Effects of modafinil on weight, glucose and lipid metabolism in clozapine-treated patients with schizophrenia

Pharmacological interventions for prevention of weight gain in people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is an extremely common problem in people with schizophrenia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive pharmacological interventions may be necessary to help manage antipsychotic-induced weight gain. This review splits and updates a previous Cochrane Review that focused on both pharmacological and behavioural approaches to this problem.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for preventing antipsychotic-induced weight gain in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Schizophrenia Information Specialist searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Register of Trials on 10 February 2021. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined any adjunctive pharmacological intervention for preventing weight gain in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses who use antipsychotic medications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. For continuous outcomes, we combined mean differences (MD) in endpoint and change data in the analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to judge certainty of evidence and create summary of findings tables. The primary outcomes for this review were clinically important change in weight, clinically important change in body mass index (BMI), leaving the study early, compliance with treatment, and frequency of nausea. The included studies rarely reported these outcomes, so, post hoc, we added two new outcomes, average endpoint/change in weight and average endpoint/change in BMI.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs, with a total of 1388 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five studies investigated metformin, three topiramate, three H2 antagonists, three monoamine modulators, and one each investigated monoamine modulators plus betahistine, melatonin and samidorphan. The comparator in all studies was placebo or no treatment (i.e. standard care alone). We synthesised all studies in a quantitative meta-analysis. Most studies inadequately reported their methods of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. The resulting risk of bias and often small sample sizes limited the overall certainty of the evidence. Only one reboxetine study reported the primary outcome, number of participants with clinically important change in weight. Fewer people in the treatment condition experienced weight gains of more than 5% and more than 7% of their bodyweight than those in the placebo group (> 5% weight gain RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.65; 1 study, 43 participants; > 7% weight gain RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the primary outcomes, 'clinically important change in BMI', or 'compliance with treatment'. However, several studies reported 'average endpoint/change in body weight' or 'average endpoint/change in BMI'. Metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.03 kg, 95% CI -5.78 to -2.28; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence); and BMI increase (MD -1.63 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.29; 5 studies, 227 participants; low-certainty evidence). Other agents that may be slightly effective in preventing weight gain include H2 antagonists such as nizatidine, famotidine and ranitidine (MD -1.32 kg, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.56; 3 studies, 248 participants; low-certainty evidence) and monoamine modulators such as reboxetine and fluoxetine (weight: MD -1.89 kg, 95% CI -3.31 to -0.47; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI: MD -0.66 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.26; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Topiramate did not appear effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.82 kg, 95% CI -9.99 to 0.35; 3 studies, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For all agents, there was no difference between groups in terms of individuals leaving the study or reports of nausea. However, the results of these outcomes are uncertain given the very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence to suggest that metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain. Interpretation of this result and those for other agents, is limited by the small number of studies, small sample size, and short study duration. In future, we need studies that are adequately powered and with longer treatment durations to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing weight gain.

Modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia have a range of different symptoms, including positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions), negative symptoms (such as social withdrawal and lack of affect), and cognitive impairment. The standard medication for people with schizophrenia is antipsychotics. However, these medications may not be effective for all symptoms of schizophrenia, as cognitive and negative symptoms are usually hard to treat. Additional therapies or medications are available for the management of these symptoms. Modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent most frequently used in narcolepsy or shift work sleep disorder, is one intervention that is theorised to have an effect of these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 April 2015, 24 May 2017, and 31 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for the inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials comparing modafinil with placebo or other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies including a total of 422 participants contributed to data analyses. Most studies had a small population size (average 38 people per study) and were of short duration. We also detected a high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting in just under 50% of the trials. We therefore rated the overall methodological quality of the included studies as low. We considered seven main outcomes of interest: clinically important change in overall mental state, clinically important change in cognitive functioning, incidence of a clinically important adverse effect/event, clinically important change in global state, leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in quality of life, and hospital admission. All studies assessed the effects of adding modafinil to participants' usual antipsychotic treatment compared to adding placebo to usual antipsychotic treatment. Six studies found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on overall mental state of people with schizophrenia, specifically the risk of worsening psychosis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.98; participants = 209; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Regarding the effect of modafinil on cognitive function, the trials did not report clinically important change data, but one study reported endpoint scores on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB): in this study we found no clear difference in scores between modafinil and placebo treatment groups (MD -3.10, 95% CI -10.9 to 4.7; participants = 48; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Only one study (N = 35) reported adverse effect/event data. In this study one serious adverse event occurred in each group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). One study measured change in global state using the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale. This study found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on global state (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.94 to 43.07, participants = 21; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Nine studies found that modafinil has no effect on numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.52 participants = 357; studies = 9, moderate-quality evidence). None of the trials reported clinically important change in quality of life, but one study did report quality of life using endpoint scores on the Quality of Life Inventory, finding no clear difference between treatment groups (MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.78; participants = 20; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Finally, one study reported data for number of participants needing hospitalisation: one participant in each group was hospitalised (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to methodological issues, low sample size, and short duration of the clinical trials as well as high risk of bias for outcome reporting, most of the evidence available for this review is of very low or low quality. For results where quality is low or very low, we are uncertain or very uncertain if the effect estimates are true effects, limiting our conclusions. Specifically, we found that modafinil is no better or worse than placebo at preventing worsening of psychosis; however, we are uncertain about this result. We have more confidence that participants receiving modafinil are no more likely to leave a trial early than participants receiving placebo. However, we are very uncertain about the remaining equivocal results between modafinil and placebo for outcomes such as improvement in global state or cognitive function, incidence of adverse events, and changes in quality of life. More high-quality data are needed before firm conclusions regarding the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders can be made.

