Quetiapine extended release versus aripiprazole in children and adolescents with first-episode psychosis: the multicentre, double-blind, randomised tolerability and efficacy of antipsychotics (TEA) trial

Comparative analysis of third-generation antipsychotics in first-episode schizophrenia: efficacy, safety, and cognitive impacts. A narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Schizophrenia is a chronic, complex mental health disorder requiring effective management to mitigate its broad personal and societal impacts. This narrative review assesses the efficacy, effectiveness, and side effects of third-generation antipsychotics (TGAs) like aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine, focusing on their use in first-episode schizophrenia. These drugs aim to reduce side effects typical of earlier antipsychotics while more effectively addressing positive and cognitive symptoms.

METHODS

Our extensive literature review, using PubMed and Scopus, includes randomized controlled trials and observational studies, showing TGAs may match older antipsychotics in efficacy with fewer side effects, notably in reducing extrapyramidal symptoms and enhancing cognitive outcomes.

RESULTS

Aripiprazole appears effective in both acute and maintenance phases of schizophrenia, while brexpiprazole and cariprazine show potential in managing negative symptoms and improving social functioning, essential for patient recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

This review emphasizes the need for personalized treatment and further research to fully determine the long-term benefits and safety of TGAs. These findings can inform clinical decisions and underline the ongoing need for innovation in schizophrenia pharmacotherapy.

I Didn't Want the Psychotic Thing to Get Out to Anyone at All: Adolescents with Early Onset Psychosis Managing Stigma

The impact of stigmatisation on adults with mental illnesses has been thoroughly demonstrated. However, little is known about experiences of stigmatisation among adolescents with mental illness. Through semi-structured interviews with 34 Danish adolescents (14-19 years) diagnosed with psychosis, this study explores adolescents' experiences of psychosis stigma. On the basis of phenomenological analysis, we find that stigmatisation is widely experienced, and psychosis is generally regarded as more stigmatising than co-morbid mental illnesses. The participants engage in different strategies to manage possible stigma, especially strategies of (non-)disclosure. Disclosure is experienced as both therapeutic and normative, but also bears the risk of stigmatisation, and is therefore associated with numerous considerations. Being understood when disclosing is central to the participants, and lack of understanding from others is a continuous challenge. Nevertheless, participants experience benefits when feeling understood by people they confide in and can to a degree create the grounds for this through centralising aspects of their experiences of psychosis and mental illness. We argue that disclosure is both a stigma management strategy and a normative imperative, and that being understood or not is a challenge transcending stigma definitions.Clinical trial registration: Danish Health and Medicines Authority: 2612-4168. The Ethics Committee of Capital Region: H-3-2009-123. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01119014. Danish Data Protection Agency: 2009-41-3991.

Dopamine partial agonists: a discrete class of antipsychotics

Worldwide, there are now three marketed dopamine D2 partial agonists: aripiprazole, brexpiprazole and cariprazine. These three drugs share a number of properties other than their action at D2 receptors. Pharmacologically, they are 5HT2 antagonists and D3 and 5HT1A partial agonists but with little or no alpha-adrenergic, anticholinergic or antihistaminic activity. They also share a long duration of action. Clinically, D2 partial agonists are effective antipsychotics and generally have useful antimanic and antidepressant activity. They are usually well tolerated, causing akathisia and insomnia only at the start of treatment, and are non-sedating. These drugs also share a very low risk of increased prolactin and of weight gain and accompanying metabolic effects. They may also have a relatively low risk of tardive dyskinesia. There is some evidence that they are preferred by patients to dopamine antagonists. Individual dopamineD2 partial agonists have much in common and as a group they differ importantly from dopamine D2 antagonists. Dopamine D2 partial agonists should be considered a distinct class of antipsychotics.Key pointsD2 partial agonists share many pharmacological and clinical propertiesD2 partial agonists differ in several important respects from D2 antagonistsD2 partial agonists should be considered a discrete class of antipsychotics.

Lost in Translation: Challenges in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia

Early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) is a heterogeneous condition that has a serious, insidious clinical course and poor long-term mental health outcomes. The clinical presentations are highly complex due to the overlapping symptomatology with other illnesses, which contributes to a delay in the diagnosis. The objective of the review is to study if an earlier age of onset (AAO) of EOS has poor clinical outcomes, the diagnostic challenges of EOS, and effective treatment strategies. The review provides a comprehensive literature search of 5966 articles and summarizes 126 selected for empirical evidence to methodically consider challenges in diagnosing and treating EOS for practicing clinicians. The risk factors of EOS are unique but have been shared with many other neuropsychiatric illnesses. Most of the risk factors, including genetics and obstetric complications, are nonmodifiable. The role of early diagnosis in reducing the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) remains critical to reducing overall morbidity. Many specific issues contribute to the risk and clinical outcomes. Therefore, issues around diagnostic ambiguity, treatment resistance, nonadherence, and rehospitalizations further extend the DUP. There is hesitancy to initiate clozapine early, even though the empirical evidence strongly supports its use. There is a growing body of research that suggests the use of long-acting injectables to address nonadherence, and these measures are largely underutilized in acute settings. The clinical presentations of EOS are complex. In addition to the presence of specific risk factors, patients with an early onset of illness are also at a higher risk for treatment resistance. While there is a need to develop tools for early diagnosis, established evidence-based measures to address nonadherence, psychoeducation, and resistance must be incorporated into the treatment planning.

