schizophrenia, discrepancy often exists between results from double-blind randomized controlled trials and observations in emergency or acute-phase clinical practice. For instance, the antipsychotic switching strategy is not always applicable in emergency or acute-phase situations, and augmentation of another antipsychotic is occasionally done instead. In this review, we discuss strategies for early nonresponse to an antipsychotic drug such as switching and augmentation from the perspective of emergency and acute-phase treatment. We searched PubMed for the latest evidence on switching and augmentation strategies of antipsychotics for an emergency or acute-phase period. For risperidone and olanzapine, there is some evidence on switching and augmentation strategies in the management of acute-phase schizophrenia. There may be responders to olanzapine alone among early nonresponders to risperidone, whereas there may be few responders to risperidone alone among early nonresponders to olanzapine. However, there is still insufficient evidence at this time for application of these findings to routine clinical practice. For other antipsychotics, there is little evidence for their augmentation in acute-phase practice. We should be wary of polypharmacy, as multiple agents are too often prescribed by clinicians when not warranted. Considering current evidence, we propose how to switch antipsychotics in the acute phase of schizophrenia in routine practice.

Increasing antipsychotic dose versus switching antipsychotic for non response in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not respond to an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, one treatment strategy could be to increase the antipsychotic dose; and another strategy could be to switch to a different antipsychotic drug.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching the antipsychotic drug in the treatment of non-responsive people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching to a different antipsychotic drug for people with schizophrenia who have not responded to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We include one RCT with relevant data on 29 participants in this review. The trial had a parallel design and was double-blind, but blinding procedures were not described. The trial included people who were non-responsive to fluphenazine 20 mg/day administered for 4 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to continuing treatment with fluphenazine 20 mg/day, increasing the dose to fluphenazine 80 mg/day or switching to haloperidol 20 mg/day for four additional weeks. Data were reported only for 47 out of 58 initially randomised participants. The trial was published in 1993. The fact that only one RCT with a small sample size (N = 29) was included in the analysis limits the quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the three available outcomes: global state (number of participants with clinically relevant response (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 15.99, very low quality evidence); general mental state (endpoint score, BPRS total) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.20 to 8.20, very low quality evidence); and negative symptoms (endpoint score, SANS) (MD 3.40, 95% CI -12.56 to 19.36). No data were reported for leaving the study early, adverse effects, time in hospital, quality of life, satisfaction with care and functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is extremely limited evidence and no clear conclusions can be drawn. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optimal treatment strategy for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

Presynaptic Dopamine Capacity in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia Taking Clozapine: An [18F]DOPA PET Study

Some patients with schizophrenia show poor response to first-line antipsychotic treatments and this is termed treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The differential response to first-line antipsychotic drugs may reflect a different underlying neurobiology. Indeed, a previous study found dopamine synthesis capacity was significantly lower in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, in this study, the treatment-resistant patients were highly symptomatic, whereas the responsive patients showed no or minimal symptoms. The study could not distinguish whether this was a trait effect or reflected the difference in symptom levels. Thus, we aimed to test whether dopaminergic function is altered in patients with a history of treatment resistance to first-line drugs relative to treatment responders when both groups are matched for symptom severity levels by recruiting treatment-resistant patients currently showed low symptom severity with the clozapine treatment. Healthy controls (n=12), patients treated with clozapine (n=12) who had not responded to first-line antipsychotics, and patients who had responded to first-line antipsychotics (n=12) were recruited. Participants were matched for age and sex and symptomatic severity level in patient groups. Participants' dopamine synthesis capacity was measured by using [¹⁸F]DOPA PET. We found that patients treated with clozapine show lower dopamine synthesis capacity than patients who have responded to first-line treatment (Cohen's d=0.9191 (whole striatum), 0.7781 (associative striatum), 1.0344 (limbic striatum), and 1.0189 (sensorimotor striatum) in line with the hypothesis that the dopaminergic function is linked to treatment response. This suggests that a different neurobiology may underlie treatment-resistant schizophrenia and that dopamine synthesis capacity may be a useful biomarker to predict treatment responsiveness.

