Quetiapine has equivalent efficacy and superior tolerability to risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia with predominantly negative symptoms

Drug-induced parkinsonism: diagnosis and treatment

INTRODUCTION

Drug-induced parkinsonism (DIP) is one of the most common iatrogenic movement disorders. It is characterized by tremors, slowness of movement, and shuffling gait with postural instability, clinically indistinguishable from idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Prior exposure to antipsychotic medications or other dopamine receptor blocking agents (DRBAs) is required for the diagnosis.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, ancillary testing, and treatment of DIP. A literature search was undertaken in PubMed from January 2013 to January 2024.

EXPERT OPINION

A clinician's suspicion of DIP must always be present when a patient develops acute to subacute onset of parkinsonism while taking a DRBA. As DIP can be indistinguishable from idiopathic PD, ancillary testing, such as DaTscans and skin biopsy searching for alpha-synuclein deposits, are often required to make a definitive diagnosis. When DIP develops, steps should be made to discontinue the offending agent or, in the case of antipsychotics, dose reduction or change to an agent with lower risk for DIP, such as quetiapine or clozapine. Prophylactic treatment with anticholinergics is not indicated.

The Impact of Antipsychotic Treatment on Neurological Soft Signs in Patients with Predominantly Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a complex and incompletely elucidated pathology that affects sensorimotor function and also produces numerous therapeutic challenges. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to identify the profile of neurological soft signs (NSS) in patients with predominantly negative symptoms of schizophrenia (PNS) compared with patients with schizophrenia who do not present a predominance of negative symptoms (NPNS) and also to objectify the impact of treatment on the neurological function of these patients. Ninety-nine (n = 99; 56 females and 43 males) patients diagnosed with schizophrenia according to DSM-V were included; these patients were undergoing antipsychotic (4 typical antipsychotics, 86 atypical antipsychotics, and 9 combinations of two atypical antipsychotics) or anticholinergic treatment (24 out of 99) at the time of evaluation, and the PANSS was used to identify the patients with predominantly negative symptoms (n = 39), the Neurological Evaluation Scale (NES) was used for the evaluation of neurological soft signs (NSS), and the SAS was used for the objectification of the extrapyramidal side effects induced by the neuroleptic treatment, which was converted to chlorpromazine equivalents (CPZE). The study's main finding was that, although the daily dose of CPZE did not represent a statistically significant variable, in terms of neurological soft signs, patients with PNS had higher rates of NSS.

Updated perspectives on the clinical significance of negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Negative symptoms in schizophrenia are associated with poor response to available treatments, poor quality of life, and functional outcome. Therefore, they represent a substantial burden for people with schizophrenia, their families, and health-care systems.

AREAS COVERED

In this manuscript, we will provide an update on the conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of this complex psychopathological dimension of schizophrenia.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the progress in the conceptualization of negative symptoms and in the development of state-of-the-art assessment instruments made in the last decades, these symptoms are still poorly recognized, and not always assessed in line with current conceptualization. Every effort should be made to disseminate the current knowledge on negative symptoms, on their assessment instruments and available treatments whose efficacy is supported by research evidence. Longitudinal studies should be promoted to evaluate the natural course of negative symptoms, improve our ability to identify the different sources of secondary negative symptoms, provide effective interventions, and target primary and persistent negative symptoms with innovative treatment strategies. Further research is needed to identify pathophysiological mechanisms of primary negative symptoms and foster the development of new treatments.

Primary and Secondary Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia

The negative symptoms of schizophrenia include volitional (motivational) impairment manifesting as avolition, anhedonia, social withdrawal, and emotional disorders such as alogia and affective flattening. Negative symptoms worsen patients' quality of life and functioning. From the diagnostic point of view, it is important to differentiate between primary negative symptoms, which are regarded as an integral dimension of schizophrenia, and secondary negative symptoms occurring as a result of positive symptoms, comorbid depression, side effects of antipsychotics, substance abuse, or social isolation. If secondary negative symptoms overlap with primary negative symptoms, it can create a false clinical impression of worsening deficit symptoms and disease progression, which leads to the choice of incorrect therapeutic strategy with excessive dopamine blocker loading. Different longitudinal trajectories of primary and secondary negative symptoms in different schizophrenia stages are proposed as an important additional discriminating factor. This review and position paper focuses primarily on clinical aspects of negative symptoms in schizophrenia, their definition, phenomenology, factor structure, and classification. It covers the historical and modern concepts of the paradigm of positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia, as well as a detailed comparison of the assessment tools and psychometric tests used for the evaluation of negative symptoms.

EPA guidance on assessment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia

Background

During the last decades, a renewed interest for negative symptoms (NS) was brought about by the increased awareness that they interfere severely with real-life functioning, particularly when they are primary and persistent.

Methods

In this guidance paper, we provide a systematic review of the evidence and elaborate several recommendations for the conceptualization and assessment of NS in clinical trials and practice.

Results

Expert consensus and systematic reviews have provided guidance for the optimal assessment of primary and persistent negative symptoms; second-generation rating scales, which provide a better assessment of the experiential domains, are available; however, NS are still poorly assessed both in research and clinical settings.

This European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance recommends the use of persistent negative symptoms (PNS) construct in the context of clinical trials and highlights the need for further efforts to make the definition of PNS consistent across studies in order to exclude as much as possible secondary negative symptoms. We also encourage clinicians to use second-generation scales, at least to complement first-generation ones.

The EPA guidance further recommends the evidence-based exclusion of several items included in first-generation scales from any NS summary or factor score to improve NS measurement in research and clinical settings. Self-rated instruments are suggested to further complement observer-rated scales in NS assessment.

Several recommendations are provided for the identification of secondary negative symptoms in clinical settings.

Conclusions

The dissemination of this guidance paper may promote the development of national guidelines on negative symptom assessment and ultimately improve the care of people with schizophrenia.

Polygenic analysis suggests the involvement of calcium signaling in executive function in schizophrenia patients

Cognitive deficits are increasingly recognized as a core dimension rather than a consequence of schizophrenia (SCZ). The previous evidence supports the hypothesis of shared genetic factors between SCZ and cognitive ability. The objective of this study was to test whether and to what extent the variation of disease-relevant neurocognitive function in a sample of SCZ patients from the previous clinical interventional studies can be explained by SCZ polygenic risk scores (PRSs) or by hypothesis-driven and biomedical PRSs. The previous studies have described associations of the SNAP25 gene with cognition in SCZ. Likewise, the enrichment of several calcium signaling-related gene sets has been reported by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in SCZ. Hypothesis-driven PRSs were calculated on the basis of the SNAP-25 interactome and also for genes regulated by phorbol myristate acetate (PMA), an activator of the signal transduction of protein kinase C (PKC) enzymes. In a cohort of 127 SCZ patients who had completed a comprehensive neurocognitive test battery as part of the previous antipsychotic intervention studies, we investigated the association between neurocognitive dimensions and PRSs. The PRS for SCZ and SNAP-25-associated genes could not explain the variance of neurocognition in this cohort. At a p value threshold of 0.05, the PRS for PMA was able to explain 2% of the variance in executive function (p = 0.05, uncorrected). The correlation between the PRS for PMA-regulated genes and cognition can give hints for further patient-derived cellular assays. In conclusion, incorporating biological information into PRSs and other en masse genetic analyses may help to close the gap between genetic vulnerability and the biological processes underlying neuropsychiatric diseases such as SCZ.

