Employment Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Second-Generation Antipsychotics and Perphenazine in the Treatment of Individuals with Schizophrenia

Interventions for obtaining and maintaining employment in adults with severe mental illness, a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness show high rates of unemployment and work disability, however, they often have a desire to participate in employment. People with severe mental illness used to be placed in sheltered employment or were enrolled in prevocational training to facilitate transition to a competitive job. Now, there are also interventions focusing on rapid search for a competitive job, with ongoing support to keep the job, known as supported employment. Recently, there has been a growing interest in combining supported employment with other prevocational or psychiatric interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness of various types of vocational rehabilitation interventions and to rank these interventions according to their effectiveness to facilitate competitive employment in adults with severe mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL, and reference lists of articles for randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews. We identified systematic reviews from which to extract randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of interventions on obtaining competitive employment for adults with severe mental illness. We included trials with competitive employment outcomes. The main intervention groups were prevocational training programmes, transitional employment interventions, supported employment, supported employment augmented with other specific interventions, and psychiatric care only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials, performed data extraction, including adverse events, and assessed trial quality. We performed direct meta-analyses and a network meta-analysis including measurements of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We assessed the quality of the evidence for outcomes within the network meta-analysis according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 randomised controlled trials involving 8743 participants. Of these, 30 studied supported employment, 13 augmented supported employment, 17 prevocational training, and 6 transitional employment. Psychiatric care only was the control condition in 13 studies. Direct comparison meta-analysis of obtaining competitive employmentWe could include 18 trials with short-term follow-up in a direct meta-analysis (N = 2291) of the following comparisons. Supported employment was more effective than prevocational training (RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.24) and transitional employment (RR 3.49, 95% CI 1.77 to 6.89) and prevocational training was more effective than psychiatric care only (RR 8.96, 95% CI 1.77 to 45.51) in obtaining competitive employment.For the long-term follow-up direct meta-analysis, we could include 22 trials (N = 5233). Augmented supported employment (RR 4.32, 95% CI 1.49 to 12.48), supported employment (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.68) and prevocational training (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.46) were more effective than psychiatric care only. Augmented supported employment was more effective than supported employment (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.65), transitional employment (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.55) and prevocational training (RR 5.42, 95% CI 1.08 to 27.11). Supported employment was more effective than transitional employment (RR 3.28, 95% CI 2.13 to 5.04) and prevocational training (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.89). Network meta-analysis of obtaining competitive employmentWe could include 22 trials with long-term follow-up in a network meta-analysis.Augmented supported employment was the most effective intervention versus psychiatric care only in obtaining competitive employment (RR 3.81, 95% CI 1.99 to 7.31, SUCRA 98.5, moderate-quality evidence), followed by supported employment (RR 2.72 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76; SUCRA 76.5, low-quality evidence).Prevocational training (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.19; SUCRA 40.3, very low-quality evidence) and transitional employment were not considerably different from psychiatric care only (RR 1.00,95% CI 0.51 to 1.96; SUCRA 17.2, low-quality evidence) in achieving competitive employment, but prevocational training stood out in the SUCRA value and rank.Augmented supported employment was slightly better than supported employment, but not significantly (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.14). The SUCRA value and mean rank were higher for augmented supported employment.The results of the network meta-analysis of the intervention subgroups favoured augmented supported employment interventions, but also cognitive training. However, supported employment augmented with symptom-related skills training showed the best results (RR compared to psychiatric care only 3.61 with 95% CI 1.03 to 12.63, SUCRA 80.3).We graded the quality of the evidence of the network ranking as very low because of potential risk of bias in the included studies, inconsistency and publication bias. Direct meta-analysis of maintaining competitive employment Based on the direct meta-analysis of the short-term follow-up of maintaining employment, supported employment was more effective than: psychiatric care only, transitional employment, prevocational training, and augmented supported employment.In the long-term follow-up direct meta-analysis, augmented supported employment was more effective than prevocational training (MD 22.79 weeks, 95% CI 15.96 to 29.62) and supported employment (MD 10.09, 95% CI 0.32 to 19.85) in maintaining competitive employment. Participants receiving supported employment worked more weeks than those receiving transitional employment (MD 17.36, 95% CI 11.53 to 23.18) or prevocational training (MD 11.56, 95% CI 5.99 to 17.13).We did not find differences between interventions in the risk of dropouts or hospital admissions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Supported employment and augmented supported employment were the most effective interventions for people with severe mental illness in terms of obtaining and maintaining employment, based on both the direct comparison analysis and the network meta-analysis, without increasing the risk of adverse events. These results are based on moderate- to low-quality evidence, meaning that future studies with lower risk of bias could change these results. Augmented supported employment may be slightly more effective compared to supported employment alone. However, this difference was small, based on the direct comparison analysis, and further decreased with the network meta-analysis meaning that this difference should be interpreted cautiously. More studies on maintaining competitive employment are needed to get a better understanding of whether the costs and efforts are worthwhile in the long term for both the individual and society.