The SWITCH study: rationale and design of the trial

Many patients do not respond to the first antipsychotic drug prescribed, but require multiple trials with different drugs before response is achieved. Current treatment guidelines vary substantially in their recommendations as to how long clinicians should wait before an antipsychotic treatment attempt should be considered as failed and the compound switched. It has, however, recently been shown that poor early response to an antipsychotic is associated with continuous poor later response in the course of the same treatment attempt. This finding suggests that patients who do experience poor early response might benefit from a switch in antipsychotic medication as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation. In the SWITCH trial, 350 patients suffering from an acute episode of schizophrenia are randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine or amisulpride. The primary endpoint is symptomatic remission at week 8. Patients not experiencing at least minor response after 2 weeks are randomized again to either staying on the initially assigned drug or being switched to the alternative compound for another 6 weeks. In case early switching proves superior to maintaining treatment, time wasted for unsuccessful treatment attempts could be minimized, patients' outcomes improved, duration of hospital stays reduced, and thus overall treatment expenses saved. The current report will present the methods of the trial, focusing on various specific features which could be adopted by future studies.

Optimization of psychopharmacotherapy for schizophrenia in a male, locked, non-acute unit serving for persistently ill patients over one year

We describe real-world psychopharmacological treatment in a Japanese, male, closed psychiatric unit where clozapie was still unavailable. Fifty-five persistently-ill patients with schizophrenia (ICD-10), mean ± S.D. age: 57.5 ± 13.0 y.o., duration of illness and admissions: 30.9 ± 15.2 years and 20.7 ± 14.5 years, respectively) treated longitudinally were evaluated. The rule was to treat with a simplest possible psychotropic regimen without polypharmacy. Compared to the baseline, the number and dose of antipsychotics were reduced from 1.9 to 1.1 and 1012 mg/day to 607 mg/day, respectively. The number of total psychotropics was minimized from 4.7 to 2.1, with a simplified once or twice daily dosing. Overall, the CGI-Severity and FACT-Sz (global functioning) improved slightly from 5.8 to 5.5 and 28.7 to 32.6, respectively. Of note, no patients got worse in comparison with the baseline clinical presentation. Forty-four patients were successfully treated with a single antipsychotic; only seven needed two antipsychotics simultaneously while 36 had been treated with antipsychotic polypharmacy at baseline. Benzodiazepines (mostly lorazepam) and antiparkinsonian drugs were prescribed in 28 and only two, respectively. Nineteen needed adjunctive valproate (average blood levels: 99.3 ± 21.8 μg/mL) and nine used lithium (0.61 ± 0.26 mEq/L). Optimization of psychopharmacotherapy is still possible for difficult-to-treat patients and, while augmentation of an antipsychotic with mood stabilizers is frequently needed, antipsychotic polypharmacy should be exceptional.

The optimization of treatment and management of schizophrenia in Europe (OPTiMiSE) trial: rationale for its methodology and a review of the effectiveness of switching antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Most of the 13 542 trials contained in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register just tested the general efficacy of pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. Studies on the subsequent treatment steps, which are essential to guide clinicians, are largely missing. This knowledge gap leaves important questions unanswered. For example, when a first antipsychotic failed, is switching to another drug effective? And when should we use clozapine? The aim of this article is to review the efficacy of switching antipsychotics in case of nonresponse. We also present the European Commission sponsored "Optimization of Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Europe" (OPTiMiSE) trial which aims to provide a treatment algorithm for patients with a first episode of schizophrenia.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed (October 29, 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined switching the drug in nonresponders to another antipsychotic. We described important methodological choices of the OPTiMiSE trial.

