Amisulpride has a superior benefit/risk profile to haloperidol in schizophrenia: results of a multicentre, double-blind study (the Amisulpride Study Group)

Efficacy and Safety of Roluperidone for the Treatment of Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

This is a placebo-controlled multi-national trial of roluperidone, a compound with antagonist properties for 5-HT2A, sigma2, and α1A-adrenergic receptors, targeting negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. This trial follows a previous trial that demonstrated roluperidone superiority over placebo in a similar patient population.

METHODS

Roluperidone 32 mg/day, roluperidone 64 mg/day, or placebo was administered for 12 weeks to 513 patients with schizophrenia with moderate to severe negative symptoms. The primary endpoint was the PANSS-derived Negative Symptom Factor Score (NSFS) and the key secondary endpoint was Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP) total score.

RESULTS

NSFS scores were lower (improved) for roluperidone 64 mg compared to placebo and marginally missing statistical significance for the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis data set (P ≤ .064), but reached nominal significance (P ≤ .044) for the modified-ITT (m-ITT) data set. Changes in PSP total score were statistically significantly better on roluperidone 64 mg compared to placebo for both ITT and m-ITT (P ≤ .021 and P ≤ .017, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this trial confirm the potential of roluperidone as a treatment of negative symptoms and improving everyday functioning in patients with schizophrenia. Study registration: Eudra-CT: 2017-003333-29; NCT03397134.

How Many Patients With Schizophrenia Do Not Respond to Antipsychotic Drugs in the Short Term? An Analysis Based on Individual Patient Data From Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

An important clinical question is how many patients with acute schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics despite being treated for adequate time and with an effective dose. However, up to date, the exact extent of the phenomenon remains unclear.

METHODS

We calculated the nonresponse and nonremission percentages using individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six thousand two hundred twenty-one patients were assigned to one antipsychotic (amisulpride, flupenthixol, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) at an adequate dose; the response was assessed at 4-6 weeks. As various definitions of nonresponse have been used in the literature, we applied 4 different cut-offs covering the whole range of percent Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) reduction (≤0%, <25%, <50%, <75%).For symptomatic remission, we used the definition proposed by Andreasen without employing the time criterion.

RESULTS

The overall nonresponse for the cut-off of ≤0% PANSS/BPRS reduction was 19.8% (18.8%-20.8%); for the cut-off of <25% reduction it was 43% (41.7%-44.3%); for the cut-off of <50% reduction it was 66.5% (65.3%-67.8%); and for the cut-off of <75% reduction it was 87% (86%-87.9%). The overall percentage of no symptomatic remission was 66.9% (65.7%-68.1%). Earlier onset of illness, lower baseline severity and the antipsychotic used were significantly associated with higher nonresponse percentages.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonresponse and nonremission percentages were notably high. Nevertheless, the patients in our analysis could represent a negative selection since they came from short-term RCTs and could have been treated before study inclusion; thus, further response may not have been observed. Observational studies on this important question are needed.

Tardive dyskinesia risk with first- and second-generation antipsychotics in comparative randomized controlled trials: a meta-analysis

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) risk with D2/serotonin receptor antagonists or D2 receptor partial agonists (second-generation antipsychotics, SGAs) is considered significantly lower than with D2 antagonists (first-generation antipsychotics, FGAs). As some reports questioned this notion, we meta-analyzed randomized controlled studies (RCTs) to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and annualized rate ratio (RaR) of TD comparing SGAs vs. FGAs and SGAs vs. SGAs. Additionally, we calculated raw and annualized pooled TD rates for each antipsychotic. Data from 57 head-to-head RCTs, including 32 FGA and 86 SGA arms, were meta-analyzed, yielding 32 FGA-SGA pairs and 35 SGA-SGA pairs. The annualized TD incidence across FGA arms was 6.5% (95% CI: 5.3-7.8%) vs. 2.6% (95% CI: 2.0-3.1%) across SGA arms. TD risk and annualized rates were lower with SGAs vs. FGAs (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.39-0.57, p<0.0001, k=28; RaR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.28-0.45, p<0.0001, number-needed-to-treat, NNT=20). Meta-regression showed no FGA dose effect on FGA-SGA comparisons (Z=-1.03, p=0.30). FGA-SGA TD RaRs differed by SGA comparator (Q=21.8, df=7, p=0.003), with a significant advantage of olanzapine and aripiprazole over other non-clozapine SGAs in exploratory pairwise comparisons. SGA-SGA comparisons confirmed the olanzapine advantage vs. non-clozapine SGAs (RaR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.88, p=0.006, k=17, NNT=100). This meta-analysis confirms a clinically meaningfully lower TD risk with SGAs vs. FGAs, which is not driven by high dose FGA comparators, and documents significant differences with respect to this risk between individual SGAs.

The effectiveness and safety of amisulpride in Chinese patients with schizophrenia who switch from risperidone or olanzapine: a subgroup analysis of the ESCAPE study

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation antipsychotics show significant interpatient variability in treatment response and side-effect profiles, and the majority of patients with schizophrenia require multiple treatment changes. This subgroup analysis of the ESCAPE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of amisulpride in Chinese patients with schizophrenia who switched from risperidone or olanzapine.

METHODS

ESCAPE was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm Phase IV study in which Chinese patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia received amisulpride for 8 weeks. This analysis included 109 patients who switched to amisulpride from risperidone (n=68) or olanzapine (n=41) and 59 treatment-naïve patients for reference. The primary effectiveness outcome was a ≥50% decrease in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score from Baseline to Week 8. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01795183).

RESULTS

Of the patients who switched from risperidone and olanzapine, 77.9% and 56.1% achieved ≥50% reduction in PANSS Total score from Baseline to Week 8 and 57.4% and 46.3% achieved ≥20% reduction in PANSS score from Baseline to Week 2, respectively; these end points were achieved by 66.1% and 61.0% of treatment-naïve patients, respectively. No unexpected adverse events (AEs) were reported. Of the most common AEs, extrapyramidal side effects occurred in 32.4% and 14.6%, blood prolactin increase in 32.4% and 39.0%, and ≥7% increase in body weight in 4.4% and 12% of patients switching from risperidone and olanzapine, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of this subgroup analysis suggest that switching to amisulpride from risperidone and olanzapine is effective and generally well tolerated in Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

Amisulpride Switching in Schizophrenic Patients Who Showed Suboptimal Effect and/or Tolerability to Current Antipsychotics in a Naturalistic Setting: An Explorative Study

Objective

Despite numerous atypical antipsychotics (AAP) available, many patients with schizophrenia still experience lack of efficacy and persistent side-effects. Switching from one AAP to another with a different side-effect profile has become a common clinical strategy. We aimed to investigate effect of switching to amisulpride in patients who showed suboptimal effect and/or tolerability to current antipsychotics treatment.

Methods

This was a 6-week, prospective, multicenter, open-label, flexible-dose study in patients with schizophrenia. Switching to amisulpride was achieved using cross-titration within 7 days (day 1: 300 mg on day 1 then flexibly dosed 400–800 mg/day). The primary end-point measure was proportion of patients achieving improvement in clinical benefit at week 6 based on Clinical Global Impressions-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB). Secondary endpoints included change in scores in CGI-CB, CGI-Severity (CGI-S), Subjective Satisfaction Scores (SSS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Simpson and Angus Rating Scale.

Results

Among 37 patients switched to amisulpride, 76% completed study and 56.8% had clinical benefit measure by CGI-CB. CGI-CB and CGI-S scores showed significant improvement at week 6 compared to baseline (mean changes of CGI-CB and CGI-S scores: −1.7+1.0, p<0.0001 and −0.6±0.0, p=0.001, respectively). SSS scores also improved significantly (mean change: 2.1±2.6, p<0.0001). Mean weight of patients significantly lowered compared to baseline (mean change: −1.2±2.0, p<0.0001).