Primary care management of cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illnesses: the Primrose research programme including cluster RCT

Background

Effective interventions are needed to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people with severe mental illnesses (SMI) because their risk of CVD is higher than that of the general population.

Objectives

(1) Develop and validate risk models for predicting CVD events in people with SMI and evaluate their cost-effectiveness, (2) develop an intervention to reduce levels of cholesterol and CVD risk in SMI and (3) test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this new intervention in primary care.

Design

Mixed methods with patient and public involvement throughout. The mixed methods were (1) a prospective cohort and risk score validation study and cost-effectiveness modelling, (2) development work (focus groups, updated systematic review of interventions, primary care database studies investigating statin prescribing and effectiveness) and (3) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new practitioner-led intervention, and fidelity assessment of audio-recorded appointments.

Setting

General practices across England.

Participants

All studies included adults with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other non-organic psychosis). The RCT included adults with SMI and two or more CVD risk factors.

Interventions

The intervention consisted of 8–12 appointments with a practice nurse/health-care assistant over 6 months, involving collaborative behavioural approaches to CVD risk factors. The intervention was compared with routine practice with a general practitioner (GP).

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome for the risk score work was CVD events, in the cost-effectiveness modelling it was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and in the RCT it was level of total cholesterol.

Data sources

Databases studies used The Health Improvement Network (THIN). Intervention development work included focus groups and systematic reviews. The RCT collected patient self-reported and routine NHS GP data. Intervention appointments were audio-recorded.

Results

Two CVD risk score models were developed and validated in 38,824 people with SMI in THIN: the Primrose lipid model requiring cholesterol levels, and the Primrose body mass index (BMI) model with no blood test. These models performed better than published Cox Framingham models. In health economic modelling, the Primrose BMI model was most cost-effective when used as an algorithm to drive statin prescriptions. Focus groups identified barriers to, and facilitators of, reducing CVD risk in SMI including patient engagement and motivation, staff confidence, involving supportive others, goal-setting and continuity of care. Findings were synthesised with evidence from updated systematic reviews to create the Primrose intervention and training programme. THIN cohort studies in 16,854 people with SMI demonstrated that statins effectively reduced levels of cholesterol, with similar effect sizes to those in general population studies over 12–24 months (mean decrease 1.2 mmol/l). Cluster RCT: 76 GP practices were randomised to the Primrose intervention (n = 38) or treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 38). The primary outcome (level of cholesterol) was analysed for 137 out of 155 participants in Primrose and 152 out of 172 in TAU. There was no difference in levels of cholesterol at 12 months [5.4 mmol/l Primrose vs. 5.5 mmol/l TAU; coefficient 0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.22 to 0.29], nor in secondary outcomes related to cardiometabolic parameters, well-being or medication adherence. Mean cholesterol levels decreased over 12 months in both arms (–0.22 mmol/l Primrose vs. –0.39 mmol/l TAU). There was a significant reduction in the cost of inpatient mental health attendances (–£799, 95% CI –£1480 to –£117) and total health-care costs (–£895, 95% CI –£1631 to –£160; p = 0.012) in the intervention group, but no significant difference in QALYs (–0.011, 95% CI –0.034 to 0.011). A total of 69% of patients attended two or more Primrose appointments. Audiotapes revealed moderate fidelity to intervention delivery (67.7%). Statin prescribing and adherence was rarely addressed.