Partial agonists of dopamine receptors: theoretical principles of combining antipsychotics including partial agonists to treat schizophrenia

Partial agonists such as aripiprazole are often used in addition to a full antagonist such as amisulpride, risperidone or olanzapine in an attempt to mitigate side-effects such as sedation, hyperprolactinaemia and weight gain. However, there can be unintended consequences, including worsening of psychosis. Moreover, previous exposure to a partial agonist may impair the subsequent response to a potent antipsychotic such as haloperidol used to control symptoms of relapse. To understand the mechanisms involved, a method is needed to compare potency in the pharmacological effects of different drugs used in combinations. This article is intended to explore and explain the theoretical principles based on the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. We apply the method to analyse a recently described trial in which two full antagonists (olanzapine and amisulpride) are compared individually and in combination.

A Meta-Analysis of Antipsychotic-Induced Hypo- and Hyperprolactinemia in Children and Adolescents

Objective: Antipsychotic-related prolactin changes may expose children and adolescents to severe adverse reactions (ARs) related to pubertal development and growth. We therefore aimed to assess the effects of antipsychotics on prolactin levels and associated somatic ARs in children and adolescents. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and CENTRAL for placebo-controlled randomized trials of antipsychotics in children and adolescents aged ≤18 years, reporting prolactin levels and related ARs. We conducted a random-effect meta-analysis and assessed risk of bias version 2 (ROB2). Results: Thirty-two randomized controlled trials with an average trial duration of 6 weeks, covering 4643 participants with an average age of 13 years and a male majority of 65.3%. Risk of bias across domains was low or unclear. The following antipsychotic compounds: aripiprazole (n = 810), asenapine (n = 506), lurasidone (n = 314), olanzapine (n = 179), paliperidone (n = 149), quetiapine (n = 381), risperidone (n = 609), and ziprasidone (n = 16) were compared with placebo (n = 1658). Compared with placebo, statistically significant higher prolactin increase occurred with risperidone (mean difference [MD] = 28.24 ng/mL), paliperidone (20.98 ng/mL), and olanzapine (11.34 ng/mL). Aripiprazole significantly decreased prolactin (MD = -4.91 ng/mL), whereas quetiapine, lurasidone, and asenapine were not associated with significantly different prolactin levels than placebo. Our results on ziprasidone are based on a single study, making it insufficient to draw strong conclusions. On average, 20.8% of patients treated with antipsychotic developed levels of prolactin that were too high (hyperprolactinemia), whereas only 1.03% of patients reported prolactin-related ARs. Data were highly limited for long-term effects. Conclusions: In children and adolescents, risperidone, paliperidone, and olanzapine are associated with significant prolactin increase, whereas aripiprazole is associated with significant decrease. Despite the significant changes in prolactin level, few ARs were reported. Study protocol on PROSPERO: CRD42018116451.

Early Antipsychotic Nonresponse as a Predictor of Nonresponse and Nonremission in Adolescents With Psychosis Treated With Aripiprazole or Quetiapine: Results From the TEA Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate 1) whether early nonresponse to antipsychotics predicts nonresponse and nonremission, 2) patient and illness characteristics as outcome predictors, and 3) response prediction of 30-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-30) compared with 6-item PANSS (PANSS-6) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale (CGI-I) in youths with first-episode psychosis.

METHOD

Post hoc analysis from a 12-week, double-blinded, randomized trial of aripiprazole vs extended-release quetiapine in adolescents (age 12-17 years) with first-episode psychosis was performed. Early nonresponse (week 2 or week 4) was defined as <20% symptom reduction (PANSS-30) (or <20% symptom reduction [PANSS-6] or CGI-I score 4-7 [less than "minimally improved"]). Nonresponse (week 12) was defined as <50% symptom reduction (PANSS-30). Nonremission (week 12) was defined as a score of >3 on 8 selected PANSS-items. Positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and receiver operating characteristics, binary logistic regression models, and PPV/NPV using PANSS-6 and CGI-I were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 113 randomized patients, 84 were included in post hoc analysis (mean [SD] age = 15.7 [1.3] years; 28.6% male). The 12-week symptom decrease was 31.9% [27.9%], most pronounced within the first 2 weeks (61.1% of total PANSS reduction). Response (27.4%) and remission (22.6%) rates were low. Results indicated that early nonresponse reliably predicted 12-week nonresponse (PPV: week 2, 82.2%; week 4, 90.0%) and nonremission (PPV: week 2, 80.0%; week 4, 90.0%); early nonresponse at week 4 was a statistically significant baseline predictor for 12-week nonresponse; and PANSS-6 had similar predictive significance as PANSS-30. However, outcomes were heterogeneous using CGI-I.

