The Dose Reduction in Schizophrenia (DORIS) Study: a final report

Risk Factors for Psychotic Relapse After Dose Reduction or Discontinuation of Antipsychotics in Patients With Chronic Schizophrenia. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Although maintenance treatment with antipsychotics protects against psychotic relapse, high doses may hamper recovery. Therefore, dose reduction or discontinuation may be considered in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Here, we identified risk factors for psychotic relapse when doses are reduced.

STUDY DESIGN

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from January 1950 through January 2021 and reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported relapse rates after antipsychotic dose reduction or discontinuation in patients with chronic schizophrenia. We calculated relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) per person-year and sought to identify potential risk factors for relapse. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017058296).

STUDY RESULTS

Forty-seven RCTs (54 patient cohorts, 1746 person-years) were included. The RR for psychotic relapse with dose reduction/discontinuation versus maintenance treatment was 2.3 per person-year (95% CI: 1.9 to 2.8). The RR was higher with antipsychotic discontinuation, dose reduction to less than 3-5 mg haloperidol equivalent (HE), or relatively rapid dose reduction (<10 weeks). The RR was lower with long-acting injectable agents versus oral antipsychotic dose reduction. Other factors that increased the risk of psychotic relapse were younger age and short follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should take several risk factors for psychotic relapse into account when considering dose reduction in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Studies of a relatively fast reduction in antipsychotic dose support a minimum dose of 3-5 mg HE. However, if the dose is tapered more gradually, relapses related to medication withdrawal might be avoided, possibly enabling lower-end doses to be achieved.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life,  rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.  No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).   More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.

Factors associated with successful antipsychotic dose reduction in schizophrenia: a systematic review of prospective clinical trials and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined predictors of successful antipsychotic dose reduction in schizophrenia. Prospective clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotic dose reduction in schizophrenia were selected for systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. In total, 37 trials were identified. Only 8 studies focused on second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs); no studies investigated long-acting injectable SGAs. Of 24 studies evaluating relapse or symptom changes, 20 (83.3%) met the criteria for successful dose reduction. Factors associated with successful dose reduction were study duration < 1 year, age > 40 years, duration of illness > 10 years, and post-reduction chlorpromazine equivalent (CPZE) dose > 200 mg/day. Clinical deterioration was mostly re-stabilized by increasing the dose to the baseline level (N = 7/8, 87.5%). A meta-analysis of 18 RCTs revealed that relapse rate was significantly higher in the reduction group than the maintenance group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-3.12), whereas neurocognition was significantly improved (standardized mean difference = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.25-1.12). A subgroup analysis indicated that only a post-reduction CPZE dose ≤ 200 mg/day was associated with an increased risk of relapse (RR = 2.79; 95% CI, 1.29-6.03). Thus, when reducing antipsychotic doses, clinicians should consider the long-term risk of relapse in younger patients with a relatively short illness duration and keep the final doses higher than CPZE 200 mg/day. Further studies, particularly those involving SGAs, are warranted to determine the optimal strategies for successful antipsychotic dose reduction in schizophrenia.

Risk Factors for Psychotic Relapse After Dose Reduction or Discontinuation of Antipsychotics in Patients With Chronic Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

High doses of antipsychotics in patients with chronic schizophrenia might lead to more severe side effects and possibly hamper recovery, but dose reduction carries the risk of psychotic relapse. It would be helpful to establish risk factors for relapse during dose reduction. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from January 1950 through June 2019 and reviewed studies that reported on relapse rates (event rates [ERs]) after dose reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotics in cohorts of patients with chronic schizophrenia. We calculated ERs (with 95% CIs) per person-year and sought to identify potential risk factors, such as patient characteristics, dose reduction/discontinuation characteristics, and study characteristics. Of 165 publications, 40 describing dose reduction or discontinuation in 46 cohorts (1677 patients) were included. The pooled ER for psychotic relapse was 0.55 (95% CI 0.46–0.65) per person-year. The ER was significantly higher in inpatients, patients with a shorter duration of illness, patients in whom antipsychotics were discontinued or in whom the dose was reduced to less than 5 mg haloperidol equivalent, studies with a short follow-up or published before 1990, and studies in which relapse was based on clinical judgment (ie, rating scales were not used). Clinicians should consider several robust risk factors for psychotic relapse in case of dose reduction in chronic schizophrenia.