Obtaining employment as an anchor for estimating the minimum clinically important difference on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) in schizophrenia

Statistical differences on clinical scales are often used to compare the effectiveness of treatments. However, statistical significance does not necessarily indicate clinical significance. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) refers to clinically meaningful treatment differences. This study estimates the MCID of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) by anchoring the change in scores to an objective clinical outcome: employment. This secondary analysis compared PANSS score change from baseline among 1049 non-working individuals with schizophrenia, who were followed and categorized as either having not worked, worked 1-10 days, or worked >10 days at 15 or 18 months. The difference in change in average PANSS Total scores between participants who did not work and those who worked 1-10 days (4.25 points) and >10 days (8.30) were statistically significant. This study estimates the MCID for the PANSS to be between 4.25 and 8.30 Total points. This study revealed significant differences in PANSS score changes between participants who did and did not work. Using employment, an objective and clinically meaningful change in health status, to determine the MCID of PANSS resulted in estimates lower than previously reported. MCID estimates vary across methods but using objective anchors increases face validity.

Perphenazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our original search using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (September 2013), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow-up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD), both with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed quality of data using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationtool) and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 4662 participants (of which 4522 were receiving the drugs relevant to our comparison) and presented data that could be used for at least one comparison. The trial centres were located in Europe (especially Scandinavia), Japan and Northern America.When comparing perphenazine with placebo, for our primary outcome of clinical response, results favoured perphenazine with significantly more people receiving placebo rated as either 'no better or deterioration' for global state than people receiving perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 61 RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.78, very low quality evidence). More people receiving placebo relapsed, although not a statistically significant number (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 0.14 CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in the perphenazine versus placebo comparison. Experiences of dystonia were equivocal between groups (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 1.00 CI 0.07 to 15.08, very low quality evidence); other outcomes not reported in this comparison include serious adverse events, economic outcomes, and service use and hospitalisation.For the comparison of perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs, no real differences in effect between the drugs were found. There was no significant difference between groups for those considered 'no better or deterioration' (17 RCTs, n = 1879, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.17, very low quality evidence). For mental state outcome of 'no effect' of the study drug, there was again no significant difference between groups (4 RCTs, n = 383, RR 1.24 CI 0.61 to 2.52, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no significant difference in rates of dystonia with perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs (4 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36 CI 0.23 to 8.16, very low quality evidence), nor was there a significant difference between groups for serious adverse events (2 RCTs, n = 1760, RR 0.98 CI 0.68 to 1.41, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although perphenazine has been used in randomised trials for more than 50 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. All data for the main outcomes in this review were of very low quality evidence. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.

Employment and the associated impact on quality of life in people diagnosed with schizophrenia

A systematic review was conducted to assess the employment rate of people with schizophrenia. Additionally, information from the selected studies concerning factors associated with employment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was examined. Employment rates ranged from 4% to 50.4%. The studies differed considerably in design, patient settings, and methods of recruitment. The most frequently reported factors associated with employment were negative and cognitive symptoms, age of onset, and duration and course of the disease. Individual characteristics associated with unemployment were older age, lower education, and sex (female). Additionally, environmental factors, eg, the availability of welfare benefits and vocational support programs, seemed to play a role. Generally, being employed was positively associated with HRQoL. However, the causal direction of this association remained unclear, as studies on the bidirectional relationship between employment and HRQoL were lacking.