Conclusion

Patients with schizophrenia who showed suboptimal efficacy or tolerability with their current antipsychotics and thereby switched to amisulpride resulted in clinical benefit in terms of both improved efficacy and tolerability. The small sample size limits generalizability of the study results.

The effectiveness and safety of amisulpride in Chinese patients with schizophrenia: An 8-week, prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm study

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of amisulpride in Chinese schizophrenia patients.

METHODS

A multicenter, single-arm Phase IV study (NCT01795183). Chinese patients with schizophrenia received amisulpride for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was ≥50% decrease in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score from Baseline to Week 8.

RESULTS

A total of 316 patients were enrolled; 295 were included in the effectiveness analysis; 66.8% (197/295) achieved ≥50% decrease in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score from Baseline to Week 8. Nine patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Amisulpride had clinical effectiveness and was relatively well tolerated in Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

Do patients with paranoid and disorganized schizophrenia respond differently to antipsychotic drugs?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the differential response to amisulpride in patients with paranoid versus disorganized schizophrenia.

METHOD

We reanalyzed the original data from five different randomized drug trials comparing Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores in a database containing 427 paranoid and 296 disorganized patients with schizophrenia.

RESULTS

Both the disorganized and the paranoid group showed a substantial improvement of the BPRS total score within the first 4 weeks. In the paranoid group, mean (±SD) BPRS reduction was 16.9 (±14.6) (t = 24.06, df = 426, P < 0.001) and in the disorganized group 17.0 (±15.9) (t = 18.49, df = 295, P < 0.001). An analysis of covariance (ancova) controlling for BPRS at baseline and the influence of different trial protocols showed significant differences between diagnostic groups (F = 13.47, df = 1, P < 0.001), Cohen's D 0.31 (CI = 0.16-0.46). Paranoid patients improved by 4.8 BPRS points more than disorganized patients (adjusted means 18.90 (CI = 17.33-20.37) for the paranoid and 14.1 (CI = 12.04 - 16.11) for the disorganized group.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that amisulpride is effective in disorganized as well as in paranoid schizophrenia, but that symptom reduction in the disorganized subtype is less pronounced.

Imputation of response rates from means and standard deviations in schizophrenia

Missing outcome data is a major threat in meta-analytical studies of schizophrenia. Most clinical trials in psychiatry report only continuous outcome measures and express the effect of an intervention as a difference of means. However, these results are difficult to interpret for clinicians. Converting continuous data to binary response rates is one possible solution to the problem. Based on means and standard deviations for a continuous outcome, we examined the performance of an imputation method to define a dichotomous outcome using original individual patients' data from 16 randomized trials (6276 participants) comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia. We concluded that the imputed values re-captured in a reasonable degree the observed values providing a simple and practical alternative methodological choice for imputation of missing binary data in schizophrenia trials; nevertheless, the imputation method tended to introduce biases, especially for extreme risks and large treatment differences.

A similar but distinctive pattern of impaired cortical excitability in first-episode schizophrenia and ADHD

BACKGROUND

First-episode schizophrenia (FE-SZ) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are both neuropsychiatric disorders associated with an impaired dopaminergic transmission. Though displaying different clinical phenotypes, a common pathophysiological pathway is discussed controversially. Several studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) revealed abnormalities in human motor cortex excitability in both schizophrenia and ADHD patients. Studies on cortical excitability comparing these two diseases directly are lacking.

METHOD

In this study, a total of 94 subjects were analyzed. Twenty-five FE-SZ patients were directly compared with 28 ADHD patients and 41 healthy controls (HC). We investigated cortical excitability (inhibitory and facilitatory networks) with single- and paired-pulse TMS to the left and right motor cortex.

RESULTS

Compared to HC, FE-SZ/ADHD patients displayed an impaired cortical inhibition over the left hemisphere. Apart from an enhanced intracortical facilitation, FE-SZ patients did not differ compared to ADHD patients in the main outcome measures. Both patient groups presented a dysfunctional hemispheric pattern of cortical inhibition and facilitation in comparison with HC.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate a pattern of cortical disinhibition and abnormal hemispheric balance of intracortical excitability networks in two different psychiatric diseases. These effects might be associated with an imbalance in GABAergic and dopaminergic transmission and might provide evidence for a common pathophysiological pathway of both diseases.

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.

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.

Metabolic, endocrinologic and cardiac effects of amisulpride: a 24-week follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Amisulpride is a second-generation antipsychotic which has been proved to be effective in the control of both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. In this study we aimed to determine metabolic, endocrinologic and cardiac effects of amisulpride commonly used in our clinical practice.

METHODS

A total of 18 patients (11 males, 7 females) diagnosed with schizophrenia received amisulpride at the dosage of 800 mg/day and were followed up for 24 weeks. Positive and negative psychotic symptoms, extrapyramidal and sexual side effects, metabolic, endocrinologic and cardiac parameters were evaluated at regular intervals.

RESULTS

Significant improvement in both positive and negative symptoms was observed in patients starting from the second week of treatment. Prolactin levels increased significantly both in men and women starting from the measurement on day 4. Prolactin elevation was significantly higher in women than in men. Increase in total cholesterol level became significant at week 24. No other significant difference was observed between weeks 1 and 24 regarding the other parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical data from the present study supports the fact that amisulpride is an effective and safe antipsychotic drug, but elevates prolactin levels in both sexes.

The use of amisulpride in the treatment of acute psychosis

The management of acute episodes in schizophrenia is frequently initiated in the psychiatric emergency department and requires rapid intervention to relieve distress and psychiatric symptoms. Both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions are needed to calm the patient and prevent potential harm to the patient or others. Treatment is a step-by-step process including management of behavioral symptomatology, diagnosis of potential organic causes, and evaluation of potential substance abuse. Better care is delivered if predefined standard operating procedures are adopted systematically. The ultimate goal of treatment is to establish a therapeutic alliance with the patient. Atypical antipsychotics given orally are recommended as a first-line treatment. As the treatment endpoint is calmness rather than sleep, a non-sedative antipsychotic agent is usually preferred. Drug tolerance is a major issue for the patient. Amisulpride is an effective atypical antipsychotic agent in this context. The optimal dose is 800 mg/day, which is effective on positive and negative symptoms and can be given from the first day with a low risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Since drug-drug interactions are limited, agitation and anxiety may be controlled by short-term adjunctive therapy with benzodiazepines. In conclusion, amisulpride is an appropriate first-line treatment for the management of acute psychosis.

How to obtain NNT from Cohen's d: comparison of two methods

BACKGROUND

In the literature we find many indices of size of treatment effect (effect size: ES). The preferred index of treatment effect in evidence-based medicine is the number needed to treat (NNT), while the most common one in the medical literature is Cohen's d when the outcome is continuous. There is confusion about how to convert Cohen's d into NNT.

METHODS

We conducted meta-analyses of individual patient data from 10 randomized controlled trials of second generation antipsychotics for schizophrenia (n = 4278) to produce Cohen's d and NNTs for various definitions of response, using cutoffs of 10% through 90% reduction on the symptom severity scale. These actual NNTs were compared with NNTs calculated from Cohen's d according to two proposed methods in the literature (Kraemer, et al., Biological Psychiatry, 2006; Furukawa, Lancet, 1999).