Increasing antipsychotic dose for non response in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not reach a satisfactory clinical response with a standard dose of an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, clinicians face the dilemma of increasing the antipsychotic dose in order to enhance antipsychotic efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of increasing antipsychotic dose compared to keeping the same dose in the treatment of people with schizophrenia who have not responded (as defined in the individual studies) to an initial antipsychotic drug trial. We also examine the adverse effects associated with such a procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting useable data, comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose rather than maintaining the original dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data . We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten relevant RCTs with 675 participants are included in this review. All trials were double blind except one single blind. All studies had a run-in phase to confirm they did not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. The trials were published between 1980 and 2016. In most studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. In addition sample sizes were often small, limiting the overall quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the number of participants who showed clinically relevant response (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.40, 9 RCTs, N = 533, low-quality evidence), or left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.07, very low quality evidence), or due to any reason (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90, 5 RCTs, N = 353, low-quality evidence). Similarly, no clear difference was found in general mental state as measured by PANSS total score change (MD -1.44, 95% CI -6.85 to 3.97, 3 RCTs, N = 258, very low quality evidence). At least one adverse effect was equivocal between groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50, 2 RCTs, N = 191, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for time in hospital or quality-of-life outcomes. Finally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not show any effect on the primary outcome but these analyses were clearly underpowered.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current data do not show any clear differences between increasing or maintaining the antipsychotic dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. Adverse effect reporting was limited and poor. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optional treatment strategy in such cases.

Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is a benchmark, accessible antipsychotic drug against which the effects of newer treatments are gauged.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the best range of doses for haloperidol for the treatment of people acutely ill with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2010), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies if they involved people being treated for acute schizophrenia, randomised to two or more dose ranges of non-depot haloperidol, and if they reported clinically meaningful outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we inspected all citations and independently re-inspected a sample of citations in order to ensure reliable selection. We resolved any disagreement by discussion, and where doubt remained, we acquired the full-text article for further inspection. We then ordered papers, and reliably re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports, and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We assumed that people who left the study early or were lost to follow-up had a negative outcome. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes that reported ITT, last observation carried forward (LOCF) data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials with 19 different randomised dose comparisons. No studies reported data on relapse rates or quality of life and only one compared low dose (> 1.5 to 3 mg/day) haloperidol to higher dose ranges. Using standard lower dose (> 3 to 7.5 mg/day) did not result in loss of efficacy (no clinically important improvement in global state, versus standard higher dose (> 7.5 to 15 mg/day, n = 48, 1 RCT, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.8, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose (> 15 to 35 mg/day, n = 81, 2 RCTs, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2, very-low-quality evidence). Doses of haloperidol in the range of > 3 to 7.5 mg/day had a lower rate of development of clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects than higher doses (clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects, versus standard higher dose, n = 64, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose, n = 144, 3 RCTs, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8, very-low-quality evidence; versus very high dose (> 35 mg/day, n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1, very-low-quality evidence). None of the other comparisons between dose ranges yielded statistically significant differences, but several, particularly with lower dose ranges, were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Noresults were conclusive and all were based on small, short studies of limited quality. However, it would be understandable if clinicians were cautious in prescribing doses in excess of 7.5 mg/day of haloperidol to a person with uncomplicated acute schizophrenia, and if people with schizophrenia were equally reticent to take greater doses. Further research is needed regarding the efficacy and tolerability of the lower dose ranges, especially > 1.5 to 3 mg/day.