Early-Onset Schizophrenia With Predominantly Negative Symptoms: A Case Study of a Drug-Naive Female Patient Treated With Cariprazine

Schizophrenia is a chronic and severe mental disorder characterized by positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms. Negative symptoms are usually present from the prodromal phase; early diagnosis and management of negative symptoms is a major health concern since an insidious onset dominated by negative symptoms is associated with a worse outcome. Antipsychotic medications, which are effective for treating positive symptoms, are generally ineffective for treating negative or cognitive symptoms. We present a 23-year-old woman showing severe symptoms at her first visit to our department. The patient's parents reported that their daughter had experienced several years of psychosocial decline and putative psychiatric symptoms, but no medical attention had been previously sought; as such, the diagnosis of schizophrenia with predominantly negative symptoms was very much delayed. Early onset of schizophrenia, longer duration of untreated psychosis, and severe negative symptoms, which have limited treatment options, suggested a poor prognosis. We initiated monotherapy with cariprazine, a novel antipsychotic that has recently been proven efficacious in treating schizophrenia with predominantly negative symptoms. This report describes a 52-week cariprazine treatment regimen and follows the patient's impressive clinical improvement confirmed by PANSS and CGI scores, and psychological tests.

Quetiapine Poisoning and Factors Influencing Severity

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Quetiapine is a relatively new atypical antipsychotic with fewer adverse effects. It is increasingly prescribed to patients. The purpose of this study was to describe the cases of poisoning observed at the western France Poison Control Centre and identify potential risk factors that increase the severity of the cases.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of self-poisoning with quetiapine as reported by the western France Poison Control Centre between 2007 and 2017.

RESULTS

There were 372 cases of quetiapine poisoning. Circumstances are known in 367 of 372 cases. There were 75 cases of null severity (grade 0), 133 cases of mild severity (grade 1), 85 cases of moderate severity (grade 2), and 79 cases of high severity (grade 3). Five deaths were listed in this series. The most commonly observed symptoms were neurological and cardiovascular in nature (drowsiness, coma, tachycardia, hypotension). Of these cases, 79.8% included voluntary ingestions. Among 302 cases with coagents, the most common coagents were benzodiazepines (56%), other psychotropic drugs (41%), and antidepressants (37%). An evaluated ingested dose 1500 mg or greater and 2 or more coagents increase the risk of severe poisoning. In particular, concomitant ingestion of benzodiazepines and antidepressants with quetiapine was associated with high severity (odds ratio, 2.478 [confidence interval, 1.3-4.723]; odds ratio, 1.820 [confidence interval, 1.010-3.316]).

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine may lead to severe poisoning for which there is currently no specific treatment. Patients and practitioners should be aware of this when quetiapine is prescribed, particularly when used in combination with other medications, and in order to deal with cases of poisoning.

Pharmacological treatment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia: update and proposal of a clinical algorithm

The clinical presentation of schizophrenia encompasses symptoms divided into three dimensions: positive, negative, and cognitive. Negative symptoms (NS), in particular, have a major impact on the quality of life of the affected subject, and, differing from positive symptoms, are often associated with a limited response to pharmacotherapy. To date, studies specifically investigating NS in schizophrenia are scant; therefore, proper selection of therapy for NS remains a major unmet medical need. Given the heterogeneity of the clinical presentation of schizophrenia, the treatment of NS, as well as therapy for other associated symptoms, should be largely individualized according to a patient's specific characteristics. In this paper, we review current knowledge on NS and construct a clinical algorithm for the treatment of schizophrenic conditions with pronounced NS. Overall, data from the literature suggest that second-generation antipsychotics, such as cariprazine and amisulpride, should be preferred over first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), as they are associated with better functional outcomes and lower cognitive impairment. The combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants may also improve NS while addressing some affective disorders associated with schizophrenia; however, no clear information is available on the effects of this combination on primary NS or on the mechanism of action of the combination. In the proposed clinical algorithm, we suggest that cariprazine should be used as first-line treatment for patients with predominant NS, and that amisulpride should be considered as an alternative in cases of cariprazine failure. Further treatment lines may include the use of olanzapine and quetiapine, and add-on therapy with antidepressants.

Antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia and predominant or prominent negative symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Negative symptoms are the core of schizophrenia, but whether antipsychotics are efficacious for their treatment is unclear. Moreover, there is debate whether patients in relevant trials should have predominant negative symptoms or whether prominent negative symptoms are also acceptable.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomised, blinded antipsychotic drug trials in patients with schizophrenia and either predominant or prominent negative symptoms (last search Dec 12, 2017). Separate pairwise meta-analyses were conducted in these two populations. The primary outcome was negative symptoms. Depressive, symptoms, positive symptoms, and extrapyramidal side-effects were analysed as causes of secondary negative symptoms.

FINDINGS

We included 21 randomized-controlled trials with 3451 participants which revealed the following significant differences in the primary outcome: in patients with predominant negative symptoms amisulpride was superior to placebo (N = 4; n = 590, SMD 0.47, CI 0.23, 0.71), olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in a small trial (n = 35) and cariprazine outperformed risperidone (N = 1, n = 456, SMD - 0.29, CI - 0.48, - 0.11). In patients with prominent negative symptoms, olanzapine and quetiapine were superior to risperidone in single trials. Overall, studies in prominent negative symptoms were potentially more confounded by improvements of secondary negative symptoms.

INTERPRETATION

Amisulpride is the only antipsychotic that outperformed placebo in the treatment of predominant negative symptoms, but there was a parallel reduction of depression. Cariprazine was better than risperidone in a large trial that was well-controlled for secondary negative symptoms, but the trial was sponsored by its manufacturer. Future trials should apply scientifically developed definitions such as the deficit syndrome and the persistent negative symptoms concept.

Use of Transcranial Direct Stimulation in the Treatment of Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a debilitating disease that affects approximately 1% of the population. Negative symptoms are among the major determinants of the functional impairment and a significant proportion of patients with negative symptoms will continue to experience these symptoms despite antipsychotic medications. There are promising results in the application of brain stimulation, particularly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), for the reduction of negative symptoms of schizophrenia. However, findings are still controversial. This is a selective review of the literature published between 2011 and 2017 on use of tDCS in treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia. We included only randomized controlled trials where schizophrenia and negative symptoms were assessed using any psychometrically validated scale (eg, Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale or Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms). Studies of participants with neurological conditions were excluded, as were those that did not report any symptom outcome variables. Only 5 studies are included. Three studies showed a decrease of negative symptoms. The other studies did not show any therapeutic effects of tDCS in the severity of positive and negative symptoms compared to controls. Our findings suggest that negative symptoms in schizophrenia can be treated with tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, but results are affected by several factors, such as the electrode montage, the concomitant medication, the homogeneity of the sample, the intensity of the tDCS treatment. Further randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled studies in large samples are still needed to establish the effectiveness of the tDCS in the treatment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia, but there is the potential for tDCS to become a useful complementary treatment option in this population.

Primary and persistent negative symptoms: Concepts, assessments and neurobiological bases

Primary and persistent negative symptoms (PPNS) represent an unmet need in the care of people with schizophrenia. They have an unfavourable impact on real-life functioning and do not respond to available treatments. Underlying etiopathogenetic mechanisms of PPNS are still unknown. The presence of primary and enduring negative symptoms characterizes deficit schizophrenia (DS), proposed as a separate disease entity with respect to non-deficit schizophrenia (NDS). More recently, to reduce the heterogeneity of negative symptoms by using criteria easily applicable in the context of clinical trials, the concept of persistent negative symptoms (PNS) was developed. Both PNS and DS constructs include enduring negative symptoms (at least 6months for PNS and 12months for DS) that do not respond to available treatments. PNS exclude secondary negative symptoms based on a cross-sectional evaluation of severity thresholds on commonly used rating scales for positive symptoms, depression and extrapyramidal side effects; the DS diagnosis, instead, excludes all potential sources of secondary negative symptoms based on a clinical longitudinal assessment. In this paper we review the evolution of concepts and assessment modalities relevant to PPNS, data on prevalence of DS and PNS, as well as studies on clinical, neuropsychological, brain imaging electrophysiological and psychosocial functioning aspects of DS and PNS.