RESULTS

NNTs from Kraemer's method overlapped with the actual NNTs in 56%, while those based on Furukawa's method fell within the observed ranges of NNTs in 97% of the examined instances. For various definitions of response corresponding with 10% through 70% symptom reduction where we observed a non-small number of responders, the degree of agreement for the former method was at a chance level (ANOVA ICC of 0.12, p = 0.22) but that for the latter method was ANOVA ICC of 0.86 (95%CI: 0.55 to 0.95, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Furukawa's method allows more accurate prediction of NNTs from Cohen's d. Kraemer's method gives a wrong impression that NNT is constant for a given d even when the event rate differs.

Relative indices of treatment effect may be constant across different definitions of response in schizophrenia trials

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials of antipsychotics, various cutoffs have been used to define response on continuous outcome measures.

AIMS

To find a summary effect measure that remains constant across different definitions of response.

METHOD

We conducted secondary analyses of individual patient data from 10 randomized controlled trials of second-generation antipsychotics for schizophrenia (n=4278) by applying a meta-analytic approach to produce odds ratios (OR), risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for different definitions of response, using cutoffs of 10% through 90% reduction on the symptom severity rating scales. Constancy of these indices was examined through visual inspection, by way of I-squared statistics to quantify heterogeneity, and by way of coefficients of variation. If any of these indices were found to remain reasonably constant, we next examined the concordance between the number needed to treat (NNT) predicted from them and the observed NNT.

RESULTS

OR and RR remained reasonably constant across various definitions of response, especially for those using thresholds of 10% through 70% reduction. The NNTs predicted from OR and RR agreed well with the observed NNTs, with ANOVA intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.86 (0.72 to 0.93), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative measures of treatment effectiveness remain reasonably constant across different scale-derived definitions of response and, in conjunction with varying control event rates, can give accurate estimates of NNTs for individuals with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic medication, functional outcome and quality of life in schizophrenia: focus on amisulpride

BACKGROUND

Restoration of quality of life is considered as the ultimate treatment goal in the management of schizophrenia and is important for destigmatising the disease. However, few studies, including the most recent, have collected quality of life data prospectively or evaluated the relationship of treatment with quality of life.

SCOPE

Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic drug which has been described to have potency in improving negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia and whose use is associated with a relatively low rate of emergence of extrapyramidal side-effects. These properties may contribute to a beneficial effect on quality of life. A systematic literature review of functional outcome in clinical trials with amisulpride was performed in order to assess the effect of this drug on quality of life and social functioning in patients. The Medline database was searched for all studies of amisulpride in schizophrenia which reported functional and quality of life outcomes up until 30 September 2009.

FINDINGS

Only one dedicated study assessing functional outcome or quality of life as a primary outcome criterion was identified. This demonstrated significant improvement in subjective well-being in patients with schizophrenia initiating treatment with amisulpride, and a correlation between this improvement and amelioration of psychopathology. In addition, functional outcome rating scales were used as secondary outcome measures in eight randomised clinical trials, and two naturalistic observational studies. Amisulpride treatment was associated with improvement in functional outcome, with effect sizes that were comparable between studies. Improvements in functional outcome are consistently greater than those observed in patients treated with haloperidol and similar in magnitude to those seen with three other atypical antipsychotics, namely olanzapine, ziprasidone and risperidone. A patient-reported outcome measure was used in only one comparative study, and demonstrated perception of a superior benefit with amisulpride compared to haloperidol. These findings could to some extent be replicated in several large naturalistic studies under standard conditions of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The data from studies on functional outcome and subjective well-being provide consistent information supporting the use of amisulpride for the treatment of schizophrenia in order to improve social functioning, integration into the community and autonomy, which are critical for the overall quality of life of patients with schizophrenia.

Safety and tolerability of antipsychotics: focus on amisulpride

The introduction of the atypical antipsychotic drugs represents an important advance in the treatment of schizophrenia, because the therapeutic efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles of these agents seem to be superior to that of the classical neuroleptics. As would be predicted from the pharmacologic profile of a pure D(2)/D(3) receptor blocker, amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic agent, effective for positive and negative symptoms, which can bring about additional improvement in the social functioning and quality of life of patients with schizophrenia. Amisulpride is effective in acute schizophrenia as determined by Clinical Global Impression scores. The major concern regarding the safety of the atypical antipsychotics is related to their propensity to induce weight gain and alter glucose and lipid metabolism. Amisulpride has one of the lowest potentials for weight gain of all the antipsychotic agents, and is associated with clearly lower use of antiparkinsonian medication and with fewer dropouts due to adverse events than conventional antipsychotics. Amisulpride is well tolerated with regard to anxiety and insomnia, and not notably different from placebo. Amisulpride has a pronounced prolactin-elevating effect which appears to be independent of dosage and duration of administration. Hyperprolactinemia rapidly reverses following amisulpride discontinuation. Amisulpride benefits patients with negative symptoms, and is the only antipsychotic to demonstrate efficacy in patients with predominantly negative symptoms. Amisulpride maintains its efficacy when used for medium/long-term treatment, as demonstrated in studies of up to 12 months. In terms of relevance of the effects, superiority is observed for quality of life, social adaptation, and functioning, as measured by the Quality of Life and Functional Status Questionnaire scales. In conclusion, amisulpride is an antipsychotic agent with proven efficacy and good tolerability. Moreover, this drug can help people with schizophrenia to attain social reinsertion.

Dropout rates in randomized clinical trials of antipsychotics: a meta-analysis comparing first- and second-generation drugs and an examination of the role of trial design features

Dropout is often used as an outcome measure in clinical trials of antipsychotic medication. Previous research is inconclusive regarding (a) differences in dropout rates between first- and second-generation antipsychotic medications and (b) how trial design features reduce dropout. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antipsychotic medication was conducted to compare dropout rates for first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs and to examine how a broad range of design features effect dropout. Ninety-three RCTs that met inclusion criteria were located (n = 26 686). Meta-analytic random effects models showed that dropout was higher for first- than second-generation drugs (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-1.66). This advantage persisted after removing study arms with excessively high dosages, in flexible dose studies, studies of patients with symptom exacerbation, nonresponder patients, inpatients, and outpatients. Mixed effects models for meta-analysis were used to identify design features that effected dropout and develop formulae to derive expected dropout rates based on trial design features, and these assigned a pivotal role to duration. Collectively, dropout rates are lower for second- than first-generation antipsychotic drugs and appear to be partly explained by trial design features thus providing direction for future trial design.

Update on the management of symptoms in schizophrenia: focus on amisulpride

Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic drug with a unique receptor pharmacology which is dose dependent. It is a standard treatment in dysthymia as well as in psychosis. Amisulpride is efficacious, effective and well tolerated in positive symptoms of schizophrenia: there is extensive evidence that it treats negative symptoms when given in low doses, although relative lack of EPS and an antidepressant effect may contribute. In first-episode patients amisulpride is an option, although there is little comparative work available. Amisulpride has the best evidence as an effective adjunct to clozapine treatment. Regarding intellectual function, amisulpride appears cognitive sparing but the clinical relevance of this remains obscure. There is evidence that amisulpride can improve social function but again there is little comparative work to demonstrate any particular advantages. Regarding the current conventional versus atypical antipsychotic controversy, amisulpride did better in switching studies and meta-analyses than in the single large pragmatic randomized trial reported to date. It is a versatile drug, and may offer advantages over other atypical antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms, and tolerability advantages such as the avoidance of weight gain. Essentially it rests with the treating clinician to employ a rational psychopharmacological approach towards the individual patient: there will be few circumstances in which amisulpride will not be a likely contender as a treatment choice.