RESULTS

We found 10 RCTs on switching antipsychotic drugs. No trial was conclusive and none was concerned with first-episode schizophrenia. In OPTiMiSE, 500 first episode patients are treated with amisulpride for 4 weeks, followed by a 6-week double-blind RCT comparing continuation of amisulpride with switching to olanzapine and ultimately a 12-week clozapine treatment in nonremitters. A subsequent 1-year RCT validates psychosocial interventions to enhance adherence.

DISCUSSION

Current literature fails to provide basic guidance for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia. The OPTiMiSE trial is expected to provide a basis for clinical guidelines to treat patients with a first episode of schizophrenia.

Pharmacotherapy of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a clinical perspective

A significant number of patients with schizophrenia do not respond adequately to an initial antipsychotic trial. As first step within a treatment algorithm for therapy-refractory schizophrenia 'pseudoresistance' should be ruled out (eg, re-evaluation of the diagnosis, comorbidities, compliance and adherence in terms of medication intake, adequate dose and treatment duration, and achievement of sufficient plasma levels). In case of treatment resistance, two strategies that are often used in clinical routine care contain dose increase of the current administered antipsychotic drug (dose escalation, high-dose treatment) and switch to another, new antipsychotic. Although the response rates for both options are generally rather low, we see from the evidence-based perspective a slight advantage of the switching strategy (preferably to an antipsychotic with a different receptor-binding profile) compared to a high-dose treatment. After treatment failures with at least two different antipsychotic drugs, a monotherapy with clozapine is considered to be the treatment option of first choice. At present, pharmacological combination and augmentation strategies cannot be regarded as a generally recommendable evidence-based treatment method. Antipsychotic monotherapy should be preferably sought. In case of combination treatment, it appears more appropriate to combine preferentially two antipsychotics with different receptor-binding profiles. Augmentation of antipsychotics with other agents should be used primarily to treat specific target symptoms.

An open-label study of algorithm-based treatment versus treatment-as-usual for patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The use of an algorithm may facilitate measurement-based treatment and result in more rational therapy. We conducted a 1-year, open-label study to compare various outcomes of algorithm-based treatment (ALGO) for schizophrenia versus treatment-as-usual (TAU), for which evidence has been very scarce.

METHODS

In ALGO, patients with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition) were treated with an algorithm consisting of a series of antipsychotic monotherapies that was guided by the total scores in the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS). When posttreatment PANSS total scores were above 70% of those at baseline in the first and second stages, or above 80% in the 3rd stage, patients proceeded to the next treatment stage with different antipsychotics. In contrast, TAU represented the best clinical judgment by treating psychiatrists.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (21 females, 39.0 ± 10.9 years-old) participated in this study. The baseline PANSS total score indicated the presence of severe psychopathology and was significantly higher in the ALGO group (n = 25; 106.9 ± 20.0) than in the TAU group (n = 17; 92.2 ± 18.3) (P = 0.021). As a result of treatment, there were no significant differences in the PANSS reduction rates, premature attrition rates, as well as in a variety of other clinical measures between the groups. Despite an effort to make each group unique in pharmacologic treatment, it was found that pharmacotherapy in the TAU group eventually became similar in quality to that of the ALGO group.

CONCLUSION

While the results need to be carefully interpreted in light of a hard-to-distinguish treatment manner between the two groups and more studies are necessary, algorithm-based antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia compared well to treatment-as-usual in this study.