Categorizing and assessing negative symptoms

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a review on studies published in the last year relevant to the categorization and assessment of negative symptoms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research supported the validity of the 'deficit/non-deficit schizophrenia' categorization. Few studies confirmed the validity of the category 'persistent negative symptoms', whereas no recent study explored the validity of the category 'predominant negative symptoms'. The two-factor structure of the negative dimension is supported by studies reporting different correlates for the two subdomains: diminished expression and avolition/apathy. The need to further split avolition/apathy in two distinct components, that is anhedonia and amotivation, is confirmed in recent papers. Additional approaches to the assessment of negative symptoms have been proposed, including the self-assessment of negative symptoms, and the evaluation of negative symptoms in daily life and their assessment by means of computerized analyses.

SUMMARY

Negative symptoms represent an unmet need in the care of schizophrenia, as they are associated to poor response to available treatments and to poor functional outcome. Their accurate categorization and assessment represent a major challenge for research on neurobiological substrates and new treatment strategies.

Use of Aripiprazole Long Acting Injection in Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia

Background. Evidence for the efficacious use of second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia is scant. Case Presentation. We report the case of a 34-year-old female of Afro-Caribbean origin, who presented with prominent negative symptoms of schizophrenia and was successfully treated with aripiprazole long acting injection. Within a period of six to nine months, the patient returned to her premorbid level of functioning. Conclusion. Aripiprazole long acting injection promises benefits in the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Further research needs to be conducted on the use of this drug.

Placebo response in antipsychotic clinical trials: a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Because increasing placebo response rates decrease drug-placebo differences and increase the number of failed trials, it is imperative to determine what is causing this trend.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between antipsychotic medication and placebo response by publication year, and to identify associated study design and implementation variables.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched to identify randomized clinical trials of antipsychotic medications published from 1960 to July 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Included were randomized clinical trials lasting 4 to 24 weeks, contrasting antipsychotic medication with placebo or an active comparator, and enrolling patients 18 years of age or older with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized mean change scores were calculated for each treatment arm, plotted against publication year, and tested with Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Hierarchical linear modeling identified factors associated with the standardized mean change across medication and placebo treatment arms.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We hypothesized that the mean change in placebo-treated patients would significantly increase from 1960 to the present, that a greater change would be observed in active comparator vs placebo-controlled trials, and that more protocol visits would increase the symptom change observed.

RESULTS

In the 105 trials examined, the mean change observed in placebo arms increased significantly with year of publication (n=39, r=0.52, P=.001), while the mean change in effective dose medication arms decreased significantly (n=208, r=-0.26, P<.001). Significant interactions were found between assignment to effective dose medication and publication year (t260=-5.55, P<.001), baseline severity (t260=5.08, P<.001), and study duration (t260=-3.76, P<.001), indicating that the average drug-placebo difference significantly decreased over time, with decreasing baseline severity and with increasing study duration. Medication treatment in comparator studies was associated with significantly more improvement than medication treatment in placebo-controlled trials (t93=2.73, P=.008).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The average treatment change associated with placebo treatment in antipsychotic trials increased since 1960, while the change associated with medication treatment decreased. Changes in randomized clinical trials leading to inflation of baseline scores, enrollment of less severely ill participants, and higher expectations of patients may all be responsible.

Restrictive symptomatic inclusion criteria create barriers to clinical research in schizophrenia negative symptoms: an analysis of the CATIE dataset

BACKGROUND

Persistent negative symptoms are an important area of clinical research. However, there is limited consensus on how to define positive and negative symptom severity thresholds for inclusion in clinical trials. From the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) dataset we evaluated the performance of varying baseline negative and positive symptom thresholds on baseline symptom severity, change from baseline, and negative symptom variance attributable to positive symptom change.

METHODS

In CATIE, we first identified the group of subjects lacking an exacerbation prior to study enrollment. Six subsets with varying baseline positive and negative symptom thresholds were then identified. Baseline characteristics were summarized; negative and positive symptom change from baseline through month 3 was calculated both as crude change and change adjusted for corresponding baseline scores. Sensitivity analyses and correlations were calculated to assess the extent to which negative symptom variance was attributable to positive symptom change.

RESULTS

More restrictive baseline symptom severity thresholds yielded a considerably smaller sample size and higher negative and lower positive symptoms at baseline. Unadjusted negative symptom change was greater with more restrictive criteria; when adjusted for baseline severity the magnitude of change was comparable across subsets. The amount of variance in negative symptom change attributed to positive symptom change was also comparable across subsets.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of restrictive positive and negative symptom thresholds yields a marked decrease in eligible sample size with no clear improvement in adjusted negative symptom change or amount of variance associated with positive symptom change.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine versus haloperidol in first-episode schizophrenia: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Schizophrenia is a chronic disease of global importance. The second-generation antipsychotic quetiapine has a favorable side-effect profile, however, its clinical effectiveness has been called into question when compared with first-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol. This study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine versus haloperidol for first-episode schizophrenia in the outpatient setting.

Methods

156 adult patients with first-episode schizophrenia participated in an outpatient clinical trial and were randomized to quetiapine (200 mg/d; n = 78) or haloperidol (5 mg/d; n = 78). The study medications were titrated to a mean daily dose of 705 mg for quetiapeine and 14 mg for haloperidol. The patients were assessed at baseline, six weeks, and twelve weeks. The primary outcome measures were positive and negative scores of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Secondary measures were Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale for overall psychosocial functioning, and Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) for extra-pyramidal symptoms.

Results

At twelve weeks, the quetiapine group had a greater decrease in PANSS positive (18.9 vs. 15.3, p = 0.013) and negative scores (15.5 vs. 11.6, p = 0.012), however, haloperidol showed a greater decrease in general psychopathology score (23.8 vs. 27.7, p = 0.012). No significant difference between groups were found for total PANSS (58.3 vs. 54.8, p = 0.24) and GAF (45.7 vs. 46.2, p = 0.79).

ANOVA identified significant group interactions on PANSS positive (F = 18.72, df = 1.6,52.4, p < 0.0001), negative (F = 5.20, df = 1.1,35.7, p < 0.0001), depression/anxiety (F = 106.49, df = 1.14,37.8, p < 0.0001), and total scores (F = 7.51, df = 1.4,45.6, p = 0.001).

SAS (8.62 vs. 0.26, p < 0.0001) and adverse events of akathisia (78% vs. 0%, p = 0.000), parkinsonism (66.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001), and fatigue (84.6% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.009) were greater in haloperidol compared to quetiapine, whereas headache was more common in quetiapine treated patients (11.5% vs. 35.9%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Quetiapine has greater efficacy for positive and negative symptoms with less extra-pyramidal symptoms than haloperidol when used for first-episode schizophrenia in the outpatient setting.

Quetiapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries, second-generation ('atypical') antipsychotic drugs have become the first-line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. It is not clear how the effects of the various second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of quetiapine compared with other second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2010), inspected references of all identified studies, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral quetiapine with other oral forms of atypical antipsychotic medication in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. We calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Efficacy data tended to favour the control drugs over quetiapine (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score vs olanzapine: 11 RCTs, n = 1486, mean quetiapine endpoint score 3.67 higher, CI 1.95 to 5.39, low quality; vs risperidone: 13 RCTs, n = 2155, mean quetiapine endpoint score 1.74 higher, CI 0.19 to 3.29, moderate quality; vs paliperidone: 1 RCT, n = 319, mean quetiapine endpoint score 6.30 higher, CI 2.77 to 9.83, moderate quality), but the clinical meaning of these data is unclear. No clear mental state differences were noted when quetiapine was compared with clozapine, aripiprazole or ziprasidone. Compared with olanzapine, quetiapine produced slightly fewer movement disorders (7 RCTs, n = 1127, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.51, CI 0.32 to 0.81, moderate quality) and less weight gain (8 RCTs, n = 1667, RR 0.68, CI 0.51 to 0.92, moderate quality) and glucose elevation, but increased QTc prolongation (3 RCTs, n = 643, MD 4.81, CI 0.34 to 9.28). Compared with risperidone, quetiapine induced slightly fewer movement disorders (8 RCTs, n = 2163, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.5, CI 0.36 to 0.69, moderate quality), less prolactin increase (7 RCTs, n = 1733, MD -35.25, CI -43.59 to -26.91) and some related adverse effects but greater cholesterol increase (6 RCTs, n = 1473, MD 8.57, CI 4.85 to 12.29). On the basis of limited data, compared with paliperidone, quetiapine induced fewer parkinsonian side effects (1 RCT, n = 319, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.64, CI 0.45 to 0.91, moderate quality) and less prolactin increase (1 RCT, n = 319, MD -49.30, CI -57.80 to -40.80) and weight gain (1 RCT, n = 319, RR weight gain of 7% or more of total body weight 2.52, CI 0.5 to 12.78, moderate quality). Compared with ziprasidone, quetiapine induced slightly fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 522, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.43, CI 0.2 to 0.93, moderate quality) and less prolactin increase. On the other hand, quetiapine was more sedating and led to greater weight gain (2 RCTs, n = 754, RR 2.22, CI 1.35 to 3.63, moderate quality) and cholesterol increase when compared with ziprasidone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from trials suggests that most people who start quetiapine stop taking it within a few weeks (around 60%). Comparisons with amisulpride, sertindole and zotepine do not exist. Although efficacy data favour olanzapine and risperidone compared with quetiapine, the clinical meaning of these data remains unclear. Quetiapine may produce fewer parkinsonian effects than paliperidone, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, risperidone and olanzapine. Quetiapine appears to have a similar weight gain profile to risperidone, as well as clozapine and aripiprazole (although data are very limited for the latter two comparators). Quetiapine may produce greater weight gain than ziprasidone and less weight gain than olanzapine and paliperidone. Most data that have been reported within existing comparisons are of very limited value because of assumptions and biases within them. Much scope is available for further research into the effects of this widely used drug.

Negative symptoms in schizophrenia--the remarkable impact of inclusion definitions in clinical trials and their consequences

BACKGROUND

Negative symptoms are an important target for intervention in schizophrenia. There is lack of clarity in defining appropriate patients for negative symptom trials. While regulators, drug developers and academics have expressed positions in this regard, the implications of these definitions are not yet tested in large-scale trials and there is no consensus.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the extent to which various operational criteria for inclusion in negative symptoms in schizophrenia clinical trials can impact patient selection and examined the effectiveness of second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in patients with various degrees of negative symptoms.

METHOD

Using anonymized patient data from AstraZeneca, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Pfizer from 20 placebo-controlled trials of SGAs in schizophrenia from the NewMeds repository, we applied different criteria for negative symptoms: prominent, predominant, and EMA criteria, which require predominant and core negative symptoms to be present and examined the impact of these on inclusion and outcome.

RESULTS

Operational criteria for negative symptoms in trials vary greatly in their inclusion of patients from "typical" trial samples. Of the patients in our studies, 8.1% and 62.3% met criteria for prominent negative symptoms, 10.2% to 50.2% met criteria for predominant negative symptoms and 7.6% to 40.0% met EMA criteria at baseline. After 6weeks of active treatment, 8% and 33.1% of patients met criteria for prominent residual negative symptoms and 14.9% to 65% met criteria for prominent and 12.2% to 45.5% met EMA criteria. Patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms showed marked improvement on second generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying various operational criteria for selecting patients for negative symptoms trials provides a great variability in percentage of suitable patients calling into question the extent to which some definitions may be overly narrow.

Comparison of quetiapine and risperidone in Chinese Han patients with schizophrenia: results of a single-blind, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 750 mg/day quetiapine fumarate (Seroquel) in the treatment of Chinese Han patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

In this 6-week, multicenter, randomized, rater single-blind study, a total of 119 patients with schizophrenia were randomly assigned to quetiapine (n = 60, 750 mg/day) or risperidone (n = 59, 4 mg/day). The efficacy was assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression-Change (CGI-C) and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). Safety and tolerability assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events, laboratory tests and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

The primary analysis demonstrated no significant difference between treatment in the two groups (quetiapine vs. risperidone: 31.9 ± 17.5 vs. 33.3 ± 17.3; P = 0.668). Improvements with both treatments were comparable for total PANSS, positive and negative subscores, general psychopathology subscales, and excitement and attack symptoms. Improvements in CGI-S were similar between treatment groups (P = 0.046). A more favorable trend was detected for quetiapine than risperidone in the reduction of CDSS scores from baseline, especially at week 1 (1.1 ± 2.2 vs. 0.3 ± 2.1, P < 0.050). The rate of extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) and hyperprolactinemia-related adverse events was significantly lower in the quetiapine group than the risperidone group (13.3% vs. 43.3%, P < 0.001). Dizziness and somnolence were more common in the quetiapine group than the risperidone group.

CONCLUSION

Quetiapine fumarate (750 mg/day) has broad clinical efficacy comparable to 4 mg/day risperidone. Dizziness was common in the quetiapine group (P = 0.029), but the rate of somnolence was similar between the two groups (P = 0.114). EPS and hyperprolactinemia rates were significantly higher with risperidone (P < 0.001). Key limitations of this study include small sample size, short treatment periods, and no increase to 6 mg/day for risperidone because of its safety profile.

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.

Costs and outcomes associated with an aripiprazole add-on or switching open-label study in psychosis

Health service providers increasingly need to consider not only the efficacy and safety of a therapy, but also its cost. Our hypothesis was that in our previously reported aripiprazole add-on or switching study, the improved outcomes would be associated with reduced costs. We here report data from this study, now to 52-week follow-up, with 27 total recruits (outpatients partially refractory or intolerant of their current antipsychotic regime). Serial clinical ratings included the Quality of Life Scale and Client Service Receipt Inventory, applied at baseline (N = 24), week 26 (N = 21) and 52 (N = 18). Cost data were unavailable for the drop outs. On last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis, there was a significant increase in the Quality of Life Scale between baseline and one year (p = 0.007). There were also reductions over time in total direct and indirect costs. For study completers, the total costs at the one-year follow-up period were £ 482 less than those for the corresponding baseline period, with the Quality of Life Scale score at one year being 21.6 points (or 16.4 on LOCF analysis) higher. Therefore, in the completers, improved outcome was associated with reduced costs. Cost-effectiveness could be similarly investigated in a controlled trial.