Practical issues with amisulpride in the management of patients with schizophrenia

Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic with a significantly greater effect size than first-generation, typical antipsychotics, and efficacy at least similar to that of olanzapine and risperidone in large-scale clinical trials in schizophrenia. Amisulpride provides greater improvement in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, a better long-term outcome than typical antipsychotics, and distinct tolerability advantages over typical antipsychotics, which are reported to cause extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) in 20-50% of patients. In addition, amisulpride is associated with significantly less weight gain than olanzapine and risperidone, does not increase body mass index, and favourably influences lipid profiles. In many patients with schizophrenia, adverse events impair adherence to treatment, and switching from typical or atypical antipsychotic therapy to amisulpride may be clinically appropriate. Observational drug-utilization studies suggest that many physicians switch to amisulpride because of fewer EPS and/or less weight gain and improved patient adherence. Cross-tapering (over 4 weeks), rather than abrupt cessation of pre-switch treatment, is preferred. Amisulpride has a low risk of drug-drug interactions, and, during cross-tapering, patients can remain on concurrent treatments (e.g. anticholinergics and antiparkinsonian agents) until the effective dosage has been reached. An appropriate amisulpride starting dose is 800 mg/day for patients with acute psychotic exacerbations, 400-800 mg/day for patients with predominantly positive symptoms, and 100-300 mg/day for predominantly negative symptoms. Amisulpride may be particularly suitable for clozapine-augmentation therapy in patients with refractory schizophrenia. Indeed, amisulpride is more effective than quetiapine as augmentation therapy in patients partially responsive to clozapine, and several prospective open-label studies and case series have reported promising results for amisulpride/clozapine combination therapy. In three prospective studies, addition of amisulpride 200-800 mg/day to clozapine significantly reduced mean scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total (-33% to -35%), Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (-31%), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total (-22%), and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (-34%). The proportion of responders (CGI score > or =3 or BPRS improvement >20%) was 71-86%. Retrospective case-series analyses have also reported improved psychopathological state, reduced adverse events, and lower clozapine dosage requirement with use of this combination. The pharmacological and clinical profiles of amisulpride suggest that this agent is a viable clinical option when a change of antipsychotic therapy is required in patients with schizophrenia because of lack of efficacy, adverse events and poor adherence to treatment, or for augmentation of clozapine in treatment-resistant illness.

On the concept of remission in schizophrenia

RATIONALE

Criteria for remission in schizophrenia have recently been presented. It is unclear how many acutely ill patients meet these criteria and how they compare with previously suggested definitions.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

We re-analysed seven anti-psychotic drug trials (n = 1,708) of patients with schizophrenia to find out how many met the new remission criteria and their single components, how many met two previously used remission criteria, and how many met simpler measures of response (at least 50% Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] reduction, a Clinical Global Impressions [CGI] improvement score of at least 'much better' or a CGI severity score of 'mild or better').

RESULTS

Thirty-seven percent/41% (last observation carried forward [LOCF]/completer analysis [CO]) of the initially acutely ill patients with positive symptoms met the severity criteria of remission at 4 weeks, and 27%/52% (worst case/CO) met the severity and time criteria at 1 year. Only 13%/21% (LOCF) met the severity criteria at 4 weeks/1 year when an item threshold 'at best very mild symptoms' was applied, and almost no patients were absolutely symptom-free. The psychotic symptoms component was more difficult to achieve than the negative component. The criteria were more stringent than 'at least 50% BPRS reduction' and than 'CGI improvement score of at least much better.' However, the definition 'CGI severity score mild or better' was of a stringency similar to the new remission criteria, which probably explains why fewer patients met previously defined criteria that included this scale.

CONCLUSION

The new remission criteria proved to be an achievable goal for clinical trials. A consensus on the application of their time component is still needed.

Quality of life in schizophrenic patients

In the last decades, there has been increased interest in the field of quality of life in mental disorders in general, and particularly in schizophrenia. In addition, the appearance of the atypical antipsychotic drugs (amisul pride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone) with different therapeutic and side-effect profiles, has promoted a greater interest in assessing the quality of life of schizophrenic patients. In this paper we will briefly summarize the difficulties in assessing quality of life in schizophrenic patients, as well as the results concerning their quality of life and the influence of psychopathology, especially negative and depressive symptoms, on it. We will also review data from recent clinical trials showing the impact of antipsychotic treatments and their side effects upon quality of life.

Defining 'response' in antipsychotic drug trials: recommendations for the use of scale-derived cutoffs

Scale-derived cutoff points are frequently used to define 'response' in antipsychotic drug trials. This procedure is useful, because responder rates can be understood more intuitively than a difference in means of rating scales. As various definitions of response have been used, we examined original participant data to assess whether the choice of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-based response cutoff had an impact on the results of seven (n=1870) antipsychotic drug trials in schizophrenia. We also analyzed whether the chronicity of the illness has an impact on the question of which cutoff is most sensitive in detecting differences between drugs. The results in terms of p-values and response rate differences varied substantially in dependence on the cutoff chosen. The use of response rate ratios attenuated the variability. In contrast to a widely held belief, low response cutoffs were not more sensitive in detecting differences between drugs than higher cutoffs. In more chronic, less responsive participants, there was a trend for higher cutoffs to be less sensitive in detecting differences between drugs than lower ones. The results of clinical trials depend considerably on the response cutoff chosen. Therefore, the cutoff should never be chosen post hoc, a large range of cutoffs should be presented and the a priori choice of the primary cutoff should be based on clinical relevance. The use of ratios rather than differences attenuates the variability. Cutoffs need to be calculated on the basis of 0-6 rather than on 1-7 scoring systems. We suggest a table presenting responder rates in 25 percent steps covering the whole range up to 100% reduction from baseline, which could be displayed together with recently presented criteria for remission.

Is the superior efficacy of new generation antipsychotics an artifact of LOCF?

It has been argued that the efficacy superiority found in meta-analyses for some of the atypical antipsychotics is an artifact of higher dropout rates due to side effects in the haloperidol group combined with last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analyses. We therefore reanalyzed a number of pivotal studies comparing new generation antipsychotics (NGAs) and conventional antipsychotics (CAs). A total of 5 studies (n = 1271) comparing amisulpride and 3 studies (n = 2454) comparing olanzapine with CAs were reanalyzed using original patient data. We applied 4 different models: LOCF, completer analysis, LOCF but excluding dropouts due to adverse events, and LOCF but excluding all dropouts with the exception of dropouts related to efficacy. Effect sizes expressed as standardized mean differences between NGAs and CAs based on the 4 different analysis models were compared. The overall results were not different irrespective of the model used. Single studies, however, showed higher effect sizes when LOCF instead of other models was used. Overall, it does not seem that higher dropout rates due to side effects in the haloperidol groups together with LOCF analyses consistently biased the results in favor of amisulpride and olanzapine. Because the results of the single studies, however, showed that this may occasionally be the case, future studies should look at the data from different angles applying sensitivity analyses, and they may use alternative statistics such as mixed models, which need to be developed further. Ultimately, strategies to reduce dropout rates are needed.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Atypical Antipsychotics

