Switching from conventional antipsychotics to ziprasidone: a randomized, open-label comparison of regimen strategies

Immediate versus wait-and-gradual discontinuation in antipsychotic switching: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In two previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining antipsychotic switching strategies in patients with schizophrenia, we showed no significant differences in any clinical outcomes between immediate versus gradual and gradual versus wait-and-gradual discontinuation of the pre-switch antipsychotic. In this report, we compared immediate versus wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation.

METHODS

We identified five RCTs examining immediate versus wait-and-gradual discontinuation of the pre-switch antipsychotic in antipsychotic switching involving patients with schizophrenia. However, no data were available from one RCT. The following clinical outcome data were extracted and meta-analyzed: study discontinuation, psychopathology, extrapyramidal symptoms, and treatment-emergent adverse events that were reported in two or more of the studies.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included four RCTs involving 351 patients (n=175 for immediate and n=176 for wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation). A significant difference was found in study discontinuation due to all causes (n=4, n=351, risk ratio=1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.17, p=0.005, I²=0%) between the immediate and wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation groups, while there was no significant difference in any other clinical outcomes. The group difference in study discontinuation due to all causes remained significant for the studies adopting immediate antipsychotic initiation but not for the studies switching to ziprasidone.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation may be preferable when a more cautious antipsychotic switch is needed. However, further long-term, double-blind RCTs are needed to confirm the present findings.

Switch-associated adverse events: focus on olanzapine

OBJECTIVES:

Switching between different antipsychotic therapies is a frequent occurrence in the management of patients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. This paper provides a review of the principles of antipsychotic switching and discusses pharmacological principles underlying adverse events that occur while switching olanzapine to another antipsychotic medication. It offers suggestions for management of switch-associated adverse events in clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS:

Few publications explore olanzapine switch-related adverse events, the underlying pharmacological principles and appropriate switching strategies to minimise the risk of adverse events. There is still a need for further studies to verify existing knowledge and assist in the development of 'gold standard' guidelines that outline appropriate switching strategies and duration of the switching process to reduce and avoid adverse events.

Gradual vs. wait-and-gradual discontinuation in antipsychotic switching: A meta-analysis

To address whether wait discontinuation (i.e., introducing the new antipsychotic while maintaining the first for a period before initiating its discontinuation) is superior to non-wait discontinuation (i.e., initiating the first antipsychotic's discontinuation when introducing the new antipsychotic) in antipsychotic switching, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing gradual vs. wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation in patients with schizophrenia. The meta-analysis of 5 studies (n=410) demonstrated no significant differences in any clinical outcomes, including study discontinuation, psychopathology, extrapyramidal symptoms, and treatment-emergent adverse events, between the two groups. These findings indicate either strategy can be used in clinical practice.

Immediate vs Gradual Discontinuation in Antipsychotic Switching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Antipsychotic switching is routine in clinical practice, although it remains unclear which is the preferable switching method: immediate discontinuation of the current antipsychotic or a gradual tapering approach. The first strategy has been implicated in rebound/withdrawal symptoms and emergence/exacerbation of symptoms, whereas the gradual approach is thought to pose a risk of additive or synergistic side effects if employed in the context of a crossover approach.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials examining immediate vs gradual antipsychotic discontinuation in antipsychotic switching in patients with schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective disorder were selected. Data on clinical outcomes, including study discontinuation, psychopathology, extrapyramidal symptoms, and treatment-emergent adverse events, were extracted.

Results

A total of 9 studies involving 1416 patients that met eligibility criteria were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in any clinical outcomes were found between the 2 approaches (all Ps > .05). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the findings remained unchanged in the studies where switching to aripiprazole was performed or where immediate initiation of the next antipsychotic was adopted, while some significant differences were observed in switching to olanzapine or ziprasidone.

Conclusions

These findings indicate that either immediate or gradual discontinuation of the current antipsychotic medication represents a viable treatment option. Clinicians are advised to choose an antipsychotic switching strategy according to individual patient needs. This said, immediate discontinuation may be advantageous both for simplicity and because a stalled cross-titration process in antipsychotic switching could end up in antipsychotic polypharmacy.

The effectiveness of cross-tapering switching to ziprasidone in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

OBJECTIVE

Switching antipsychotics is one useful therapeutic option when the treatment of schizophrenia encounters suboptimal efficacy and intolerability issues. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of cross-tapering switching to ziprasidone from other antipsychotics.