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.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, part 2: update 2012 on the long-term treatment of schizophrenia and management of antipsychotic-induced side effects

Abstract These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia published in 2006. 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. They 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) and five levels of recommendation (1-5) ( Bandelow et al. 2008a ,b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242, see Table 1 ). This second part of the updated guidelines covers long-term treatment as well as the management of relevant side effects. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication and other pharmacological treatment options) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic drug treatment for elderly people with late-onset schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is usually considered an illness of young adulthood. However, onset after the age of 40 years is reported in 23% of patients hospitalised with schizophrenia. At least 0.1% of the world's elderly population have a diagnosis of late-onset schizophrenia which seems to differ from earlier onset schizophrenia on a variety of counts including response to antipsychotic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antipsychotic drugs for elderly people with late-onset schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (January 2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials that compared antipsychotic drugs with other treatments for elderly people (at least 80% older than 65 years) with a recent (within five years) diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizophrenia like illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the 2010 search, two new review authors (AE, AG) inspected all citations to ensure reliable selection. We assessed methodological quality of trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. AE and AG also independently extracted data. For homogenous dichotomous data, we planned to calculate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

There were no included studies in the original version of this review (2002 search). The 2010 search for the current update produced 211 references, among which we identified 88 studies. Only one study met the inclusion criteria and was of acceptable quality. This was an eight-week randomised trial of risperidone and olanzapine in 44 inpatients with late-onset schizophrenia. All participants completed the eight-week trial, indicating that both drugs were well tolerated. Unfortunately, this study provided little usable data. We excluded a total of 81 studies, 77 studies because they either studied interventions other than antipsychotic medication or because they involved elderly people with chronic - not late-onset - schizophrenia. We excluded a further four trials of antipsychotics in late-onset schizophrenia because of flawed design. Five studies are still awaiting classification, and one is on-going.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no trial-based evidence upon which to base guidelines for the treatment of late-onset schizophrenia. There is a need for good quality-controlled clinical trials into the effects of antipsychotics for this group. Such trials are possible. Until they are undertaken, people with late-onset schizophrenia will be treated by doctors using clinical judgement and habit to guide prescribing.

Change in level of productivity in the treatment of schizophrenia with olanzapine or other antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

When treating schizophrenia, improving patients' productivity level is a major goal considering schizophrenia is a leading cause of functional disability. Productivity level has been identified as the most preferred treatment outcome by patients with schizophrenia. However, little has been done to systematically investigate productivity levels in schizophrenia. We set out to better understand the change in productivity level among chronically ill patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic medications. We also assessed the links between productivity level and other clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis used data from 6 randomized, double-blind clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with each trial being of approximately 6 months duration. Change in productivity level was compared between olanzapine-treated patients (HGBG, n = 172; HGHJ, n = 277; HGJB, n = 171; HGLB, n = 281; HGGN, n = 159; HGDH, n = 131) and patients treated with other antipsychotic medications (separately vs. haloperidol [HGGN, n = 97; HGDH, n = 132], risperidone [HGBG, n = 167; HGGN, n = 158], quetiapine [HGJB, n = 175], ziprasidone [HGHJ, n = 271] and aripiprazole [HGLB, n = 285]). Productivity was defined as functional activities/work including working for pay, studying, housekeeping and volunteer work. Productivity level in the prior 3 months was assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from no useful functioning to functional activity/work 75% to 100% of the time.

RESULTS

Chronically ill patients treated with olanzapine (OLZ) experienced significantly greater improvement in productivity when compared to patients treated with risperidone (RISP) (OLZ = 0.22 ± 1.19, RISP = -0.03 ± 1.17, p = 0.033) or ziprasidone (ZIP) (OLZ = 0.50 ± 1.38, ZIP = 0.25 ± 1.27, p = 0.026), but did not significantly differ from the quetiapine, aripiprazole or haloperidol treatment groups. Among first episode patients, OLZ therapy was associated with greater improvements in productivity levels compared to haloperidol (HAL), during the acute phase (OLZ = -0.31 ± 1.59, HAL = -0.69 ± 1.56, p = 0.011) and over the long-term (OLZ = 0.10 ± 1.50, HAL = -0.32 ± 1.91, p = 0.008). Significantly more chronically ill and first episode patients treated with olanzapine showed moderately high (>50%-75% of the time) and high levels of productivity (>75%-100% of the time) at endpoint, when compared to risperidone or haloperidol-treated patients (p < .05), respectively. Higher productivity level was associated with significantly higher study completion rates and better scores on the positive, negative, disorganized thoughts, hostility and depression subscales of the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS).