In the past, the information about the dose-clinical effectiveness of typical antipsychotics was not complete and this led to the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. This, together with the intention of improving patients' quality of life and therapeutic compliance, resulted in the development of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). This review will concentrate on the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, amisulpride, ziprasidone, aripiprazole and sertindole, and will discuss the main aspects of their pharmacodynamics. In psychopharmacology, therapeutic drug monitoring studies have generally concentrated on controlling compliance and avoiding adverse effects by keeping long-term exposure to the minimal effective blood concentration. The rationale for using therapeutic drug monitoring in relation to SGAs is still a matter of debate, but there is growing evidence that it can improve efficacy, especially when patients do not respond to therapeutic doses or when they develop adverse effects. Here, we review the literature concerning the relationships between plasma concentrations of SGAs and clinical responses by dividing the studies on the basis of the length of their observation periods. Studies with clozapine evidenced a positive relationship between plasma concentrations and clinical response, with a threshold of 350-420 ng/mL associated with good clinical response. The usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring is well established because high plasma concentrations of clozapine can increase the risk of epileptic seizures. Plasma clozapine concentrations seem to be influenced by many factors such as altered cytochrome P450 1A4 activity, age, sex and smoking. The pharmacological effects of risperidone depend on the sum of the plasma concentrations of risperidone and its 9-hydroxyrisperidone metabolite, so monitoring the plasma concentrations of the parent compound alone can lead to erroneous interpretations. Despite a large variability in plasma drug concentrations, the lack of studies using fixed dosages, and discrepancies in the results, it seems that monitoring the plasma concentrations of the active moiety may be useful. However, no therapeutic plasma concentration range for risperidone has yet been clearly established. A plasma threshold concentration for parkinsonian side effects has been found to be 74 ng/mL. Moreover, therapeutic drug monitoring may be particularly useful in the switch between the oral and the long-acting injectable form. The reviewed studies on olanzapine strongly indicate a relationship between clinical outcomes and plasma concentrations. Olanzapine therapeutic drug monitoring can be considered very useful in assessing therapeutic efficacy and controlling adverse events. A therapeutic range of 20-50 ng/mL has been found. There is little evidence in favour of the existence of a relationship between plasma quetiapine concentrations and clinical responses, and an optimal therapeutic range has not been identified. Positron emission tomography studies of receptor blockade indicated a discrepancy between the time course of receptor occupancy and plasma quetiapine concentrations. The value of quetiapine plasma concentration monitoring in clinical practice is still controversial. Preliminary data suggested that a therapeutic plasma amisulpride concentration of 367 ng/mL was associated with clinical improvement. A therapeutic range of 100-400 ng/mL is proposed from non-systematic clinical experience. There is no direct evidence concerning optimal plasma concentration ranges of ziprasidone, aripiprazole or sertindole.

Pharmacological treatment of primary negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment of primary negative symptoms is important because their presence is associated with poor outcome.

AIMS

To systematically review all studies dealing with the efficacy of pharmacological agents on primary negative symptoms.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the relevant literature was undertaken using electronic database, reference lists and personal contact.

RESULTS

There is a lack of standardized research designs. Amisulpride is the most extensively studied drug with respect to efficacy against primary negative symptoms. At low doses it demonstrates a consistent, modest effect compared to placebo, though not to conventional antipsychotics and has yet to be tested against other atypicals. Evidence from multiple studies that used simple statistical analyses and inclusion criteria for patients with primary negative symptoms does not support a direct effect for clozapine. Path-analysis studies support the direct effects of risperidone, olanzapine, sertindole and aripiprazole, however, different statistical analyses of the same risperidone study produced conflicting results and the direct effects of olanzapine were not confirmed in selected patients with primary negative symptoms. There are no studies supporting the use of ziprasidone or quetiapine. The effects of typical antipsychotics on primary negative symptoms are inconclusive and likely to depend on drug dosages. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mirtazepine and NMDA agonists show early promise but require further study. Novel agents such as selegiline, naltrexone, dehydroepiandrosterone, galantamine, Ginkgo, nitric oxide, L-deprenyl and pergolide show positive effects on general negative symptoms but remain untested against primary negative symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies using standardized selective inclusion criteria and controlling for chronicity are needed. Research guidelines are discussed.

[Comparative evaluation of quality of life in patients with schizophrenia treated with conventional versus atypical neuroleptics: results of a transversal study]

AIM

The World Health Organization has defined quality of life as "the perception of an individual, his/her place in life, in the context of the culture and the system of values in which he/she lives and in relation to his/her objectives, expectations, standards and concerns". The quality of life of the schizophrenic patients has been largely studied for the evaluation of their medical, social and therapeutic needs. The impact of neuroleptics, in particular atypical neuroleptics, on the subjective quality of life of these patients remains to be specified. The aim of this study was to compare the subjective quality of life of schizophrenic patients treated with classical neuroleptics (CN) or atypical neuroleptics (AN).

METHODS

One hundred patients meeting DSM IV criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) were included in the study. Sixty-four schizophrenic patients were treated with CN and thirty-six with AN. The symptomatology of the patients was assessed using the Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale, (PANSS, Kay et al., 1987) and the Schedule for the Deficit Syndrome (SDS, Kirkpatrick et al., 1989). The extra-pyramidal symptoms were assessed using the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (Chouinard et al., 1980). The Subjective quality of life was studied using the Lehman Quality of Life Interview (QOLI, Lehman, 1988) translated and validated in France.

RESULTS

The patients treated by CN did not differ from the patients treated by AN in terms of severity of the positive and negative symptoms. The patients treated with AN presented significantly less extrapyramidal side effects than the patients treated with CN. No significant difference in terms of quality of life was found between both groups of patients.

CONCLUSION

The kind of neuroleptic (CN vs AC) does not seem to influence the quality of subjective life of schizophrenic patients.

The relationship between patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes in schizophrenia

In recent years, the goals of treatment in schizophrenia have evolved from objective improvements in psychotic symptoms to encompass patient-related factors such as subjective response and quality of life. In order to examine factors that influence patient satisfaction with treatment, subjective quality of life and subjective response to treatment, two literature searches were performed using PubMed. The first searched for articles of any kind with no time limits using the search parameters 'schizophrenia AND satisfaction', 'antipsychotic AND satisfaction', 'schizophrenia AND subjective response', 'schizophrenia AND therapeutic alliance', 'schizophrenia AND psychosocial OR psychoeducation'. Secondly, PubMed was searched between January 1990 and December 2005 using the key words 'satisfaction', 'subjective response' and 'quality of life' in combination with an array of atypical agents. Results demonstrated that patient satisfaction with antipsychotic therapy is influenced by multiple factors. The most frequently reported reasons for dissatisfaction include drug side effects, lack of involvement in treatment planning or decision-making and lack of involvement of family members in the care plan. The majority of studies have demonstrated that the atypical antipsychotics are associated with significant improvements in quality of life, functional status and patient satisfaction compared with conventional agents. The therapeutic alliance is key to achieving optimal outcomes, by providing information and education to meet patients' needs, while facilitating compliance with drug therapy to ensure better clinical outcomes. A long-acting atypical antipsychotic that can ensure medication delivery will provide a platform for psychosocial interventions, and thus may further increase patient satisfaction and, ultimately, improve long-term outcomes in schizophrenia.

Improvement of patient compliance after switching from conventional neuroleptics to the atypical neuroleptic amisulpride

Medication noncompliance of schizophrenic outpatients is an important problem in clinical practice, causing relapse and illness deterioration. Because atypical neuroleptics have, in controlled clinical studies, been shown to be better tolerated and accepted by patients, the question is whether switching from conventional to atypical neuroleptics such as amisulpride can increase patient compliance also under conditions of routine care. In a drug utilization observation study 570 schizophrenic outpatients, who had been pretreated with conventional neuroleptics and then been switched for individual clinical reasons to amisulpride, were observed for 3 months. Sociodemographic, illness and treatment related variables (e.g. Positive and Negative Symptom Scale, side effects), patients' subjective attitudes, and premedication and treatment compliance were assessed using standardized instruments. A total of 43.7% were rated as being noncompliant with the premedication, while 85.8% were rated as compliant after being switched to amisulpride, including 82.7% of the former noncompliant patients. Patients who had become compliant showed a signicantly better psychopathological status after 3 months as compared to still noncompliant patients, including a lower rate of inpatient stays. Switching noncompliant patients from conventional to atypical neuroleptics like amisulpride can improve patient compliance and psychopathology under conditions of routine treatment.