Limitations

RCT participants and practices may not represent all UK practices. CVD care in the TAU arm may have been enhanced by trial procedures involving CVD risk screening and feedback.

Conclusions

SMI-specific CVD risk scores better predict new CVD if used to guide statin prescribing in SMI. Statins are effective in reducing levels of cholesterol in people with SMI in UK clinical practice. This primary care RCT evaluated an evidence-based practitioner-led intervention that was well attended by patients and intervention components were delivered. No superiority was shown for the new intervention over TAU for level of cholesterol, but cholesterol levels decreased over 12 months in both arms and the intervention showed fewer inpatient admissions. There was no difference in cholesterol levels between the intervention and TAU arms, which might reflect better than standard general practice care in TAU, heterogeneity in intervention delivery or suboptimal emphasis on statins.

Future work

The new risk score should be updated, deployed and tested in different settings and compared with the latest versions of CVD risk scores in different countries. Future research on CVD risk interventions should emphasise statin prescriptions more. The mechanism behind lower costs with the Primrose intervention needs exploring, including SMI-related training and offering frequent support to people with SMI in primary care.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13762819.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Professor David Osborn is supported by the University College London Hospital NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and he was also in part supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Barts Health NHS Trust.

Effectiveness of Prescription-Based CNS Stimulants on Hospitalization in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Nation-Wide Register Study

OBJECTIVE

Negative symptoms and cognitive deficits are main features of schizophrenia but with limited treatment options. Earlier studies have suggested that central nervous system (CNS) stimulants have a small effect on these domains, but with inconclusive results. As the first study to date, we aimed to investigate whether CNS stimulants improve naturalistic outcomes (psychiatric admissions and antipsychotic use) in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

By using extensive health registers all patients with schizophrenia and their use of CNS stimulants in Denmark were identified. Two models were used to investigate the effectiveness of CNS stimulants in patients with schizophrenia between 1995 and 2014; a mirror-image model with 605 individuals, using paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and a follow-up study with 789 individuals, using a conditional risk-set model.

RESULTS

CNS stimulants use was associated with a reduction in number of psychiatric admissions from 3.43 (95% CI = 2.86 to 4.01) to 2.62 (95% CI = 1.99 to 3.25) (P = .009), with a more pronounced reduction for women (mean difference: -1.37, 95% CI = -2.34 to -0.40, P = .006). Psychiatric bed-days were reduced by 40 (95% CI = 24.5 to 55.6, P < .001) for individuals with at least 1 admission before CNS stimulant use. In addition, the total amount of antipsychotic use (Defined Daily Dose [DDD]) was reduced (P = .001). The Hazard rate ratio in psychiatric admissions between women taking CNS stimulants compared to women not taking CNS stimulants was 0.77 (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88).

CONCLUSION

CNS stimulants may have clinical potentials for improving functional outcomes in patients with schizophrenia and randomized clinical studies evaluating this topic are warranted.

Antipsychotic-associated weight gain: management strategies and impact on treatment adherence

Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is a major management problem for clinicians. It has been shown that weight gain and obesity lead to increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality, reduced quality of life and poor drug compliance. This narrative review discusses the propensity of various antipsychotics to cause weight gain, the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions available to counteract this effect and its impact on adherence. Most antipsychotics cause weight gain. The risk appears to be highest with olanzapine and clozapine. Weight increases rapidly in the initial period after starting antipsychotics. Patients continue to gain weight in the long term. Children appear to be particularly vulnerable to antipsychotic-induced weight gain. Tailoring antipsychotics according to the needs of the individual and close monitoring of weight and other metabolic parameters are the best preventive strategies at the outset. Switching to an agent with lesser tendency to cause weight gain is an option, but carries the risk of relapse of the illness. Nonpharmacologic interventions of dietary counseling, exercise programs and cognitive and behavioral strategies appear to be equally effective in individual and group therapy formats. Both nonpharmacologic prevention and intervention strategies have shown modest effects on weight. Multiple compounds have been investigated as add-on medications to cause weight loss. Metformin has the best evidence in this respect. Burden of side effects needs to be considered when prescribing weight loss medications. There is no strong evidence to recommend routine prescription of add-on medication for weight reduction. Heterogeneity of study methodologies and other confounders such as lifestyle, genetic and illness factors make interpretation of data difficult.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of treatments for clozapine-induced obesity and metabolic syndrome