METHODS

A total of 67 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were recruited in this 12-week, multicenter, non-comparative, open-label trial. Prior antipsychotics were allowed to be maintained for up to 4 weeks during the titration of ziprasidone. Efficacy was primarily measured using the 18-item Brief Psychotic Rating Scale (BPRS) at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. Efficacy was secondarily measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale at each visit. Regarding the metabolic effects of switching to ziprasidone, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and lipid profile-including triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and total cholesterol levels-were measured at each follow-up visit.

RESULTS

The BPRS scores were significantly improved at 12 weeks after switching to ziprasidone (F=5.96, df=2.11, p=0.003), whereas the CGI-S and GAF scores were not significantly changed. BMIs, WHRs, and TG levels were significantly decreased, with no significant changes in other lipid profiles.

CONCLUSION

Cross-tapering switching to ziprasidone is effective for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Beyond the efficacy of the procedure, favorable metabolic profiles show that switching to ziprasidone may be helpful for maintenance therapy over an extended period.

Switching to ziprasidone in the clinical practice setting: an open-label study

OBJECTIVE

This observational study evaluates the long-term outcome of switching to ziprasidone in patients with schizophrenia in the clinical practice setting.

METHODS

Patients (208) with schizophrenia who had been switched to ziprasidone monotherapy due to partial response or tolerability problems were followed for 1 year. Efficacy was assessed at baseline and months 1, 3, and 12 with Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression-severity (CGI-S), and CGI-improvement. Quality of life, functionality, and safety measures, including metabolic parameters, were also assessed; 195 subjects comprised the per protocol analysis population.

RESULTS

A reduction > or = 30% in BPRS total score was observed in 42.5% of the subjects. Mean scores of the BPRS (global and positive and negative clusters), CGI-S and CGI-I significantly decreased at endpoint (p < 0.001). Ziprasidone treatment was also associated with statistically significant improvements in the GAF, WHO-DAS-II, and SF-12. After 1-year follow-up, a mean weight decrease of -1.6 kg (p < 0.05) was observed. Mean levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides also decreased (p < 0.01) while HDL cholesterol levels increased (p < 0.05) at endpoint. No significant changes in mean glucose levels at study end were detected.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that switching to ziprasidone is effective and well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia requiring a change in antipsychotic medication.

Withdrawal symptoms and rebound syndromes associated with switching and discontinuing atypical antipsychotics: theoretical background and practical recommendations

With the widespread use of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, switching treatment has become current practice and more complicated, as the pharmacological profiles of these agents differ substantially despite their similarity in being 'atypical'. All share the ability to block dopamine D₂ receptors, and most of them also block serotonin 5-HT2A receptors. Apart from these common features, some atypical antipsychotics are also able to block or stimulate other dopamine or serotonin receptors, as well as histaminergic, muscarinergic or adrenergic receptors. As a result of the varying receptor affinities, in switching or discontinuing compounds several possible pitfalls have to be considered, including the occurrence of withdrawal and rebound syndromes. This article reviews the pharmacological background of functional blockade or stimulation of receptors of interest in regard to atypical antipsychotics and the implicated potential withdrawal and rebound phenomena. A MEDLINE search was carried out to identify information on withdrawal or rebound syndromes occurring after discontinuation of atypical antipsychotics. Using the resulting literature, we first discuss the theoretical background to the functional consequences of atypical antipsychotic-induced blockade or stimulation of neurotransmitter receptors and, secondly, we highlight the clinical consequences of this. We then review the available clinical literature on switching between atypical antipsychotics, with respect to the occurrence of withdrawal or rebound symptoms. Finally, we offer practical recommendations based on the reviewed findings. The systematic evaluation of withdrawal or rebound phenomena using randomized controlled trials is still understudied. Knowledge of pharmacological receptor-binding profiles may help clinicians in choosing adequate switching or discontinuation strategies for each agent. Results from large switching trials indicate that switching atypical antipsychotics can be performed in a safe manner. Treatment-emergent adverse events during or after switching are not always considered to be, at least in part, associated with the pre-switch antipsychotic. Further studies are needed to substantiate the evidence gained so far on different switching strategies. The use of concomitant medication, e.g., benzodiazepines or anticholinergic drugs, may help to minimize symptoms arising from the discontinuation or switching of antipsychotic treatment.