Risperidone versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second-generation ("atypical") antipsychotics (SGAs) have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether and if so how much the effects of the various SGAs differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of risperidone differs from that of other SGAs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

1. Electronic searching We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.2. Reference searching We inspected the references of all identified studies for more trials.3. Personal contact We contacted the first author of each included study for missing information.4. Drug companies We contacted the manufacturers of all atypical antipsychotics included for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised, blinded trials comparing oral risperidone with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 45 blinded RCTs with 7760 participants. The number of RCTs available for each comparison varied: four studies compared risperidone with amisulpride, two with aripiprazole, 11 with clozapine, 23 with olanzapine, eleven with quetiapine, two with sertindole, three with ziprasidone and none with zotepine. Attrition from these studies was high (46.9%), leaving the interpretation of results problematic. Furthermore, 60% were industry sponsored, which can be a source of bias.There were few significant differences in overall acceptability of treatment as measured by leaving the studies early. Risperidone was slightly less acceptable than olanzapine, and slightly more acceptable than ziprasidone in this regard.Risperidone improved the general mental state (PANSS total score) slightly less than olanzapine (15 RCTs, n = 2390, MD 1.94 CI 0.58 to 3.31), but slightly more than quetiapine (9 RCTs, n = 1953, MD -3.09 CI -5.16 to -1.01) and ziprasidone (3 RCTs, n = 1016, MD -3.91 CI -7.55 to -0.27). The comparisons with the other SGA drugs were equivocal. Risperidone was also less efficacious than olanzapine and clozapine in terms of leaving the studies early due to inefficacy, but more efficacious than ziprasidone in the same outcome.Risperidone produced somewhat more extrapyramidal side effects than a number of other SGAs (use of antiparkinson medication versus clozapine 6 RCTs, n = 304, RR 2.57 CI 1.47 to 4.48, NNH 6 CI 33 to 3; versus olanzapine 13 RCTs, n = 2599, RR 1.28 CI 1.06 to 1.55, NNH 17 CI 9 to 100; versus quetiapine 6 RCTs, n = 1715, RR 1.98 CI 1.16 to 3.39, NNH 20 CI 10 to 100; versus ziprasidone 2 RCTs, n = 822, RR 1.42 CI 1.03 to 1.96, NNH not estimable; parkinsonism versus sertindole 1 RCT, n = 321, RR 4.11 CI 1.44 to 11.73, NNH 14 CI 100 to 8). Risperidone also increased prolactin levels clearly more than all comparators, except for amisulpride and sertindole for which no data were available.Other adverse events were less consistently reported, but risperidone may well produce more weight gain and/or associated metabolic problems than amisulpride (weight gain: 3 RCTs, n = 585, MD 0.99 CI 0.37 to 1.61), aripiprazole (cholesterol increase: 1 RCT, n = 83, MD 22.30 CI 4.91 to 39.69) and ziprasidone (cholesterol increase 2 RCTs, n = 767, MD 8.58 CI 1.11 to 16.04) but less than clozapine (weight gain 3 RCTs n = 373, MD -3.30 CI -5.65 to -0.95), olanzapine (weight gain 13 RCTs, n = 2116, MD -2.61 CI -3.74 to -1.48), quetiapine (cholesterol increase: 5 RCTs, n = 1433, MD -8.49 CI -12. 23 to -4.75) and sertindole (weight gain: 2 RCTs, n = 328, MD -0.99 CI -1.86 to -0.12). It may be less sedating than clozapine and quetiapine, lengthen the QTc interval less than sertindole (QTc change: 2 RCTs, n = 495, MD -18.60 CI -22.37 to 14.83), produce fewer seizures than clozapine (2 RCTs, n = 354, RR 0.22 CI 0.07 to 0.70, NNT 14 CI 8 to 33) and less sexual dysfunction in men than sertindole (2 RCTs, n = 437, RR 0.34 CI 0.16 to 0.76, NNT 13 CI 8 to 33).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Risperidone seems to produce somewhat more extrapyramidal side effects and clearly more prolactin increase than most other SGAs. It may also differ from other compounds in efficacy and in the occurrence of other adverse effects such as weight gain, metabolic problems, cardiac effects, sedation and seizures. Nevertheless, the large proportion of participants leaving studies early and incomplete reporting of outcomes makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Further large trials, especially comparing risperidone with those other new drugs for which only a few RCTs are available, are needed.

Functional SNPs in Genes Encoding the 5-HT2A Receptor Modify the Affinity and Potency of Several Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs

Atypical antipsychotic drugs (AADs) are the standard treatment for both the acute and long-term management of schizophrenia and an augmentation to mood stabilizers for bipolar disorder (BD). Yet many individuals who take AADs do not fully respond to them, while others experience side effects that include weight gain and metabolic disorder. This in vitro pharmacogenetic study examined whether allelic variants in the 5-hydroxytryptamine (HT)2A receptor alter the in vitro pharmacology of six AADs (clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole). We selected 4 functional single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for investigation (Thr25Asn, Ile197Val, Ala447Val, and His452Tyr), conducted site-directed mutagenesis studies to induce variants into human HEK-293 cell lines, and screened allelic variants for their effects on 5-HT 2A receptors in the cell lines. We conducted numerous binding assays and fluorescence-based assay system (FLEX station) experiments using the six AADs. Our results indicated that three polymorphic 5-HT2A receptors (Ile197Val, Ala447Val, and His452Tyr) exhibited statistically significant, though modest, changes in atypical antipsychotic affinity. In addition, three polymorphic receptors (Thr25Asn, Ile197Val, and His452Try) altered AAD potency. Our findings support in vivo evidence that functional SNPs in genes encoding neuroreceptor drug targets could explain interindividual differences in AAD drug response and tolerability. We suggest that more in vivo pharmacogenetic studies of well-characterized patients who are prescribed AADs be indicated. Future pharmacogenetic studies of well-characterized patients will likely involve tagging SNPs and the use of haplotypes related to other genes encoding neuroreceptor drug targets.

Quetiapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second generation ('atypical') antipsychotic drugs have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. It is not clear how the effects of the various second generation antipsychotic drugs differ.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of quetiapine compared with other second generation antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007), inspected references of all identified studies, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised control trials comparing oral quetiapine with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 21 randomised control trials (RCTs) with 4101 participants. These trials provided data on four comparisons - quetiapine versus clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone or ziprasidone.A major limitation to all findings is the high number of participants leaving studies prematurely (57.6%) and the substantial risk of biases in studies. Efficacy data favoured olanzapine and risperidone compared with quetiapine (PANSS total score versus olanzapine:10 RCTs, n=1449, WMD 3.66 CI 1.93 to 5.39; versus risperidone: 9 RCTs, n=1953, WMD 3.09 CI 1.01 to 5.16), but clinical meaning is unclear. There were no clear mental state differences when quetiapine was compared with clozapine or ziprasidone.Compared with olanzapine, quetiapine produced slightly fewer movement disorders (6 RCTs, n=1090, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.49 CI 0.3 to 0.79, NNH 25 CI 14 to 100) and less weight gain (7 RCTs, n=1173, WMD -2.81 CI -4.38 to -1.24) and glucose elevation, but more QTc prolongation (3 RCTs, n=643, WMD 4.81 CI 0.34 to 9.28). Compared with risperidone, quetiapine induced slightly fewer movement disorders (6 RCTs, n=1715, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.86, NNH 20 CI 10 to 100), less prolactin increase (6 RCTs, n=1731, WMD -35.28 CI -44.36 to -26.19) and some related adverse effects, but more cholesterol increase (5 RCTs, n=1433, WMD 8.61 CI 4.66 to 12.56). Compared with ziprasidone, quetiapine induced slightly fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects (1 RCT, n=522, RR use of antiparkinson medication 0.43 CI 0.2 to 0.93, NNH not estimable) and prolactin increase. On the other hand quetiapine was more sedating and led to more weight gain (2 RCTs, n=754, RR 2.22 CI 1.35 to 3.63, NNH 13 CI 8 to 33) and cholesterol increase than ziprasidone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Best available evidence from trials suggests that most people who start quetiapine stop taking it within a few weeks. Comparisons with amisulpride, aripiprazole, sertindole and zotepine do not exist. Most data that has been reported within existing comparisons are of very limited value because of assumptions and biases within them. There is much scope for further research into the effects of this widely used drug.

Paliperidone extended-release for schizophrenia: effects on symptoms and functioning in acutely ill patients with negative symptoms

BACKGROUND

Most patients with schizophrenia exhibit negative symptoms, even during acute episodes. These difficult-to-treat symptoms are often associated with poor functioning and outcomes.