Metabolic complications are commonly found in people treated with clozapine. Reviews on the management of this problem have generally drawn conclusions by grouping different types of studies involving patients treated with various different antipsychotics. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for clozapine-induced obesity or metabolic syndrome. Two researchers independently searched PubMed and Embase for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for clozapine-induced obesity or metabolic syndrome. All other types of studies were excluded. We only included RCTs where more than 50% of participants were taking clozapine. We identified 15 RCTs. Effective pharmacological treatments for clozapine-induced obesity and metabolic syndrome include metformin, aripiprazole, and Orlistat (in men only). Meta-analysis of three studies showed a robust effect of metformin in reducing body mass index and waist circumference but no effects on blood glucose, triglyceride levels, or HDL levels. In addition, there is limited evidence for combined calorie restriction and exercise as a non-pharmacological alternative for the treatment of clozapine-induced obesity, but only in an in-patient setting. Rosiglitazone, topiramate, sibutramine, phenylpropanolamine, modafinil, and atomoxetine have not shown to be beneficial, despite reports of efficacy in other populations treated with different antipsychotics. We conclude that randomised-controlled trial data support the use of metformin, aripiprazole, and Orlistat (in men only) for treating clozapine-induced obesity. Calorie restriction in combination with an exercise programme may be effective as a non-pharmacological alternative. Findings from trials in different populations should not be extrapolated to people being treated with clozapine.

Treatment of clozapine-associated weight gain: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug with superior efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clozapine is associated with a low likelihood of extrapyramidal symptoms and other neurological side-effects but a high propensity to induce weight gain and general metabolic dysregulation. Various pharmacological and behavioral treatment approaches for reducing clozapine-associated weight gain exist in the literature; however, there are currently no clear clinical guidelines as to which method is preferred. The aim of the current review is to systematically summarize studies that have studied both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to attenuate or reverse clozapine-associated weight gain.

METHODS

A systematic review of EMBASE and MEDLINE databases of all articles published prior to January 2014 was conducted. Seventeen studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria and included in the review.

RESULTS

Aripiprazole, fluvoxamine, metformin, and topiramate appear to be beneficial; however, available data are limited to between one and three randomized controlled trials per intervention. Orlistat shows beneficial effects, but in males only. Behavioral and nutritional interventions also show modest effects on decreasing clozapine-associated weight gain, although only a small number of such studies exist.

CONCLUSIONS

While a number of pharmacological interventions can produce modest weight loss, each may be associated with negative side effects, which should be considered before beginning treatment. Given the pressing need to improve cardiometabolic health in most clozapine-treated patients, substantially more research is needed to develop sound clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of clozapine-associated weight gain.

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.

The dietary pattern of patients with schizophrenia: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

People with schizophrenia show a high incidence of metabolic syndrome, which is associated with a high mortality from cardiovascular disease. The aetiology of the metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia is multi-factorial and may involve antipsychotic treatment, high levels of stress and unhealthy lifestyle, such as poor diet. As a poor diet can predispose to the development of metabolic abnormalities, the aims of this review are to clarify: 1) the dietary patterns of patients with schizophrenia, 2) the association of these dietary patterns with a worse metabolic profile, and 3) the possible factors influencing these dietary patterns.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, Psychoinfo and ISI web of Knowledge from 1950 to the 1st of November 2011. 783 articles were found through the investigation of such databases. After title, abstract or full-text reading and applying exclusion criteria we reviewed 31 studies on dietary patterns and their effects on metabolic parameters in schizophrenia.

RESULTS

Patients with schizophrenia have a poor diet, mainly characterized by a high intake of saturated fat and a low consumption of fibre and fruit. Such diet is more likely to increase the risk to develop metabolic abnormalities. Data about possible causes of poor diet in schizophrenia are still few and inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Subjects with schizophrenia show a poor diet that partly accounts for their higher incidence of metabolic abnormalities. Further studies are needed to clarify the causes of poor diet and the role of dietary intervention to improve their physical health.

Obesity in bipolar disorder: an overview

Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with obesity, overweight, and abdominal obesity, and BD individuals with obesity have a greater illness burden. Factors related to BD, its treatment, and the individual may all contribute to BD's association with obesity. Management strategies for the obese BD patient include use of medications with better metabolic profiles, lifestyle interventions, and adjunctive pharmacotherapy for weight loss. Obesity-related psychiatric and medical comorbidities should also be assessed and managed. Bariatric surgery may be an option for carefully selected patients. Greater research into the theoretical underpinnings and clinical management of the BD-obesity connection is needed.