The psychopharmacology algorithm project at the Harvard South Shore Program: an update on schizophrenia

This article is an update of the algorithm for schizophrenia from the Psychopharmacology Algorithm Project at the Harvard South Shore Program. A literature review was conducted focusing on new data since the last published version (1999-2001). The first-line treatment recommendation for new-onset schizophrenia is with amisulpride, aripiprazole, risperidone, or ziprasidone for four to six weeks. In some settings the trial could be shorter, considering that evidence of clear improvement with antipsychotics usually occurs within the first two weeks. If the trial of the first antipsychotic cannot be completed due to intolerance, try another until one of the four is tolerated and given an adequate trial. There should be evidence of bioavailability. If the response to this adequate trial is unsatisfactory, try a second monotherapy. If the response to this second adequate trial is also unsatisfactory, and if at least one of the first two trials was with risperidone, olanzapine, or a first-generation (typical) antipsychotic, then clozapine is recommended for the third trial. If neither trial was with any these three options, a third trial prior to clozapine should occur, using one of those three. If the response to monotherapy with clozapine (with dose adjusted by using plasma levels) is unsatisfactory, consider adding risperidone, lamotrigine, or ECT. Beyond that point, there is little solid evidence to support further psychopharmacological treatment choices, though we do review possible options.

Efficacy and safety of combination of risperidone and haloperidol with divalproate in patients with acute mania

OBJECTIVE

The current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of risperidone and haloperidol as an adjunctive agent in combination with divalproate in patients with an episode of acute mania.

METHODS

This 6-week randomized, single-blind study was conducted in psychiatric wards of a mental hospital. A total of 41 patients were randomly assigned to the risperidone (risperidone plus divalproate) or haloperidol groups (haloperidol plus divalproate). Efficacy was assessed by changes in symptom rating scales [Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores]. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS) and Hamilton Rating Scale for depression.

RESULTS

Mean doses at baseline, and at weeks 4 and 6 were 3.77, 4.95 and 5.00 mg/day of risperidone and 5.89, 9.95 and 8.58 mg/day of haloperidol, respectively. Risperidone was shown to have significant anti-manic effects which was observed as early as week 1, following start of treatment. The BPRS scores were in favor of risperidone at week 2. Patients receiving risperidone exhibited significant greater global improvement on the CGI, as early as week 2 and over the entire treatment period, than haloperidol after 4 weeks of treatment. The ESRS at endpoint were significantly higher in the haloperidol patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Risperidone plus divalproate was more efficacious than haloperidol plus divalproate for treatment of acute mania, and was well tolerated due to its evidence showing rapid anti-manic action, effective and sustained control of manic and psychotic symptoms and a favorable safety and tolerability profile in acute mania.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, part 1: update 2012 on the acute treatment of schizophrenia and the management of treatment resistance

These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia published in 2005. For this 2012 revision, all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed systematically to allow for an evidence-based update. These guidelines provide evidence-based practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful and these guidelines are intended to be used by all physicians diagnosing and treating people suffering from schizophrenia. Based on the first version of these guidelines, a systematic review of the MEDLINE/PUBMED database and the Cochrane Library, in addition to data extraction from national treatment guidelines, has been performed for this update. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F; Bandelow et al. 2008b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242). This first part of the updated guidelines covers the general descriptions of antipsychotics and their side effects, the biological treatment of acute schizophrenia and the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Improved outcomes following a switch to olanzapine treatment from risperidone treatment in a 1-year naturalistic study of schizophrenia patients in Japan

AIMS

This study assessed clinical and functional outcomes following a switch from risperidone to olanzapine in a 1-year naturalistic study of schizophrenia patients in Japan.

METHODS

We used data from a large 1-year prospective, multicenter, observational non-interventional study of individuals who were initiated on olanzapine for the treatment of schizophrenia in Japan. Current analyses focused on patients who were switched at study entry from risperidone to olanzapine (n = 258). Repeated measures analysis was employed to assess outcomes on validated measures.