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of pooled data from three 6-week double-blind studies included patients in an acute episode of schizophrenia who received paliperidone extended-release (ER) (3, 6, 9, or 12 mg) or placebo. Based on criteria developed by the authors, patients were stratified by the presence or absence of predominant negative symptoms at baseline (>or=40% of the maximum negative factor score and <40% of the maximum positive factor score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]).

RESULTS

Although these studies were not designed to examine patients with predominant negative symptoms, the criteria identified 23% of acutely ill patients (270/1193). The mean (SD) baseline PANSS negative symptoms factor score, 27.4 (3.3), was 49% of the maximum; the positive symptoms factor score, 23.7 (2.8), was 33% of the maximum. Completion rates with paliperidone ER (n=195) and placebo (n=75) were 64.6% and 44.0%, respectively. Greater improvements occurred with paliperidone ER vs placebo on PANSS (total, negative and other factors), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Personal and Social Performance scores at endpoint (all P values <0.05). Adverse events reported in >or=10% of patients were (paliperidone ER vs placebo): headache (14.4% vs 6.7%), insomnia (13.8% vs 21.3%) and sinus tachycardia (10.3% vs 1.3%). Paliperidone ER treatment was associated with a similar response profile in patients without predominant negative symptoms (paliperidone ER, n=647; placebo, n=276).

CONCLUSIONS

Schizophrenia patients with predominant negative symptoms were identified in a population of acutely ill patients. Findings of this post-hoc analysis suggest that acutely ill patients with or without predominant negative symptoms respond similarly to treatment with paliperidone ER. No unexpected tolerability findings were observed.

Management of patients presenting with acute psychotic episodes of schizophrenia

The initial management of patients with schizophrenia presenting to psychiatric emergency departments with an acute psychotic episode requires rapid decisions to be made by physicians concerning the treatment of individuals who are likely to be relatively uncooperative, agitated and lacking insight. The treatment decision must be adapted to the individual characteristics and needs of each patient. This article reviews the issues from the perspective of the initial management of acute psychosis as it is currently practised in Europe, and discusses the pragmatic implications for initial treatment decisions and the elaboration of a long-term treatment plan. Initially, administration of antipsychotics to control psychotic symptoms and benzodiazepines to control agitation represents the cornerstone of treatment. Oral medication is preferable to injectable forms wherever possible, and atypical antipsychotics are to be preferred over conventional agents because of their lower risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects, which are a major determinant of poor adherence to treatment. Whatever antipsychotic is chosen by the physician during the initial period, it is likely that it will need to be continued for many years, and it is thus important to take into account the long-term safety profile of the drug chosen, particularly in relation to extrapyramidal adverse effects, metabolic complications and quality of life. Building a therapeutic alliance with the patient and his/her family or carers is an important element that should be included in the initial management of psychosis. The long-term goal should be to minimize the risk of psychotic relapse through adequate treatment adherence.

Current considerations in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a chronic disorder that frequently co-occurs with a variety of co-morbidities in patients with somatic conditions and other mental disorders. GAD is highly prevalent and is one of the most common anxiety disorders seen by primary care physicians. The individual and societal cost associated with GAD is high and the marked level of impairment experienced by patients with this disorder is equivalent in magnitude to that reported in patients with major depressive disorder. Furthermore, patients with GAD are at risk of suicide or suicide attempts, and are frequent users of healthcare services. Thus, GAD is a serious and chronic condition that requires appropriate long-term treatment. The focus of acute treatment for patients with GAD is the improvement of symptoms, while the primary goal of long-term clinical management is remission, i.e. the complete resolution of both symptoms and functional impairment. The consensus across current treatment guidelines is that first-line treatment for patients with GAD should consist of an antidepressant, either a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) such as sertraline, paroxetine or escitalopram, or a selective serotonin noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) such as venlafaxine or duloxetine. However, the SSRIs and SNRIs have efficacy limitations, such as lack of response in many patients, a 2- to 4-week delay before the onset of symptom relief, lack of full remission, and risk of relapse. In addition, there are troublesome adverse effects associated with both the SSRIs and SNRIs. Evidence from early clinical studies of the atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of anxiety and GAD indicate that they may have a potential role in the treatment of GAD, either as monotherapy or as augmentation to standard treatment.

Long-acting risperidone improves negative symptoms in stable psychotic patients

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the efficacy of risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) for reducing negative symptoms of schizophrenia in patients with predominantly negative symptoms at baseline. A subanalysis was performed on data from the 6-month, open-label Switch to Risperidone Microspheres trial. Patients with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative subscale score > or = 21, which was higher than their PANSS positive subscale score, were included in this subanalysis. Improvement in negative symptoms was measured by assessing change in the PANSS negative subscale and a negative factor score. Additional outcome variables included measures in general functioning, quality of life and patient satisfaction. A total of 842 patients were eligible for inclusion in this subanalysis. Six months of treatment was completed by 631 (74.9%) patients. Forty-three (5.1%) patients discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. Negative symptoms were significantly reduced by 6.1 +/- 6.3 points for the PANSS negative score and 6.1 +/- 6.4 points for the negative factor score (P < 0.0001 for both). Significant improvements were also noted for total PANSS and other PANSS subscale scores, general functioning, quality of life and patient satisfaction (P < 0.0001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (>5%) were: anxiety (6.8% of patients), exacerbation of disease (6.2%) and insomnia (5.7%). Overall, RLAI was well tolerated and associated with significant reductions in movement disorder severity. The treatment resulted in a significant improvement in negative symptom severity and was well tolerated in patients with predominantly negative symptoms, who switched from a stable antipsychotic regimen

A 12-month, open-label, comparative study of quetiapine and risperidone in the acute and long-term treatment of schizophrenia

This multicentre, observational, prospective, nonrandomized study compared the effectiveness and tolerability of quetiapine and risperidone in the acute and long-term treatment of schizophrenia in a clinical setting. Patients admitted to an acute unit with schizophrenia, schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV), who were prescribed quetiapine or risperidone (3 : 1 ratio) within the first week of treatment, according to the physician's usual practice, were recruited. In total, 492 patients (quetiapine: 367; risperidone: 125) were followed up at weeks 1 and 2, discharge and 6 and 12 months thereafter. Mean doses at 12 months were: quetiapine 718.5 mg/day and risperidone 7.0 mg/day. Efficacy measures (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness and Improvement) indicated similar results for both agents. No difference was found in rehospitalization rate with either drug. In terms of tolerability, orthostatic hypotension was more frequent with quetiapine, but extrapyramidal symptoms and male sexual dysfunction were more frequent with risperidone. In conclusion, quetiapine and risperidone had comparable effectiveness, but there were differences between treatments in their side effect profile.

Interrater reliability of the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale measured in patients treated with clozapine

The Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS) was developed to provide a comprehensive measure for rating non-neurological adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to antipsychotics. Although there were already available measures that adequately rated specific non-neurological ADRs, such as sexual side effects, a need was identified for a scale that comprehensively rated the full range of non-neurological ADRs commonly seen across the spectrum of first and second generation antipsychotic drugs, including metabolic and autonomic ADRs. This article reports on work to establish the interrater reliability of an early version and a later, more comprehensive version of the ANNSERS (versions 1 and 2, v1 and v2, respectively). The measures were administered in London centres to patients treated with clozapine. Trained clinicians rated the patients simultaneously and independently. Interrater reliability on the scores was calculated using the kappa coefficient method. The results (mean kappa coefficients of 0.77 and 0.72, respectively) indicate that substantial interrater reliability was achieved for both versions. Items for which the main basis for rating was laboratory investigations rather than patient interview were largely excluded from this study, and kappas were also not calculated for items with a low frequency (less than 10%) of endorsement. Samples of patients on other antipsychotics would be required to reliably calculate kappa coefficients for these items. In conclusion, the ANNSERS represents a clinically applicable research innovation, with good interrater reliability on clinician judged items, which is now available for the comprehensive assessment of non-neurological ADRs to antipsychotics, to aid the processes of clinical audit, research and drug discovery.