A review of modafinil and armodafinil as add-on therapy in antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is characterized by reality distortion, psychomotor poverty and cognitive disturbances. These characteristics contribute to a lesser social functioning and lower quality of life in patients with schizophrenia. It has been suggested that modafinil and its isomer armodafinil as an add-on strategy to antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia may improve cognitive functioning, attenuate fatigue, inactiveness and other negative functions as well as weight gain. In this paper we review the literature relevant to the question of whether modafinil and armodafinil are beneficial as add-on therapy in antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia. A total of 15 articles were included in this review; of the 15 articles, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Evidence for the use of modafinil or armodafinil as add-on therapy to antipsychotic drugs to alleviate fatigue, sleepiness and inactivity is inconclusive. One cohort study and one out of two single-dose crossover RCTs in which modafinil addition was studied could demonstrate a positive effect. All five RCTs of modafinil (three RCTs) and armodafinil (two RCTs) addition with a longer study duration could not demonstrate a positive effect. With respect to cognitive disturbances, animal models of cognitive deficits show clear improvements with modafinil. In RCTs with a treatment duration of 4 weeks or more, however, no positive effect could be demonstrated on cognitive functioning with modafinil and armodafinil addition. Yet, four single-dose crossover RCTs of modafinil addition show significant positive effects on executive functioning, verbal memory span, visual memory, working memory, spatial planning, slowing in latency, impulse control and recognition of faces expressing sadness and sadness misattribution in the context of disgust recognition. The addition of modafinil or armodafinil to an antipsychotic regime, despite theoretical and preclinical considerations, has not been proved to enhance cognitive function, attenuate fatigue, enhance activity, improve negative symptoms and reduce weight in patients with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic switching for people with schizophrenia who have neuroleptic-induced weight or metabolic problems

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is common for people with schizophrenia and this has serious implications for a patient's health and well being. Switching strategies have been recommended as a management option.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of antipsychotic medication switching as a strategy for reducing or preventing weight gain and metabolic problems in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched key databases and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trials register (January 2005 and June 2007), reference sections within relevant papers and contacted the first author of each relevant study and other experts to collect further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All clinical randomised controlled trials comparing switching of antipsychotic medication as an intervention for antipsychotic induced weight gain and metabolic problems with continuation of medication and/or other weight loss treatments (pharmacological and non pharmacological) in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected, quality assessed and data extracted. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measures were weight loss, metabolic syndrome, relapse and general mental state.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies for the review with a total of 636 participants. All except one study had a duration of 26 weeks or less. There was a mean weight loss of 1.94 kg (2 RCT, n = 287, CI -3.9 to 0.08) when switched to aripiprazole or quetiapine from olanzapine. BMI also decreased when switched to quetiapine (1 RCT, n = 129, MD -0.52 CI -1.26 to 0.22) and aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 173, RR 0.28 CI 0.13 to 0.57) from olanzapine.Fasting blood glucose showed a significant decrease when switched to aripiprazole or quetiapine from olanzapine. (2 RCT, MD -2.53 n = 280 CI -2.94 to -2.11). One RCT also showed a favourable lipid profile when switched to aripiprazole but these measures were reported as percentage changes, rather than means with standard deviation.People are less likely to leave the study early if they remain on olanzapine compared to switching to quetiapine or aripiprazole.There was no significant difference in outcomes of mental state, global state, and adverse events between groups which switched medications and those that remained on previous medication. Three different switching strategies were compared and no strategy was found to be superior to the others for outcomes of weight gain, mental state and global state.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review suggests that switching antipsychotic medication to one with lesser potential for causing weight gain or metabolic problems could be an effective way to manage these side effects, but the data were weak due to the limited number of trials in this area and small sample sizes. Poor reporting of data also hindered using some trials and outcomes. There was no difference in mental state, global state and other treatment related adverse events between switching to another medication and continuing on the previous one. When the three switching strategies were compared none of them had an advantage over the others in their effects on the primary outcomes considered in this review. Better designed trials with adequate power would provide more convincing evidence for using medication switching as an intervention strategy.

Physical health care monitoring for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Current guidance suggests that we should monitor the physical health of people with serious mental illness and there has been a significant financial investment over recent years to provide this.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical health monitoring as a means of reducing morbidity, mortality and reduction in quality of life in people with serious mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2009) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials focusing on physical health monitoring versus standard care or comparing i) self monitoring vs monitoring by health care professional; ii) simple vs complex monitoring; iii) specific vs non-specific checks iv) once only vs regular checks or v) comparison of different guidance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors (GT, AC, SM) independently screened search results and identified three studies as possibly fulfilling the review's criteria. On examination, however, all three were subsequently excluded.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of physical health monitoring in people with serious mental illness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised trials to support current guidance and practice. Guidance and practice are based on expert consensus, clinical experience and good intentions rather than high quality evidence.