RESULTS

At study entry, 45% were inpatients and 55% outpatients. Participants were in their early 40s with mean illness duration of 14 years. Approximately half were male. Most were switched from risperidone to olanzapine due to poor medication efficacy (67.8%) rather than medication intolerability (29.1%). Most patients (67.8%) completed the 1-year study. Patients experienced clinically and statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvements in global symptom severity, positive, negative, depressive, and cognitive symptoms, health-related quality of life, and paid work rates. Most patients (59.2%) demonstrated treatment response to olanzapine and 43.4% experienced symptom remission. Mean weight gain was 2.19 kg, with one-third of patients (33.3%) experiencing clinically significant weight gain (≥7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this 1-year naturalistic study, inpatients and outpatients who were switched from risperidone to olanzapine experienced clinically and statistically significant improvements in their clinical and functional outcomes. One-third of all patients experienced clinically significant weight gain. Current findings highlight the favorable benefit-to-risk profile of switching to olanzapine therapy following treatment failure on risperidone among patients with schizophrenia in Japan.

Time course of improvement with antipsychotic medication in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Improvements are greatest in the earlier weeks of antipsychotic treatment of patients with non-resistant schizophrenia.

AIMS

To address the early time-line for improvement with antipsychotics in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

METHOD

Randomised double-blind trials of antipsychotic medication in adult patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia were investigated (last search June 2010). A series of metaregression analyses were carried out to examine the effect of time on the average item scores in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) at three or more distinct time points within the first 6 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Study duration varied from 4 weeks to 1 year and the definitions of treatment resistance as well as of treatment response were not necessarily consistent across 19 identified studies, resulting in highly variable rates of response (0–76%).The mean standardised baseline item score in the PANSS or BPRS was 3.4 (s.e. = 0.06) in the five studies included in the meta-regression analysis, with the average baseline Clinical Global Impression – Severity score being 5.2 (marked illness). For the pooled population treated with a range of antipsychotics (n = 1019), significant reductions in the mean item scores occurred during the first 4 weeks; improvements observed in later weeks were smaller and non-significant. In contrast, weekly improvement with clozapine was significant throughout (n = 356).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide preliminary evidence that the majority of improvement with antipsychotics may occur relatively early.More consistent improvements with clozapine may be associated with a gradual titration. To further elucidate response patterns, future studies are needed to provide data over regular intervals during earlier stages of treatment.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

These guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from the participants and interested parties, and cover the pharmacological management and treatment of schizophrenia across the various stages of the illness, including first-episode, relapse prevention, and illness that has proved refractory to standard treatment. The practice recommendations presented are based on the available evidence to date, and seek to clarify which interventions are of proven benefit. It is hoped that the recommendations will help to inform clinical decision making for practitioners, and perhaps also serve as a source of information for patients and carers. They are accompanied by a more detailed qualitative review of the available evidence. The strength of supporting evidence for each recommendation is rated.

Evidence-based pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

We describe the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and have arranged the manuscript as a simple algorithm which starts from the choice of an antipsychotic drug for an acutely ill patient and concludes with the most important questions about maintenance treatment. In acutely ill patients the choice of drug is mainly based on pragmatic criteria. Among many strategies used for agitated patients, haloperidol plus promethazine is the best examined one. In case of persistent depression or negative symptoms treatment includes antidepressants, and some second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) have been found somewhat superior to first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs) in these domains. If an antipsychotic is suspected to be ineffective, several factors need to be checked before action is taken. Few trials have addressed strategies such as switching the drug or increasing the dose in case of non-response. Clozapine remains the gold-standard for treatment-refractory patients, while none of the numerous augmentation strategies that have been examined by randomized controlled trials can be generally recommended. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs effectively reduces relapse rates. Small, not definitive, studies have shown that withdrawing antipsychotics from patients who have been stable for up to 6 yr leads to more relapses than continuing medication. In effect, continuous treatment is more effective than intermittent strategies. The identification of optimum doses for relapse prevention with FGAs has proven difficult, and there is little randomized data on SGAs. Although the randomized evidence on a superiority of depot compared to oral treatment is not ideal, this approach suggests obvious advantages in assuring compliance.