Symptom domains of schizophrenia: the role of atypical antipsychotic agents

Given their more obvious presentation, the reduction of positive symptoms and their associated behavioural problems have been considered the most important treatment outcome parameter in patients with schizophrenia. However, the development of the atypical antipsychotic agents in the early 1990s resulted in the adoption of more wide-reaching measures of therapeutic outcome. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of currently available atypical agents across multiple symptom domains of schizophrenia with a specific focus on negative symptoms, neurocognition, social functioning, quality of life and insight. As such, studies published between January 1990 and December 2005 that evaluated the clinical efficacy and tolerability of atypical antipsychotics in different symptom domains of schizophrenia were reviewed as identified from literature researches using MEDLINE and Embase. Abstracts and posters presented at key psychiatry and schizophrenia congresses during this period were also reviewed where available in the public domain. Results from the studies identified have consistently demonstrated that atypical antipsychotics have substantial advantages over conventional antipsychotics with a broader spectrum of efficacy across symptomatic domains of schizophrenia as proven by greater improvements in negative symptoms and cognitive function and a beneficial effect on affective symptoms and quality of life. However, their clinical advantages have often been limited by patients' partial compliance with therapy. As such, the development of a long-acting atypical antipsychotic agent may provide a new and valuable treatment option for patients with schizophrenia.

Linking the PANSS, BPRS, and CGI: clinical implications

To understand what given scores of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) mean from a clinical point of view is important for the translation of research results into practice. We therefore (a) compared the absolute change of the BPRS/PANSS with the Clinical Global Impressions Ratings (CGI) -improvement score and the change of the CGI severity score, (b) analyzed whether the severity of illness at baseline had an impact on the latter association, and (c) attempted to replicate previous BPRS findings using a completely different data set based upon the PANSS-derived BPRS. The method used was equipercentile linking of BPRS and CGI ratings from 14 drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n=5970). An absolute reduction of the BPRS/PANSS by approximately 10/15 points corresponded to a CGI change of 'minimally improved' and to a change of the CGI severity score by one severity step. However, the latter associations depended on the severity of symptoms at baseline. Less severely ill patients required less BPRS/PANSS total score reduction to achieve the same CGI-improvement score than more severely ill patients. This effect of initial severity was attenuated using percentage rather than absolute BPRS/PANSS reduction scores. The linking analysis between the absolute BPRS/PANSS reduction and the CGI may have an implication for the interpretation of efficacy differences found in clinical trials, and for sample size estimations. Clinicians seem to base CGI ratings on relative change rather than on absolute change of symptoms.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, part 2: long-term treatment of schizophrenia

These guidelines for the biological treatment of schizophrenia were developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP). The goal during the development of these guidelines was to review systematically all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of schizophrenia, and to reach a consensus on a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating people with schizophrenia. The data used for developing these guidelines have been extracted primarily from various national treatment guidelines and panels for schizophrenia, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews and randomised clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into four levels of evidence (A-D). This second part of the guidelines covers the long-term treatment as well as the management of relevant side effects. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication, other pharmacological treatment options, electroconvulsive therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

Acute weight gain induced by amisulpride monotherapy in a first-episode schizophrenic patient

The introduction of atypical antipsychotics into clinical practice has lead to an increase of adverse metabolic effects in psychotic patients. Amisulpride is a substituted benzamide derivative, and its use is associated with a lower risk of weight gain compared to other atypical antipsychotics. The case of an acute and excessive weight increase in a female first-episode schizophrenic patient who was treated with amisulpride monotherapy is reported. The improvement in psychopathology was remarkable. However, the patient gained 12.9 kg of body weight in the first 2 months of amisulpride administration and a total of 17.3 kg, 6 months after initiation of the treatment. Glucose and insulin levels, as well as a glucose tolerance test, remained normal throughout the observation period.

Ziprasidone and amisulpride effectively treat negative symptoms of schizophrenia: results of a 12-week, double-blind study

We compared the efficacy of ziprasidone and amisulpride in the treatment of negative symptoms and overall psychopathology in subjects who had chronic schizophrenia with predominantly negative symptoms. This multicentre, 12-week, double-blind study randomly assigned subjects with predominantly negative-symptom schizophrenia [i.e. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Negative Subscale score >or=6 points greater than Positive Subscale score] to ziprasidone (40-80 mg b.i.d.; n=60) or amisulpride (50-100 mg b.i.d.; n=63). The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in PANSS Negative Subscale score. Secondary efficacy variables included change in scores for PANSS Total, Global Assessment of Functioning, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale derived from PANSS Total and Core, Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity and CGI-Improvement. For the change in PANSS Negative Subscale score, a ratio to assess the equivalence of the treatment groups was calculated from the least squares mean changes from baseline, with equivalence claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the ratio exceeded 0.60. Mean daily dose, adjusted for differential numbers of subjects and differential days between visits, was 118.0 mg for ziprasidone and 144.7 mg for amisulpride. Mean PANSS Negative Subscale scores improved over the 12-week treatment period for intent-to-treat subjects, evaluable subjects (subjects with >or=4 weeks of double-blind treatment and no protocol deviations) and completers in both treatment groups. Ziprasidone demonstrated efficacy comparable to amisulpride in improving negative symptoms and global psychopathology. The groups demonstrated comparable improvements in secondary efficacy variables. Both agents were generally well tolerated, with comparably low incidences of movement disorders. In subjects with negative symptom-prominent schizophrenia, ziprasidone in mean daily doses of 118 mg was equivalent to amisulpride in mean daily doses of 148 mg in ameliorating negative symptoms and comparable in improving overall psychopathology and global illness severity.

ADHD and schizophrenia phenomenology: visual scanpaths to emotional faces as a potential psychophysiological marker?

Commonalities in the clinical phenomenology and psychopharmacology of ADHD and schizophrenia are reviewed. The potential of psychostimulants to produce psychotic symptoms emphasizes the need for objective psychophysiological distinctions between these disorders. Impaired emotion perception in both disorders is discussed. It is proposed that visual scanpaths to facial expressions of emotion might prove a potentially useful psychophysiological distinction between ADHD and schizophrenia. There is consistent evidence that both facial affect recognition and scanpaths to facial expressions are impaired in schizophrenia, with emerging empirical evidence showing that facial affect recognition is impaired in ADHD also. Brain imaging studies show reduced activity in the medial prefrontal and limbic (amygdala) brain regions required to process emotional faces in schizophrenia, but suggest more localized loss of activity in these regions in ADHD. As amygdala activity in particular has been linked to effective visual scanning of face stimuli, it is postulated that condition-specific breakdowns in these brain regions that subserve emotional behavior might manifest as distinct scanpath aberrations to facial expressions of emotion in schizophrenia and ADHD.