Modulation of human motor cortex excitability by quetiapine

RATIONALE

Quetiapine is increasingly used for the treatment of patients with psychosis and bipolar disorder. However, the neurobiological mechanisms, which may account for the favourable risk/benefit profile of this drug, are not entirely understood.

OBJECTIVES

Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to investigate the effects of acute and repeated administration of quetiapine on cortical excitability in healthy volunteers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized cross-over design motor threshold, intracortical inhibition, intracortical facilitation and cortical silent period were studied in 15 healthy volunteers before and after a single dose of placebo and 100 mg quetiapine. Additional measurements were performed after 5 days of daily intake of 100 mg quetiapine.

RESULTS

We observed a significant prolongation of the cortical silent period after a single dose of quetiapine, whereas the placebo had no effects. After repeated administration, there was a trend towards CSP prolongation, which did not reach significance. However, plasma concentrations at this time point were relatively low, as measurements were performed 15 h after the last drug intake. Other parameters of cortical excitability remained unaffected.

CONCLUSIONS

By lengthening CSP without affecting MT, ICI and ICF, quetiapine demonstrates a unique neurophysiological profile which differs distinctively from brain excitability profiles of typical antipsychotics such as haloperidol. Provided that the CSP prolongation reflects the antipsychotic potential of quetiapine, TMS may be developed as a tool to monitor neurobiological effects of quetiapine treatment in schizophrenic patients and to explore the efficacy of other antipsychotic drugs with a similar mode of action.

Clinical implications of antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia in patients with schizophrenia spectrum or bipolar spectrum disorders: recent developments and current perspectives

Hyperprolactinemia is increasingly studied as a frequent and potentially important consequence of antipsychotic medication treatment. Some individuals presenting with hyperprolactinemia remain asymptomatic, but others may exhibit a wide range of clinical symptoms resulting from either the direct effects of prolactin on body tissues (galactorrhea, gynecomastia) or endocrine-related secondary effects (sexual and reproductive dysfunction in the short term, and possibly the risk of tumorigenesis and osteoporosis in the longer term). Short-term side effects may negatively impact medication compliance, and long-term effects have the potential for serious health consequences. Antipsychotic medications have differing propensities to cause prolactin elevation. The first-generation antipsychotics, as well as the second-generation antipsychotic risperidone and its active metabolite paliperidone, have been shown to cause marked and sustained elevations in prolactin levels, whereas others of the second-generation antipsychotics appear to have little or no effect on prolactin levels or may decrease prolactin. A comprehensive overview of antipsychotics and hyperprolactinemia is presented together with a review of emerging evidence about the short- and long-term health risks of hyperprolactinemia.

Predictive eye and hand movements are differentially affected by schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenic patients are known to have problems suppressing reflexive eye movements. This is considered to indicate a dysfunction in prefrontal cortex. As the eye and hand motor systems are tightly coupled, we investigated whether predictive hand movements and eye-hand coordination are unimpaired in schizophrenic patients.

METHODS

Saccades and hand movements of 19 patients during an acute schizophrenic episode and 19 controls were measured in a task in which the predictability of target timing was varied.

RESULTS

Schizophrenic patients generated more anticipatory and less visually triggered saccades than controls with both non-predictable and predictable target timing. Anticipatory saccades in the wrong direction were clearly directed towards previous target positions, indicating that they are indicators of erroneous prediction rather than of fixation instability. In contrast to saccades, the number of anticipatory and visually triggered hand movements was the same in patients as in controls. As a consequence, patients took longer to initiate a hand movement after a saccade than controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Schizophrenic patients show increased predictive saccadic activity, but no qualitative changes in predictive saccades. Since prediction itself was not disturbed, the patients' deficit rather lies in the suppression or gating of anticipatory saccades than in their generation. This may be explained by a selective dysfunction of the basal ganglia oculomotor loop. As predictive hand movements were unimpaired, the problems in eye-hand coordination as expressed by a longer initiation time of hand movements relative to saccades are a direct consequence of impaired predictive saccadic behaviour.

Effects of risperidone and quetiapine on cognition in patients with schizophrenia and predominantly negative symptoms

Evidence suggests that neurocognitive impairment is a key factor in the pathology of schizophrenia and is linked with the negative symptoms of the disease. In this study the effects of the atypical antipsychotics quetiapine and risperidone on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia and with predominantly negative symptoms were compared. Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with quetiapine or risperidone for 12 weeks. Cognitive function was assessed at baseline, Week 6 and Week 12. Efficacy was assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) at baseline, Week 6 and Week 12. Extrapyramidal side-effects were assessed each week using the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), adverse events were recorded as additional indicators of tolerability throughout the trial. In total, 44 patients were enrolled in the study. Data from the 34 patients who completed cognitive assessments at two or more time points out of three (baseline, Week 6 and Week 12) are analysed here. Quetiapine improved significantly global cognitive index z-scores at both Week 6 (p<0.001 vs. baseline) and Week 12 (p<0.01 vs. baseline), whereas risperidone improved significantly global cognitive index z-scores at Week 12 (p<0.05). Between-group comparisons at Week 6 showed significantly greater improvements in working memory and verbal memory with quetiapine than risperidone (p<0.05) and a significantly greater improvement in reaction quality/attention with quetiapine than risperidone at Week 12 (p<0.05). Quetiapine and risperidone produced significant improvements from baseline in PANSS total (p<0.001) and subscale scores at Week 12. Significant improvements in SANS total score were also seen in both the quetiapine (p<0.001) and risperidone (p<0.01) groups at Week 12 compared with baseline. SAS scores, measuring the incidence of extrapyramidal side-effects, were higher in patients receiving risperidone compared with those receiving quetiapine, and significant differences were seen at Weeks 3, 4, 5 and 7. Both quetiapine and risperidone improved cognition according to changes in cognitive index scores from baseline to Week 12. These results suggest that quetiapine and risperidone provide valuable treatment options for patients with schizophrenia with predominantly negative symptoms. Also, the improvements in cognition following treatment with quetiapine and risperidone may enhance long-term outcomes for these patients.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial of quetiapine for the treatment of Type A and Type B alcoholism

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotics may be useful in the treatment of alcohol dependence. Human trials suggest that atypical antipsychotics may reduce alcohol craving and consumption, especially among patients with comorbid psychopathology. Therefore, these medications may be more useful for treating more severely affected alcoholics, such as patients with Type B alcoholism. Type B alcoholics are characterized by an early age of onset of problem drinking, high severity of alcohol dependence, increased psychopathology, and treatment-resistance. Quetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic with a favorable side effect profile, and may be a promising medication for the treatment of alcohol dependence, particularly Type B alcoholism.

METHODS

Male and female alcoholics (33 Type A and 28 Type B) were included in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After detoxification, patients were randomized to receive quetiapine (n = 29), 400 mg/d at bedtime, or placebo (n = 32). The primary outcome measure was the quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption, measured by the timeline follow back.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients (77%) completed the trial, with no significant between-group differences in treatment retention. Nine quetiapine-treated patients (31%) maintained complete abstinence compared with 2 placebo-treated patients (6%) (chi(2) = 6.3, P = 0.012). There was a significant interaction between quetiapine and alcoholic subtype. As predicted, quetiapine- versus placebo-treated Type B alcoholics had significantly fewer days of drinking and fewer days of heavy drinking. Alcohol craving was also significantly reduced in quetiapine-treated compared with placebo-treated Type B alcoholics. Among Type A alcoholics, quetiapine provided no advantage over placebo in improving drinking outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine may be effective for the treatment of alcohol dependence, particularly in the more complicated Type B, early-onset alcoholics.

