Mechanisms of action of ECT: schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder

Transient insight induction with electroconvulsive therapy in a patient with refractory schizophrenia: a case report and systematic literature review

Anosognosia or lack of illness awareness is a clinical manifestation of both schizophrenia and right hemispheric lesions associated with stroke, neurodegeneration, or traumatic brain injury. It is thought to result from right hemispheric dysfunction or interhemispheric disequilibrium, which provides a neuroanatomical model for illness unawareness in schizophrenia. Lack of insight contributes to medication nonadherence and poor treatment outcomes and is often refractory to pharmacological and psychological interventions. We present the first report of transient illness awareness (<8 hours) after individual bilateral electroconvulsive therapy treatments in the case of a 39-year-old man with antipsychotic refractory schizophrenia. Electroencephalography demonstrated frontal slow wave activity with shifting frontotemporal predominance, which was concurrent with the patient's transient level of insight. A systematic review of the literature on electroconvulsive therapy-induced illness awareness in schizophrenia and psychotic disorders produced zero relevant results. Future research should focus on the prospective role of focal interventions, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, in the development of a neurophysiological model for anosognosia reversal in schizophrenia that may, in turn, contribute to novel therapeutic developments targeting lack of illness awareness.

The combined use of electroconvulsive therapy and antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVES

We sought to review the literature on the use of combined antipsychotic medications and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the treatment of schizophrenia, with regard to efficacy, side effects, and ECT technique.

METHODS

A computerized search of the literature published from 1980 to 2004 was conducted on Medline and PsychoInfo using the words schizophrenia, antipsychotic, neuroleptic, psychotropic, and ECT. Only studies including patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia were included.

RESULTS

We identified 42 articles including 1371 patients. The majority of the reports consist of uncontrolled studies (n = 31), mostly with typical antipsychotics (n = 23). Results from open studies suggest that the combination of ECT and antipsychotics is a very useful and safe strategy for the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. Double-blind controlled studies (n = 8) were inconclusive. Twelve articles were on the combination of clozapine and ECT. Initial concerns about the safety of the coadministration of clozapine and ECT were not substantiated, but despite the auspicious results from several case reports and 2 open trials, this combination remains understudied. Most studies preferred the bitemporal placement (n = 28), but because of insufficient data derived from direct comparisons, no conclusion on placement superiority can be reached. One study indicates that with the bilateral placement higher electrical dosages yields faster responses in this population.

CONCLUSIONS

The body of the data provided by research is still insufficient to allow definitive conclusions on the combination of antipsychotics and ECT. However, the literature reviewed indicates that the combination is a safe and efficacious treatment strategy for patients with schizophrenia, especially those refractory to conventional treatments.

Electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) involves the induction of a seizure for therapeutic purposes by the administration of a variable frequency electrical stimulus shock via electrodes applied to the scalp. The effects of its use in people with schizophrenia are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) results in clinically meaningful benefit with regard to global improvement, hospitalisation, changes in mental state, behaviour and functioning for people with schizophrenia, and to determine whether variations in the practical administration of ECT influences outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1982-1996), EMBASE (1980-1996), MEDLINE (1966-2004), PsycLIT (1974-1996),SCISEARCH (1996) and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2004). We also inspected the references of all identified studies and contacted relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled clinical trials that compared ECT with placebo, 'sham ECT', non-pharmacological interventions and antipsychotics and different schedules and methods of administration of ECT for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or chronic mental disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) with the number needed to treat (NNT). For continuous data Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) were calculated. We presented scale data for only those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality. We also undertook tests for heterogeneity and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 26 trials with 50 reports. When ECT is compared with placebo or sham ECT, more people improved in the real ECT group (n=392, 10 RCTs, RR 0.76 random CI 0.59 to 0.98, NNT 6 CI 4 to 12) and though data were heterogeneous (chi-square 17.49 df=9 P=0.04), its impact on variability of data was not substantial (I-squared 48.5%). There was a suggestion that ECT resulted in less relapses in the short term than sham ECT (n=47, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 0.26 CI 0.03 to 2.2), and a greater likelihood of being discharged from hospital (n=98, 1 RCT, RR fixed 0.59, CI 0.34 to 1.01). There is no evidence that this early advantage for ECT is maintained over the medium to long term. People treated with ECT did not drop out of treatment earlier than those treated with sham ECT (n=495, 14 RCTs, RR fixed 0.71 CI 0.33 to 1.52, I-squared 0%). Very limited data indicated that visual memory might decline after ECT compared with sham ECT (n=24, 1 RCT, WMD -14.0 CI -23 to -5); the results of verbal memory tests were equivocal. When ECT is directly compared with antipsychotic drug treatments (total n=443, 10 RCTs) results favour the medication group (n=175, 3 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at the end of ECT course' 2.18 CI 1.31 to 3.63). Limited evidence suggests that ECT combined with antipsychotic drugs results in greater improvement in mental state (n= 40, 1 RCT, WMD, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale -3.9 CI - 2.28 to -5.52) than with antipsychotic drugs alone. One small study suggested more memory impairment after a course of ECT combined with antipsychotics than with antipsychotics alone (n=20, MD serial numbers and picture recall -4.90 CI -0.78 to -9.02), though this proved transient. When continuation ECT was added to antipsychotic drugs, the combination was superior to the use of antipsychotics alone (n=30, WMD Global Assessment of Functioning 19.06 CI 9.65 to 28.47), or CECT alone (n=30, WMD -20.30 CI -11.48 to -29.12). Unilateral and bilateral ECT were equally effective in terms of global improvement (n=78, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at end of course of ECT' 0.79 CI 0.45 to 1.39). One trial showed a significant advantage for 20 treatments over 12 treatments for numbers globally improved at the end of the ECT course (n=43, RR fixed 2.53 CI 1.13 to 5.66).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review suggests that ECT, combined with treatment with antipsychotic drugs, may be considered an option for people with schizophrenia, particularly when rapid global improvement and reduction of symptoms is desired. This is also the case for those with schizophrenia who show limited response to medication alone. Even though this initial beneficial effect may not last beyond the short term, there is no clear evidence to refute its use for people with schizophrenia. The research base for the use of ECT in people with schizophrenia continues to expand, but even after more than five decades of clinical use, there remain many unanswered questions regarding its role in the management of people with schizophrenia.

Electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) involves the induction of a seizure (fit) for therapeutic purposes by the administration of a variable frequency electrical stimulus shock via electrodes applied to the scalp. The effects of its use in people with schizophrenia are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) results in clinically meaningful benefit with regard to global improvement, hospitalisation, changes in mental state, behaviour and functioning for people with schizophrenia, and whether variations in the practical administration of ECT influences outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1982-1996), EMBASE (1980-1996), MEDLINE (1966-2001), PsycLIT (1974-1996),SCISEARCH (1996) and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2001) were undertaken. The references of all identified studies were also inspected and authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled clinical trials that compared ECT with placebo, 'sham ECT', non-pharmacological interventions and antipsychotics, and different schedules and methods of administration of ECT for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or chronic mental disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected, quality rated and data extracted. For dichotomous data, relative risks (RR) were estimated, with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, the number needed to treat statistic (NNT) was calculated. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Normal continuous data was summated using the weighted mean difference (WMD). Scale data was presented for only those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 24 trials with 46 reports. When ECT is compared with placebo or sham ECT, fewer people remain unimproved in the real ECT group (n=400, RR fixed 'not globally improved in the short term' 0.77 CI 0.6 to 0.9, chi-square 13.46 df=8 p=0.1). Removal of the one study with clearly heterogeneous results causes a change in the findings (n=380, 8 RCTs, RR fixed 0.83 CI 0.7 to 1.01), as does removal of a clinically heterogeneous trial (n=370, 8 RCTs, RR fixed 0.74 CI 0.6 to 0.9, chi-square 10.97 df=7 p=0.14). There was a suggestion that ECT resulted in less relapses than sham ECT (n=47, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 0.26 CI 0.03 to 2.2), and a greater likelihood of being discharged from hospital (n=98, 1 RCT, RR fixed 0.59, CI 0.34 to 1.01). There is no evidence that this early advantage for ECT is maintained over the medium to long term. People treated with ECT did not drop out of treatment earlier than those treated with sham ECT (n=495, 14 RCTs, RR fixed 0.71 CI 0.33 to 1.52). Very limited data indicated that visual memory might decline after ECT compared with sham ECT (n=24, 1 RCT, WMD -14.0 CI -23 to -5); the results of verbal memory tests were equivocal. When ECT is directly compared with antipsychotic drug treatment (total n=419, 8 RCTs), results favour the medication group (n=175, 3 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at the end of ECT course' 2.18 CI 1.3 to 3.6). One small study suggested more memory impairment after a course of ECT combined with antipsychotics than with antipsychotics alone (n=20, MD serial numbers and picture recall -4.90 CI -0. 8 to -9), though this proved transient. When continuation ECT was added to antipsychotic drugs, the combination was superior to the use of antipsychotics alone (n=30, WMD Global Assessment of Functioning 19.1 CI 9.7 to 28.5), or CECT alone (n=30, WMD -20.3 CI -11.5 to -29.1). Unilateral and bilateral ECT were equally effective in terms of global improvement (n=78, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at end of course of ECT' 0.79 CI 0.5 to 1.4). One trial showed a significant advantage for 20 treatments over 12 treatments for numbers globally improved at the end of the ECT course (n=43, RR fixed 2.53 CI 1.1 to 5.7).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to clearly refute the use of ECT for people with schizophrenia. There is some limited evidence to support its use, particularly combined with antipsychotic drugs for those with schizophrenia who show limited response to medication alone. The research base for the use of ECT in people with schizophrenia is growing but, even after more than five decades of clinical use, is still inadequate.

Management of treatment resistant schizophrenia unresponsive to clozapine

A recent challenge in schizophrenia has been the management of patients who have failed to respond not only to standard therapeutic regimes but also to trials of atypical neuroleptics such as clozapine and risperidone. This article focuses on the further psychological and pharmacological management of such patients.

Drug strategies and treatment-resistant schizophrenia

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the paper are to review the notion of treatment resistance in schizophrenia and consider the factors important in determining non-responsiveness to standard neuroleptic treatment, and to review the strategies currently available in the treatment of such patients, including an evaluation of recently-introduced, novel drug treatments.

METHOD

A selective review of the literature relating to treatment resistance was undertaken using medline searches, followed by cross-checking for further articles identified in these references.

RESULTS

The various treatment approaches available are considered, including adjunctive treatment with lithium or carbamazepine. The risks and benefits of high dose antipsychotic treatment are discussed. The possible benefits and side-effects of new treatments, particularly the atypical neuroleptics, are also reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

The reasons why a proportion of patients with schizophrenia fail to respond to standard neuroleptic treatment are ill-understood. Nevertheless, initial assessment should include identification of any factors that may be related to a patient's poor response, such as poor compliance, substance use or epilepsy. This may help to determine an appropriate treatment strategy. There is a need to be systematic and to ensure that patients be given an adequate trial of each treatment tested in terms of duration and dosage. The available evidence does not support the use of high doses of neuroleptics for the majority of patients. Adjunctive treatments, such as lithium, carbamazepine or benzodiazepines may be beneficial in non-responsive patients, particularly if certain target symptoms are present. Atypical neuroleptics, particularly clozapine, have proved particularly effective in non-responsive patients as well as those sensitive to the motor side-effects of standard drugs. However, the high risk of agranulocytosis with clozapine is a problem; also the drug and the necessary haematological monitoring are expensive. There are hints that some of the other, new, atypical neuroleptics have some benefit in non-responsive patients, but controlled studies are required.