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.

Switching among antipsychotics in everyday clinical practice: focus on ziprasidone

OBJECTIVES

This article addresses points to consider when switching patients to the second-generation antipsychotic (SGA), ziprasidone, in everyday clinical practice: 1) the pharmacologic properties of the pre-switch antipsychotic and of ziprasidone; 2) switch and dosing strategies to ensure maintenance or attainment of efficacy; 3) recognition and management of possible rebound effects of the pre-switch medication discontinuation; 4) recognition and management of potential side effects of ziprasidone; and 5) education and support for patients/caregivers concerning correct ziprasidone administration.

METHODS

A Medline search (up to July 7, 2010) identified studies in which adult patients with schizophrenia were switched to ziprasidone from another antipsychotic. In addition, based on their extensive clinical experience, an expert faculty of European psychiatrists provided advice on identifying patients who may be appropriate candidates for switching to ziprasidone, and on establishing optimal strategies for switching to ziprasidone in everyday clinical practice.

RESULTS

Data from 10 studies, in which 1395 patients were switched to ziprasidone, showed that switching from first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) or SGAs generally resulted in maintenance or improvement of efficacy across all studied symptom domains, improvements in tolerability, and acute and long-term benefits regarding cardiometabolic parameters, including body weight. Maintenance of efficacy is most likely to be achieved using a plateau cross-titration strategy, with a rapid uptitration of ziprasidone to a dose range of 60 to 80 mg administered twice daily with food. Temporary coadministration of benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, or beta-blockers should be considered for the management of potential rebound effects.

CONCLUSION

Optimal switching of patients with schizophrenia from FGAs or SGAs to ziprasidone requires careful attention to differences in the pharmacological profiles of the pre-switch medication and of ziprasidone, which may impact efficacy and tolerability. Good communication between the clinician and patient/caregiver about the goals of switching, the importance of adherence to the chosen switch strategy, and the correct administration of ziprasidone are essential.

Ziprasidone hydrocloride: what role in the management of schizophrenia?

Background

Since schizophrenia is considered one of the top ten causes of disease-related disability in the world, the development of second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics (SGAs) has increased the hopes of psychiatrists. SGAs, however, cannot be considered a unique pharmacological class since each SGA has many complex pharmacologic actions, only some of which are shared with other SGAs. Even though manyantipsychotics have similar efficacy on average, prescribers may be able to achieve better than average results by considering differences in selecting a specific drug for a specific patient. Clinicians know that each patient is unique. In order to achieve best outcomes for the individual patient, the better therapy is the therapy tailored for the single patient.

Objectives

With this article, we provide information on a relatively new antipsychotic ziprasidone released in 2001 by Pfizer for the treatment of schizophrenia. Compared with other first line atypical antipsychotics ziprasidone has a unique profile due to potent interaction with serotonergic receptors and lesser action upon α1 adrenergic, H1 and M1 antagonist activities. This paper describes the development of ziprasidone, its unique properties and its metabolically-friendly profile including its receptor binding affinities, pharmacokinetics, CNS activity results of clinical efficacy and relevant clinical trials. Safety, efficacy and patient preference are also examined. The available literature on ziprasidone of the last five years is reviewed.

Clinical Practice Associated with a Switch from and to Ziprasidone during Routine Inpatient Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia

Ziprasidone (ZIP) shows a low propensity for metabolic side effects but can prolong QTc time. It is unclear how these features translate into clinical reality. Charts of inpatients with schizophrenia and switched from (ZIP - , n = 27) or to ZIP (ZIP + , n = 24) were reviewed. Clinical data including documented switch reasons were anonymously analyzed. Comorbidity, body mass index (BMI) at admission, illness severity, side effects, illness duration, and length of stay were comparable in both groups. About 2/3 of ZIP+ were women (1/3 of ZIP - , P = 0.035); ZIP+ patients were younger (P = 0.017), had higher BMI values (P = 0.042), and received higher chlorpromazine equivalents before switch (P = 0.004) whereas ZIP doses were comparable (136 versus 141 mg/d). More patients in ZIP- versus ZIP+ were switched because of previous weight gain (P = 0.006) and depression (P = 0.085) whereas single reasons for ZIP- versus ZIP+ were mainly persisting positive symptoms (P = 0.089) and patients' choice (P = 0.10). The results of the naturalistic study corroborate controlled trials.