Quetiapine in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders

Quetiapine was developed in 1985 by scientists at AstraZeneca (formerly Zeneca) Pharmaceuticals. It received official US Food and Drug Administration approval in September 1997 and approval in Germany in 2000. Since then, quetiapine has been used in the treatment of severe mental illness in approximately 70 countries including Canada, most Western European countries, and Japan. Quetiapine is a dibenzothiazepine derivative with a relatively broad receptor binding profile. It has major affinity to cerebral serotonergic (5HT(2A)), histaminergic (H1), and dopaminergic D(1) and D(2) receptors, moderate affinity to alpha(1)- und alpha(2)-adrenergic receptors, and minor affinity to muscarinergic M1 receptors; it demonstrates a substantial selectivity for the limbic system. This receptor occupancy profile with relatively higher affinity for the 5HT(2A) receptor compared with the D(2) receptor is in part responsible for the antipsychotic characteristics and low incidence of extrapyramidal side-effects of quetiapine. The efficacy of quetiapine in reducing positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia has been proven in several clinical trials with placebo-controlled comparators. Quetiapine has also demonstrated robust efficacy for treatment of cognitive, anxious-depressive, and aggressive symptoms in schizophrenia. Long-term trials show sustained tolerability for a broad spectrum of symptoms. Quetiapine has also proven efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of moderate to severe manic episodes, and in the treatment of juveniles with oppositional-defiant or conduct disorders, and in the geriatric dementia population. Recent data indicate that quetiapine may also be effective in the treatment of bipolar depressive symptoms without increasing the risk of triggering manic episodes, and in borderline personality disorder. In comparison with other antipsychotics, quetiapine has a favorable side-effect profile. In clinical trials only small insignificant prolongations of the QT interval were observed. Weight-gain liabilities and new-onset metabolic side-effects occupy a middle-ground among newer antipsychotics. As a result of its good efficacy and tolerability profile quetiapine has become well established in the treatment of schizophrenia and manic episodes.

Effects of treatment with the atypical neuroleptic quetiapine on working memory function: a functional MRI follow-up investigation

BACKGROUND

Working memory as a part of higher-order executive functions is defined by the parallel storage and processing of information. Recent functional fMRI studies have revealed a functional, interregional disintegration of a neuronal network connecting cortical, subcortical and cerebellar regions in schizophrenic patients (SZ). Cognitive impairment in working memory is a core psychopathological correlate of schizophrenic symptoms. Atypical neuroleptics such as quetiapine have shown good efficacy in treating positive and negative symptoms. The presented study evaluated the impact of a neuroleptic steady state treatment with quetiapine on the altered working memory activation patterns in schizophrenia.

METHODS

Patients were examined by fMRI at baseline and after 12 weeks of steady state treatment with quetiapine. Matched healthy controls (HC) underwent baseline examination. In the scanner, stimuli were presented in a 2-back and 0-back condition of a working memory (wm) paradigm, whereby a degraded and a non-degraded version were used each time. Additionally, behavioural responses (reaction time to target stimuli and error ratio) were measured.

RESULTS

At baseline, healthy controls revealed increased activity in the frontal lobe, especially in regions of the prefrontal cortex. Compared to HC, SZ showed hypoactivation in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) bilaterally for the 2-back condition. In the 2-back degraded condition there was a hypoactivation in both, the right DLPFC and the VLPFC. Additionally, patients showed bilaterally decreased activation in the basalganglia in the 2-back and in the right caudatus in the 2-back degraded condition compared to healthy controls. After treatment with quetiapine, patients activations patterns were increased. The pre-post comparison of the 2-back condition revealed a significant increase of activation in the left VLPFC at a significance level of 0.001 (uncorrected). The 2-back degraded condition led to a significant activation pattern in the lingual gyrus and the right precuneus. In both wm conditions, at baseline there were no differences in reaction time but only a worse performance in SZ. After treatment, behavioural measurement of responses, including reaction time and performance, showed slight improvements in SZ, although these did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The neuronal networks underlying working memory are clearly altered in schizophrenia. After 12 weeks of treatment with quetiapine monotherapy, patients showed significant clinical improvement and revealed increased BOLD activity in the VLPFC during a working memory task, although there was no improvement of cognitive performance.

Pharmacological treatment of primary negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment of primary negative symptoms is important because their presence is associated with poor outcome.

AIMS

To systematically review all studies dealing with the efficacy of pharmacological agents on primary negative symptoms.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the relevant literature was undertaken using electronic database, reference lists and personal contact.

RESULTS

There is a lack of standardized research designs. Amisulpride is the most extensively studied drug with respect to efficacy against primary negative symptoms. At low doses it demonstrates a consistent, modest effect compared to placebo, though not to conventional antipsychotics and has yet to be tested against other atypicals. Evidence from multiple studies that used simple statistical analyses and inclusion criteria for patients with primary negative symptoms does not support a direct effect for clozapine. Path-analysis studies support the direct effects of risperidone, olanzapine, sertindole and aripiprazole, however, different statistical analyses of the same risperidone study produced conflicting results and the direct effects of olanzapine were not confirmed in selected patients with primary negative symptoms. There are no studies supporting the use of ziprasidone or quetiapine. The effects of typical antipsychotics on primary negative symptoms are inconclusive and likely to depend on drug dosages. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mirtazepine and NMDA agonists show early promise but require further study. Novel agents such as selegiline, naltrexone, dehydroepiandrosterone, galantamine, Ginkgo, nitric oxide, L-deprenyl and pergolide show positive effects on general negative symptoms but remain untested against primary negative symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies using standardized selective inclusion criteria and controlling for chronicity are needed. Research guidelines are discussed.

Quetiapine versus olanzapine for the treatment of negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia

Negative symptoms are considered the most debilitating and refractory aspect of schizophrenia, being associated with poor social, occupational and global outcomes. Conventional antipsychotics have limited efficacy against these symptoms and poor tolerability profiles. Atypical antipsychotics are an alternative treatment, and this 12-week, randomised, flexibly dosed study compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of quetiapine and olanzapine in this regard. Of the 40 patients who entered the study (32 male; 8 female), 19 were randomised to quetiapine (mean dose 637 mg/day, mean treatment duration 80 days) and 21 to olanzapine (mean dose 16 mg/day, mean treatment duration 78 days). Quetiapine and olanzapine were similarly effective: in each treatment group significant improvements at Week 12 were observed for negative symptom scores on the SANS and the PANSS, and for subscale scores of affective flattening and alogia on the SANS. Both treatments were well tolerated in this patient population, with no worsening of extrapyramidal symptoms in either case. Anxiety and insomnia were the most common adverse events (> or =7% of patients in each group), but were not drug-related. Although this is a small study with limited power, the results support the effectiveness of quetiapine and olanzapine in treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

An industry perspective on the NIMH consensus statement on negative symptoms

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia remain an area of substantial unmet clinical need. By convening a consensus conference in January 2005, the NIMH has taken a leading role in stimulating a resurgence of interest in methodological considerations related to development of new medications for treating negative symptoms. One audience for this work is clinical researchers in industry. They must take ideas, like those emerging from this consensus meeting, and determine whether they can be applied to their global trials in order to meet the needs of a broad group of customers, which include patients, clinicians, regulators, and payers. This article takes the ideas that surfaced from the NIMH consensus work and interprets them in terms of issues that industry faces for its clinical trials. Particular emphasis is given to addressing hurdles to study design and analysis that come when developing broad-spectrum or adjunctive agents that may be effective for negative symptoms.