Patient adherence and efficacy of quetiapine treatment in schizophrenia: results of a multicentre, naturalistic 6-month follow-up study

The aim of the study was to evaluate the adherence and efficacy of quetiapine treatment in a 6-month, multicentre, noninterventional naturalistic design. Overall, 710 schizophrenia patients using quetiapine or who had switched to quetiapine were included. The continuation rate for quetiapine treatment during 6-month follow-up period was 69%. Adherence improved with each subsequent visit for continued patients, 92.9% at the second visit to 96.1% at the last. Treatment adherence was correlated to improvement of symptoms, though not significantly. Patients having lower clinical global impression severity scores at the beginning were twice as likely to improve compared with patients with higher clinical global impression scores. Schizophrenia patients with antisocial behaviour problems had two and a half times higher drop-out rates. In conclusion, this naturalistic study showed that adherence to quetiapine treatment was high, and treatment was effective in schizophrenia patients during long-term treatment. Remission of symptoms in schizophrenia is much related to severity of symptoms at baseline, treatment adherence and characteristics of patients such as antisocial behavioural patterns.

Pediatric uptake of a newly available antipsychotic medication

OBJECTIVE

The uptake of new antipsychotic medications among children has not been studied adequately. Although ziprasidone received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of psychotic disorders among children in June 2009, it first became available for off-label use by children in 2001 and presented an excellent case study for off-label market entry. The objective of this study was to determine the pattern of initiation and switching for off-label use of ziprasidone among Michigan children who were insured by Medicaid in the first year that ziprasidone was available.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study by using Michigan Medicaid data for patients who were aged <21 years and had 2 years of continuous enrollment and at least 1 prescription for ziprasidone in the first year the medication was available. The main outcome measures were proportion of children prescribed ziprasidone as their first antipsychotic, with evidence of treatment resistance, and by a psychiatrist.

RESULTS

In the first year, 292 individuals who met criteria were prescribed ziprasidone. Approximately 53% had a diagnosis of psychosis. Explosive personality disorder and oppositional defiant disorder were the next most common diagnoses. For 33% of individuals, this was the first antipsychotic medication. Only 12% of individuals showed evidence of treatment resistance to other antipsychotic medications before switching to ziprasidone.

CONCLUSIONS

During the period when ziprasidone had no approved pediatric usages, a small percentage of patients who were prescribed ziprasidone showed evidence of treatment resistance, the primary expected indication. Some prescribing for ziprasidone in the first year in this population could be considered inappropriate considering what was known about the safety and efficacy of ziprasidone in children and adolescents at the time. "Fail first" and prior authorization policies may be appropriate in the first year a medication is available so as to protect children from potential serious harm.

Augmentation of atypical antipsychotics with valproic acid. An open-label study for most difficult patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Most difficult inpatients with schizophrenia are in serious needs but obviously underrepresented in clinical trials.

METHODS

Very challenging patients received open-label treatment with atypical antipsychotics concurrently augmented with valproic acid. The primary outcome was the newly developed Functional Assessment for Comprehensive Treatment of Schizophrenia (FACT-Sz). Patients improving more than 20 points were classified as responders.

RESULTS

Mean age and illness duration of 28 participants (22 male) were 42 y.o. and 20 years, respectively. They had spent a half of their life admitted after the onset. The average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) were very severe at 79 and 6.1, respectively, with the baseline Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of as low as 21. As a result of augmentation, there were nine responders, 12 partial responders, and seven non-responders including only two patients who got worse. The main antipsychotics were mostly either risperidone or olanzapine. Mean maximum oral dose and blood level of valproic acid were 1907 mg and 91.7 microg/ml, respectively. Overall significant improvements whilst to an inadequate degree were noted in clinical parameters. Valproate augmentation was generally well tolerated but serious adverse effects included thrombocytopenia, anaemia and sedation/falls.

CONCLUSIONS

While these preliminary results need to be tested against tenacious monotherapy or polypharmacy involving clozapine, augmenting atypical antipsychotics with valproic acid can be useful for very severe schizophrenia.