Dose response and dose equivalence of antipsychotics

We review evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled studies of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, which compared 2 or more doses of an antipsychotic to calculate the dose-response curve for each first-generation (typical) antipsychotic (FGA) or second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic (SGA) and as a group (based on dose equivalence). We identified the near-maximal effective dose (ED; ie, the threshold dose necessary to produce all or almost all the clinical responses for each drug). In randomized, fixed-dose studies of SGAs, the near-maximal efficacy dose for olanzapine may be greater than 16 mg; for risperidone, it is 4 mg; and for ziprasidone, it is 120 mg. Risperidone at 2 mg daily is 50% less efficacious than higher doses. Olanzapine at about 6 mg is approximately 33% less effective than higher doses. Aripiprazole at 10 mg daily was fully efficacious. Doses of clozapine well above 400 mg are necessary for optimal treatment of many schizophrenia patients. We found 3.3 to 10 mg haloperidol to be the near-maximal ED range. We find no evidence that doses higher than these are more effective. We failed to find that high doses of haloperidol (or all other first-generation comparison drugs converted to equivalent doses) were less effective than medium doses (3.3 to 10 mg). While high-dose FGAs are not less effective, we feel it is important not to avoid using high dose to avoid excessive toxicity.

Reducing the dose of antipsychotic medications for those who had been treated with high-dose antipsychotic polypharmacy: an open study of dose reduction for chronic schizophrenia

Antipsychotic medications are often used at higher than the recommended dose and sometimes in a combination regimen to treat schizophrenia. However, in general, high-dose therapies have been abandoned in recent clinical studies. In this study, dose reduction of antipsychotic medication was implemented for patients with chronic schizophrenia, most of whom (81%) had been treated with an antipsychotic high-dose polypharmacy regimen consisting of more than 1000 mg/day in total amount. The results show that merely reducing the amount of antipsychotic led to favourable outcome in 23 out of 41 cases (56%), with another 13 cases (32%) showing no change. Dose reduction ended in failure in only five subjects (12%). Overall, the amount as well as the number of antipsychotic medications was significantly reduced from 1984 mg to 812 mg per day (reductions of 59% and from 3.6 to 2.2, respectively; both P<0.0001). The Global Assessment of Functioning scale improved from 30.6 to 37.2, which reached significance (P<0.001). Accordingly, the Severity of Illness improved from 4.7 to 4.2, and was also significant (P<0.01). Dose reduction is an encouraging strategy to consider for those patients with schizophrenia who have chronically been treated with high-dose antipsychotic polypharmacy, even if judged unavoidable in the past.

Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is a benchmark, accessible antipsychotic against which the effects of newer treatments are gauged.

OBJECTIVES

The primary goal of this review is to determine the best range of doses for haloperidol for the treatment of people acutely ill with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), The Cochrane Library (1999, Issue 2), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999) and PsycLIT (1887-1999). They also inspected all references of all identified trials and included studies sought as a citation on SCISEARCH database (1980-1999). Authors of identified studies and pharmaceutical companies were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were selected if they involved people being treated for acute schizophrenia, randomised to two or more dose ranges of non-depot haloperidol, and if they reported clinically meaningful outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers independently and blindly inspected citations (10% reliability check), they ordered papers, and reliably re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports. The reviewers, again working independently, also extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Reviewers assumed that people who left the study early or were lost to follow-up had a negative outcome. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for continuous outcomes that reported intention to treat (ITT), last observation carried forward (LOCF) data. Data was excluded if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials with nineteen different randomised dose comparisons were included. No studies reported data on relapse rates, quality of life and none compared >1.5-3.0 mg/day haloperidol to higher dose ranges. Using low doses (>3-7.5mg/day) did not clearly result in loss of efficacy (no clinically important improvement in global state, versus >7.5-15mg/day n=48, 1 RCT, RR 1.09 CI 0.7 to 1.8; versus >15-35mg/day n=81, 2 RCTs, 0.95 CI 0.8 to 1.2). Doses of haloperidol in the range of >3-7.5 mg/day had a lower rate of development of clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects than higher doses (clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects, versus >7.5-15mg/day n=64, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12 CI 0.01 to 2.1; versus >15-35mg/day n=144, 3 RCTs RR 0.59 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNH 3 CI 2 to 6; versus >35mg/day n=86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.5 to 1.1). All other comparisons between dose ranges did not yield statistically significant differences, but several, particularly with lower dose ranges, were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No results are conclusive and all are based on small, short, studies. It would be understandable, however, if clinicians were cautious in prescribing doses in excess of 7.5 mg/day of haloperidol to a person with uncomplicated acute schizophrenia, and if people with schizophrenia were equally reticent to take greater doses. Further research is needed regarding the efficacy and tolerability of the >1.5-3.0 mg/day dose range.