CONCLUSIONS

Some antipsychotic medications significantly differed in beneficial impact on productivity level in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Findings further highlight the link between clinical and functional outcomes, showing significant associations between higher productivity, lower symptom severity and better persistence on therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00088049; NCT00036088.

Change in employment status over 52 weeks in patients with schizophrenia: an observational study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to describe change in employment status over time in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Data were from three 52-week open-label extensions of the double-blind pivotal trials of paliperidone extended-release (ER) (trial numbers NCT00650793, NCT00210769 and NCT00668837). Employment status prior to trial entry was recorded at baseline of the open-label phase and change was measured at 4-week intervals. Patients were included if they were in the open-label, intent-to-treat analysis set (i.e., received at least one dose of the study medication and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline efficacy measurement) and had valid dates in the productivity data. Employment categories included full-time, part-time, casual, sheltered work, unemployed but seeking work, unemployed and not seeking work, retired, not employed outside the home and student. Change in employment status from baseline to post-baseline (last visit) was assessed using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Of the 1077 patients enrolled in the open-label extensions, 1012 (94.0%) met inclusion criteria. The average age was 37.7 years (SD 10.9) and 59.1% were male. At baseline, the largest percentage of patients was unemployed and not seeking work (56.8%), followed by retired (14.9%) and unemployed but seeking work (11.7%). Five different definitions of employment were created. Employment rates increased according to all five definitions (p < 0.0001), ranging from a 43% increase according to the definition most similar to that used by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to an increase of 114% when only part-time and full-time employment were considered.

CONCLUSION

In this uncontrolled population of patients with schizophrenia who were treated with paliperidone ER, the percentage of patients who were employed increased over time. By using multiple measures of employment, researchers can identify the nature of the employment status change.

Antipsychotics and schizophrenia: from efficacy and effectiveness to clinical decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively review the 2 recent and large antipsychotic effectiveness trials for treatment of schizophrenia: the United Kingdom's Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS), and the National Institute of Mental Health-initiated Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) schizophrenia trial.

METHOD

We present a review of the rationale, methodology, and findings to date from the CUtLASS and CATIE schizophrenia trials, including all primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary findings from both trials, CUtLASS and CATIE, suggest that first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are equally effective in the treatment of schizophrenia. The exception is in treatment-resistant populations where clozapine exhibits superiority, compared with other SGAs. In the CATIE trial, there is a suggestion that olanzapine is superior in effectiveness, compared with other nonclozapine SGAs, although this seems to be mediated by past history of olanzapine use, and carries with it increased weight gain and metabolic adverse events. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, there is no evidence that SGAs are superior to FGAs, with findings suggesting the possibility that FGAs may be superior.

CONCLUSION

Past efficacy trials have strongly supported the position that SGAs are superior to FGAs in the treatment of schizophrenia and in side effect profile. Two large independent effectiveness trials, CUtLASS and CATIE, have offered a strong challenge to these claims. Both suggest that SGAs, except clozapine in the treatment-resistant population, offer little, if any, clinical benefits, and, moreover, harbour their own significant side effects.

Redefining outcome measures in schizophrenia: integrating social and clinical parameters

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Schizophrenia is a complex neurobehavioral disorder for which there are many promising new treatments. There is, however, a discrepancy in outcome measure reports when they are obtained from patients, relatives, caregivers, or professionals, making it difficult to determine the level of recovery. This lack of agreement may result from limitations of the measurement tools themselves, which are not comprehensive and may be measuring different aspects of outcome. Alternatively, it could be that the conceptual understanding of outcome and recovery require development.

RECENT FINDINGS

For various reasons, patients assessed as 'recovered' remain excluded from mainstream society. We are of the opinion that present outcome measures do not capture real-life situations. We propose that the concept of recovery be carefully defined and the gold standard of outcome should incorporate social and clinical parameters. We attempt to redefine recovery. Patients who have shown clinical improvement do not necessarily do well in everyday situations even though there is obvious clinical improvement. Therefore, it has been repeatedly argued that a consensus of recovery should be determined and that routine clinical practice should then adapt to the agreed criteria.

SUMMARY

We argue that the outcome measures should be multidimensional and consist of at least two parameters: clinical remission and social outcome.