Cost-effectiveness model comparing olanzapine and other oral atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a persistent and costly illness that requires continued treatment with antipsychotics. Differences among antipsychotics on efficacy, safety, tolerability, adherence, and cost have cost-effectiveness implications for treating schizophrenia. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone (at generic cost, primary comparator), quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of third-party payers in the U.S. health care system.

METHODS

A 1-year microsimulation economic decision model, with quarterly cycles, was developed to simulate the dynamic nature of usual care of schizophrenia patients who switch, continue, discontinue, and restart their medications. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct medical care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions. Key model outcomes included mean annual total direct cost per treatment, cost per stable patient, and incremental cost-effectiveness values per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The results of the microsimulation model indicated that olanzapine had the lowest mean annual direct health care cost ($8,544) followed by generic risperidone ($9,080). In addition, olanzapine resulted in more QALYs than risperidone (0.733 vs. 0.719). The base case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine to be the dominant choice in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of olanzapine is predicted in this model to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total direct health care costs compared to generic risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole. Olanzapine may, therefore, be a cost-effective therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.

Effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy for patients with treatment refractory schizophrenia: an open-label trial of olanzapine plus risperidone for those who failed to respond to a sequential treatment with olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy in a methodologically sound manner.

METHODS

In this open-label study, 17 patients with treatment-refractory schizophrenia, who failed to respond to a sequential monotherapy with olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone, were subsequently treated with a combination therapy with olanzapine plus risperidone for at least 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Seven responded according to the primary endpoint defined as the post-treatment Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale being less than 70% of the pretreatment values, and they were classified as such an average of 10 weeks after the initiation of polypharmacy. Two of them were successful in a later conversion to monotherapy. None dropped out prematurely. Four (out of 13 inpatients) got better enough to be discharged from the hospital, while six patients did not show any response. The Global Assessment of Functioning score improved from 37.1 to 53.0 in responders (mean maximum dose: olanzapine 12.9 mg; risperidone 3.14 mg), while it showed non-significant changes among others (mean maximum dose: olanzapine 14.5 mg; risperidone 5.50 mg). Body weight, prolactin, and total cholesterol increased significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic polypharmacy might be sometimes helpful for difficult populations but at the cost of adverse effects. More studies of antipsychotic combination therapy versus clozapine, augmentation strategies or tenacious longer- term monotherapy are warranted for refractory schizophrenia.

Switching from risperidone to olanzapine in a one-year, randomized, open-label effectiveness study of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Switching medications is common in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study examines the effectiveness of olanzapine therapy following a clinically warranted switch from risperidone during treatment of patients with schizophrenia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This post-hoc analysis used data from the risperidone arm of a randomized, open-label, 1-year study of patients with schizophrenia. Study protocol permitted antipsychotic switching when clinically warranted, and outcomes were assessed with standard psychiatric measures. Statistical analyses assessed changes from pre- to post-medication switch and endpoint comparisons between patients switched from risperidone to olanzapine and patients continued on risperidone.

RESULTS

Most patients who switched from risperidone switched to olanzapine (43/60; 71.7%). Average duration of risperidone treatment prior to switching was 86 days (mean modal dose 4.0 mg/day). Most switchers (86%) completed the 1-year study on olanzapine (average duration 241 days; mean modal dose 12.0 mg/day). Following switch to olanzapine, patients experienced significant improvements on clinical (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) and social (Quality of Life Inventory) parameters, with similar proportions of patients achieving remission status at endpoint compared with risperidone patients not requiring medication switch (41.9 vs. 35.5%). Mean weight gain for switchers was approximately 0.4 kg while on risperidone (average treatment duration < 3 months) and 2.4 kg on olanzapine (average treatment duration approximately 8 months).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that olanzapine is an effective treatment option for schizophrenia patients requiring a switch from risperidone. Given the small sample size and lack of a comparative group, one cannot determine if other medication options would have been as effective as the switch to olanzapine. Thus, further research is warranted.