Choice of delta: requirements and reality--results of a systematic review

An essential problem in planning clinical non-inferiority or equivalence studies is the specification of the 'irrelevant difference' (irrelevance margin; delta). This quantifies the amount of non-inferiority or difference, respectively, between a new test therapy and an established standard treatment which is to be considered as tolerable. In the past, most recommendations and guidelines for clinical non-inferiority and equivalence studies contained only general statements and formulations concerning the specification of delta. The current unsatisfactory situation was the reason for performing a systematic review of published clinical non-inferiority and equivalence studies. It was the aim to gain an overview on the irrelevance margins used in such studies, and on reasons for choosing the particular margins. For the sake of comparability, the irrelevance margins were converted into standardized differences and odds ratios. Overall, there were 332 non-inferiority or equivalence trials obtained by means of an extensive literature search. The results of the systematic review show that current requirements on the choice of delta and the reality of recent clinical non-inferiority and equivalence trials differ substantially. In about one half of the trials a difference of 0.5 standard deviations or more was regarded as 'irrelevant' explicitly or implicitly. Estimates of standard-placebo differences formed the basis of the irrelevance margin in less than every tenth trial. Reasons for this very low proportion might be (1) the possibly resulting very small irrelevance margins, and (2) unsolved problems of the requirements themselves. Overall, it seems that a more global definition of 'irrelevance' might be warranted.

The relative sensitivity of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale in antipsychotic drug trials

Although the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) are both frequently used in drug trials for schizophrenia, their relative sensitivity in detecting differences between antipsychotics has not yet been examined. We therefore reanalyzed original patient data from all four pivotal, randomized controlled studies (n = 1205) that compared amisulpride with haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia. The sensitivity of the BPRS vs the CGI-improvement and the CGI-severity scales in detecting between-drug differences was estimated by calculating effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals for both continuous (standardized mean differences) and dichotomous outcomes (odds ratios). The primary end points were the last observation carried forward results at study end points pooling all studies, but the results of the observed cases at different study weeks and the results of the single studies were also examined. The effect sizes derived from the BPRS and from the CGI were similar. When the single studies were pooled, all outcomes analyzed showed a statistically significant superiority of amisulpride compared to haloperidol as early as 2 weeks after initiation of treatment. The CGI may be as sensitive as the BPRS in detecting efficacy differences between antipsychotic drugs, although specific studies with truly independent ratings would be needed for confirmation. The fact that it takes only 1-2 min to fill in the CGI justifies its use in addition to more specific scales in drug trials for schizophrenia. Further development and evaluation of the CGI is warranted.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, Part 1: acute treatment of schizophrenia

These guide lines for the biological treatment of schizophrenia were developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBO). The goal during the development of these guidelines was to review systematically all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of schizophrenia, and to reach a consensus on a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating people with schizophrenia. The data used for developing these guidelines have been extracted primarily from various national treatment guidelines and panels for schizophrenia, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews and randomised clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into four levels of evidence (A-D). This first part of the guidelines covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology and course of schizophrenia, as well as the management of the acute phase treatment. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication, other pharmacological treatment options, electroconvulsive therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the clinical meaning of its total score and cut-off values used to define treatment response are unclear.

AIMS

To link the BPRS to Clinical Global Impression (CGI) ratings.

METHOD

Equipercentile linking of BPRS and CGI ratings from seven drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n=1979).

RESULTS

'Mildly ill' according to the CGI approximately corresponded to a BPRS total score of 31, 'moderately ill'to a BPRS score of 41 and'markedly ill'to a BPRS score of 53.'Minimally improved'according to the CGI score was associated with percentage BPRS reductions of 24, 27 and 30% at weeks 1, 2 and 4, respectively. The corresponding numbers for a CGI rating of 'much improved' were 44, 53 and 58%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide a clearer understanding of how to interpret BPRS total and percentage reduction scores in clinical trials with patients acutely ill with schizophrenia who are experiencing positive symptoms.

Early-onset hypothesis of antipsychotic drug action: a hypothesis tested, confirmed and extended

BACKGROUND

A recent meta-analysis rejected the "delayed onset of antipsychotic action hypothesis" that had been described in textbooks for decades. Since meta-analyses are prone to a number of methodological problems, we attempted a replication by a) using a large database of individual patient data rather than meta-analysis, b) including another antipsychotic and c) extending the analysis from four weeks to one year.

METHODS

We pooled the data of seven randomized trials involving amisulpride. The data included 1708 patients with schizophrenia and positive symptoms and we examined the incremental percentage Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) reduction over time.

RESULTS

The "early onset of antipsychotic action hypothesis" was confirmed, as the reduction of overall and positive symptoms until week two was larger than the additional reduction until week four (p<.0001). Furthermore, in a subset with long-term data (n=748) approximately 68% of the mean BPRS change at one year was already achieved at four weeks in the observed cases.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial amount of the antipsychotic drug effect seems to occur during the first weeks of treatment. Subsequent analyses are needed to establish how long an antipsychotic should be tried before it is considered ineffective and alternative strategies implemented.

Influence of topiramate on olanzapine-related adiposity in women: a random, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of topiramate versus a placebo in the treatment of adiposity in women undergoing olanzapine therapy. We also assessed changes health-related quality of life, the patient's actual state of health, and psychologic impairments. The 10-week, random, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 43 women who had been treated with olanzapine (mean dose 7.8 +/- 3.6 in the topiramate group and 7.2 +/- 3.1 in the placebo group) and had gained weight as a side effect. The subjects were randomly assigned to topiramate (n = 25) or a placebo (n = 18). Primary outcome measures were weight checks and self-reported changes on the scales of the SF-36 Health Survey, Bf-S Scale of Well-Being, and the Adjective Checklist EWL-60-S. Weight loss was observed and was significantly more pronounced in the topiramate-treated group (difference in weight loss between the 2 groups: 5.6 kg, 95% CI = -8.5, -3.0, P < 0.001). In comparison with the placebo group, significant changes on 7 (7/8) scales of SF-36 Health Survey (all P < 0.001), on all 6 scales of the EWL-60-S, and on the Bf-S were observed in the topiramate-treated subjects after 10 weeks. All patients tolerated topiramate well. Topiramate appears to be a safe and effective agent in the treatment of weight gain that occurred during olanzapine treatment. Significantly positive changes in health-related quality of life, the patient's actual state of health, and psychologic impairments were observed.

Quality of life in persons with schizophrenia in out-patient treatment with first- or second-generation antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE

Effects of first in comparison with second-generation antipsychotics on the subjective quality of life (QoL) of patients with schizophrenia under routine treatment conditions were examined.

METHOD

In a prospective naturalistic trial the QoL, social, clinical, and treatment-related characteristics and type of antipsychotic medication of 307 patients with schizophrenia (ICD-10 F 20) were assessed five times with 6-month intervals over 2.5 years. Longitudinal and cross-sectional effects of antipsychotic medication were assessed by hierarchical regression models. Selection bias was controlled by propensity scores.

RESULTS

While positive effects of first-generation antipsychotics on subjective QoL in comparison with no antipsychotic treatment were found, second-generation antipsychotics caused no better QoL than first-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSION

The hypothesis that second-generation in comparison with first-generation antipsychotics have a better effect on the improvement of subjective QoL of people with schizophrenia in routine out-patient treatment was not supported.

Therapeutic monitoring of new antipsychotic drugs

Typical antipsychotic drugs qualify for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) primarily for the following reasons: control of compliance and avoidance of extrapyramidal side effects by keeping chronic exposure to minimal effective blood levels. For the atypical antipsychotic clozapine, drug safety is another reason to use TDM. With regard to the new antipsychotics risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, amisulpride, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, which have been introduced in the clinic during the last few years, the rationale to use TDM is a matter of debate. Positron emission tomography (PET), which enables measurement of the occupancy of dopamine D2 receptors, revealed that receptor occupancy correlated better with plasma concentrations than with doses of the antipsychotics. Regarding plasma levels related to therapeutic effects, optimal concentrations have been established for clozapine (350-600 ng/mL), risperidone (20-60 ng/mL), and olanzapine (20-80 ng/mL) but not for the other new antipsychotics. Studies that included analyses of drug levels in blood reported mean concentrations of 68 ng/mL for quetiapine and 317 ng/mL for amisulpride under therapeutic doses of the antipsychotic drugs. For ziprasidone or aripriprazole, data on therapeutic drug concentrations are so far lacking. In conclusion, evidence is growing that TDM may improve efficacy and safety in patients treated with the new antipsychotic drugs, especially when patients do not respond or develop side effects under therapeutic doses. The few reported investigations, however, need to be confirmed and extended.