Ziprasidone versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second generation ('atypical') antipsychotics 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 new generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialised Register (April 2007) and references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised, at least single-blind, controlled trials comparing oral ziprasidone with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (MD) 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.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 3361 participants. The overall rate of premature study discontinuation was very high (59.1%). Data for the comparisons of ziprasidone with amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone were available. Ziprasidone was a less acceptable treatment than olanzapine (leaving the studies early for any reason: 5 RCTs, n=1937, RR 1.26 CI 1.18 to 1.35, NNH 7 CI 5 to 10) and risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1029, RR 1.11 CI 1.02 to 1.20, NNH 14 CI 8 to 50), but not than the other second generation antipsychotic drugs. Ziprasidone was less efficacious than amisulpride (leaving the study early due to inefficacy: 1 RCT, n=123, RR 4.72 CI 1.06 to 20.98, NNH 8 CI 5 to 50) olanzapine (PANSS total score: 4 RCTs, n=1291, MD 8.32 CI 5.64 to 10.99) and risperidone (PANSS total score: 3 RCTs, n=1016, MD 3.91 CI 0.27 to 7.55). Based on limited data there were no significant differences in tolerability between ziprasidone and amisulpride or clozapine. Ziprasidone produced less weight gain than olanzapine (5 RCTs, n=1659, MD -3.82 CI -4.69 to -2.96), quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, RR 0.45 CI 0.28 to 0.74) or risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1063, RR 0.49 CI 0.33 to 0.74). It was associated with less cholesterol increase than olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone. Conversely ziprasidone produced slightly more extrapyramidal side-effects than olanzapine (4 RCTs, n=1732, RR 1.43 CI 1.03 to 1.99, NNH not estimable) and more prolactin increase than quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, MD 4.77 CI 1.37 to 8.16), but less movement disorders (2 RCTs, n=822, RR 0.70 CI 0.51 to 0.97, NNT not estimable) and less prolactin increase (2 RCTs, n=767, MD -21.97 CI -27.34 to -16.60) than risperidone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ziprasidone may be a slightly less efficacious antipsychotic drug than amisulpride, olanzapine and risperidone. Its main advantage is the low propensity to induce weight gain and associated adverse effects. However, the high overall rate of participants leaving the studies early limits the validity of any findings.

Can a nonequivalent choice of dosing regimen bias the results of flexible dose double blind trials? The CATIE schizophrenia trial

BACKGROUND

One of the major challenges in the design of double-blind flexible-dosing clinical trials comparing active drugs is the selection of dosing regimens that are equivalent across drugs. This study uses data from the CATIE schizophrenia trial to evaluate the hypothesis that drugs that were dosed somewhat higher in the trial than in typical practice would show greater efficacy and more side effects, especially at high capsule levels, than drugs that were dosed at lower relative strengths.

METHODS

CATIE was a large (N=1460) randomized trial comparing 5 antipsychotics in patients with chronic schizophrenia. The blind was maintained in CATIE by prescribing identical-looking capsules of each medication. Dosing was flexible, such that PIs could prescribe from one to four capsules per day, and could modify the dose based on a patient's symptoms and side effects. Capsule strengths for olanzapine (7.5 mg) and quetiapine (200 mg) were relatively higher than for risperidone (1.5 mg), perphenazine (8 mg) or ziprasidone (40 mg). Proportional hazards models of time to all cause discontinuation and mixed regression models for continuous measures of symptoms, quality of life and side effects were used to test for interactions between randomly assigned drug and number of capsules prescribed per visit. We hypothesized that if a dosing bias was present, the flex-dosing design would result in a significant interaction such that drugs with higher relative dosing per capsule would be more effective and have more side effects than drugs with lower relative dosing and that this effect would be greatest at the largest prescribed dosing regimen (4 capsules).

RESULTS

There were no significant interactions between drug assignment and number of capsules in the proportional hazards analyses of time to all cause discontinuation (p=.77, excluding ziprasidone and .74 in the ziprasidone cohort) or in the mixed model analysis of PANSS symptoms (p=.49), quality of life (p=.45); or measures of tardive dyskinesia (AIMS, p=.47). However a significant interaction was observed on the Barnes akathisia scale (p=.0005), on the Simpson Angus EPS scale (p=.10) and on the analysis of weight (p=0.014). Paired comparisons did not show the hypothesized pattern of relationships for akathisia or EPS, but such a pattern was suggested for olanzapine in the analysis of weight although it emerged at 2, 3 and 4 capsules indicating a general drug effect rather than a relative dosing difference.

CONCLUSION

Dosing biases do not seem to have affected the results of the CATIE trial.