Management of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia: new treatment options

This article presents a systematic review of pharmacological treatment for negative symptoms of schizophrenia, based on MEDLINE searches from 1995 to September 2002 to identify pertinent clinical trials. The pharmacotherapy of negative symptoms in schizophrenia includes novel/atypical antipsychotics and classical antipsychotics, as well as antidepressants, glutamatergic compounds, antiepileptic drugs and estrogens. In the assessment of therapy for negative symptoms of schizophrenia, it is imperative that better studies of sound methodology are performed. In such studies, some important aspects to be considered include an accurate definition and assessment of negative symptoms (including well designed, valid and reliable rating scales), the differentiation between primary and secondary negative symptoms, an appropriate selection of standard comparators, adequate dosages of comparators (e.g. haloperidol dosages) and an overall optimal study design. Most of the available studies on treating negative symptoms in schizophrenia have focused on the atypical antipsychotics, while other potential candidates, mostly in the context of add-on therapy, have not been so intensively investigated. Atypical antipsychotics have been proven in placebo-controlled trials to be effective in treating negative symptoms of acute schizophrenic episodes. In many of the comparator studies, they showed efficacy in treating negative symptoms that was superior to that of typical antipsychotics. Data on stable, predominant negative symptoms in subchronic or chronic cases of schizophrenia, although limited, have demonstrated the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics. If the beneficial tolerability profile with respect to extrapyramidal symptoms is also taken into account during clinical decision making, the atypical antipsychotics should be preferred for the treatment of negative symptoms. It is also worth noting that the traditional antipsychotics have the risk of inducing negative symptoms in the context of akinesia. The benefits of add-on therapy with SSRIs or a glutamatergic compound are well documented. Estrogen add-on therapy seems promising. Other traditionally suggested approaches, such as comedication with an antiepileptic drug, lithium or beta-adrenoceptor antagonist, cannot generally be recommended on the basis of the available data.

[Psychopharmacological treatment in the pre-clinical emergency medicine]

Psychiatric emergencies are a common cause for a call for the pre-clinical emergency physician (EP). However, previous studies reported serious problems in diagnosing and particularly treating these patients. Although evidence-based treatment guidelines and algorithms exist for the most important somatic disorders the EP has to deal with, they do not for psychiatric emergencies. It is the aim of this review, subsequent to an extensive overview on the available literature, to provide the reader with differentiated suggestions for pharmacological crisis intervention as well as with treatment recommendations for different psychiatric disorders with an emphasis on the special needs in the pre-clinical emergency medicine. After conducting a literature research from 1971 to 2002, 31 double-blind trials were found comparing different antipsychotics and benzodiazepines for efficacy and tolerability. Further, pharmacological data and product information of the most commonly used drugs were evaluated. Following, antipsychotics and benzodiazepines were generally assessed for their usefulness in the pre-clinical emergency medicine, the advantages of different drugs for specific indications are presented and dosage recommendations are given. As an antipsychotic, haloperidol still is the drug of choice. Within the benzodiazepines, lorazepam seems to have advantages over diazepam. An antipsychotic medication is particularly indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, mania, drug-induced psychoses and delirium whereas benzodiazepines are favourable for the treatment of anxiety, restlessness and agitation due to neurotic or reactive circumstances. There is some evidence suggesting that newer generation, so-called "atypical" antipsychotics may play a role in the treatment of psychiatric emergencies, however, controlled trials are necessary to substantiate their potential benefits in the preclinical emergency medicine.

The new and evolving pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

Based on the evidence presented here, the following tentative conclusions can be drawn. Atypical antipsychotics (except amisulpride) have shown superiority over placebo in acute schizophrenia. Compared with conventional antipsychotics, they are at least as effective. Generally, analyses employing conservative criteria (e.g., Cochrane reviews) report few efficacy differences between atypical and conventional agents. There are now many well-controlled studies indicating modest advantages for the atypical antipsychotics, however, particularly in specific symptom domains. For the treatment of negative symptoms, olanzapine and to a lesser extent amisulpride seem most promising. Risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine display advantages in improving cognitive and depressive symptoms. There are indications that the atypical antipsychotics are associated with decreased likelihood of rehospitalization and improved quality of life. In head-to-head comparisons of atypical antipsychotics, none have shown consistent efficacy advantages. In severely refractory samples, no atypical antipsychotics have consistently been shown to be as effective as clozapine or superior to conventional agents. There are indications, however, that risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine have advantages over conventional agents in less severely refractory patients. Few maintenance RCTs have been published, and efficacy advantages for atypical antipsychotics in prospective RCTs in first-episode schizophrenia have not been reported.

Amisulpride: a review of its use in the management of schizophrenia

Amisulpride, a substituted benzamide derivative, is a second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic. At low doses, it enhances dopaminergic neurotransmission by preferentially blocking presynaptic dopamine D2/D3 autoreceptors. At higher doses, amisupride antagonises postsynaptic dopamine D2 and D3 receptors, preferentially in the limbic system rather than the striatum, thereby reducing dopaminergic transmission. In patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia, the recommended dosage of amisulpride is 400 to 800 mg/day, although dosages < or =1200 mg/day may be administered. In comparative trials, amisulpride administered within this range (400 to 1200 mg/day) was as effective as haloperidol 5 to 40 mg/day, flupenthixol 25 mg/day and risperidone 8 mg/day in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia with predominantly positive symptoms. Amisulpride was more effective than haloperidol but equally effective as risperidone in controlling negative symptoms. Amisulpride 400 to 800 mg/day was more effective than haloperidol, risperidone and flupenthixol in controlling affective symptoms in these patients. In randomised, double-blind trials involving patients with predominantly negative symptoms of schizophrenia, amisulpride 50 to 300 mg/day was more effective than placebo. Amisulpride is effective as maintenance therapy in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Long-term treatment with amisulpride was associated with improvements in quality of life and social functioning. Amisulpride is generally well tolerated. In well-controlled trials, the neurological tolerability profile (including ratings on extrapyramidal symptom scales) of amisulpride 400 to 1200 mg/day was superior to that of the conventional antipsychotics (haloperidol or flupenthixol), but was similar to that of the atypical antipsychotic risperidone. At low dosages of amisulpride (< or =300 mg/day), the incidence of adverse events (including extrapyramidal symptoms) reported with amisulpride was similar to that with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In comparative trials, amisulpride 400 to 1200 mg/day showed efficacy in reducing overall symptomatology and positive symptoms similar to that of conventional antipsychotics and newer atypical antipsychotics in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. Moreover, its effective alleviation of negative and affective symptoms, its lower association with extrapyramidal symptoms and loss of cognitive function than conventional antipsychotics and its long-term efficacy justifies consideration of the use of higher dosages of amisulpride in this group of patients. Consequently, the dosage of amisulpride that is recommended in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia is 400 to 800 mg/day, although dosages < or =1200 mg/day may be administered. Lower dosages of amisulpride (50 to 300 mg/day) should be considered for the management of patients with negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Amisulpride is a first-line treatment option in the management of schizophrenia in the acute phase and for the maintenance of treatment response.