CONCLUSION

In youths with first-episode psychosis showing early nonresponse to aripiprazole or extended-release quetiapine, switching antipsychotic drug should be considered. PANSS-6 is a feasible and clinically relevant alternative to PANSS-30 to predict 12-week nonresponse/nonremission.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Tolerance and Effect of Antipsychotics in Children and Adolescents With Psychosis; https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/; NCT01119014.

Editorial: Assessing the Predictive Characteristics of Second-Generation Antipsychotic Early Nonresponse in Youth With First-Episode Psychosis

Identifying early predictors of response or nonresponse to medications in youth with first-episode psychosis is essential to optimize outcome. Specifically, longer duration of untreated psychosis is associated with less long-term improvement in youth.¹ Therefore, identifying early predictors of nonresponse to medications is particularly important in patients with first-episode psychosis to minimize duration of untreated psychosis and avoid lengthy trials of ineffective and poorly tolerated medications. Additionally, medication response is associated with better adherence. A recent study of youth with first-episode psychosis reported that medication efficacy promotes adherence if it produces sustained remission of positive symptoms.² Thus, early identification of effective medications is associated with better adherence and ultimately improves outcome. Conversely, characterizing early predictors of nonresponse to specific antipsychotics in patients with first-episode psychosis is also important because it might trigger a clinician to consider pharmacological options that are not typically considered early in the illness course (eg, clozapine).³.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders

BACKGROUND

Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Aripiprazole in young people with early psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight gain

OBJECTIVE

Aripiprazole is often prescribed to young people, although there remain unanswered questions about its effects on weight gain. This study undertook a meta-analysis of weight gain occurring in young people with early psychosis who were prescribed aripiprazole.

METHOD

A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting on aripiprazole and weight change in young people with a psychotic disorder. A meta-analysis integrated the data into an estimate of effect size.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria amounting to 886 participants (mean age 18 years). The results showed significant weight gain averaging 2.7 kg. These increases were associated with a longer duration of exposure to aripiprazole but not a higher dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the importance of regular patient monitoring and the early implementation of interventions to manage antipsychotic-related weight gain.

Weight and body mass index increase in children and adolescents exposed to antipsychotic drugs in non-interventional settings: a meta-analysis and meta-regression

Antipsychotics increase weight, BMI and waist size, particularly in pediatric patients. Switching antipsychotics is common practice, thus defining the risk for each antipsychotic in real-life settings can be important for clinical guidance. We conducted a meta-analysis on antipsychotic-related changes in body measures in pediatric observational studies. Of 934 publications found on PubMed, we analyzed 38, including nine treatment arms: no treatment, mixed antipsychotic treatment, first-generation antipsychotics, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. Changes in weight, BMI, BMI-Z and waist size were meta-analyzed according to the duration of clinical observations: 6, 12, > 12 months. Meta-regressions probed influencing factors. Weight in Kg was increased at 6, 12, > 12 months by olanzapine [+ 10.91, + 10.7, data not available (n/a)], mixed antipsychotic treatment (n/a, + 9.42, + 12.59), quetiapine (+ 5.84, n/a, n/a) and risperidone (+ 4.47, + 6.01, + 9.51) and without treatment (n/a, + 2.3, n/a). BMI was increased at 6, 12, > 12 months by olanzapine (+ 3.47, + 3.42, n/a), clozapine (n/a, + 3, n/a) mixed antipsychotic treatment (+ 3.37, + 2.95, + 3.32), risperidone (+ 2, + 2.13, + 2.16), quetiapine (+ 1.5, + 1.82, n/a), aripiprazole (n/a, + 1.7, + 2.1) and without treatment (n/a, + 0.75, n/a). BMI-Z was increased at 6, 12, > 12 months by olanzapine (+ 0.94, + 0.98, + 0.89), clozapine (n/a, + 0.8, n/a), risperidone (+ 0.62, + 0.61, + 0.48), quetiapine (+ 0.57, + 0.54, n/a), mixed antipsychotic treatment (+ 0.51, + 0.94, + 0.44), without treatment (n/a, + 0.37, n/a) and aripiprazole (no gain, + 0.31, n/a). Waist size in cm was increased at 6, 12 months by risperidone (+ 8.8, + 11.5), mixed antipsychotics treatment (+ 9.1, + 10.2) and quetiapine (+ 6.9, + 9.1). Overall, olanzapine and clozapine displayed maximum risk, followed by risperidone, quetiapine and aripiprazole (more risky at longer terms); ziprasidone was associated with no gains. No time-based trends emerged, suggesting a drug-specific risk magnitude. Meta-regressions evidenced variable roles for persistence in therapy and follow-up length, increased risk for drug-naïve patients, and a ceiling effect determined by higher baseline BMI/BMI-Z values.

CYP2D6 Genotyping and Antipsychotic-Associated Extrapyramidal Adverse Effects in a Randomized Trial of Aripiprazole Versus Quetiapine Extended Release in Children and Adolescents, Aged 12-17 Years, With First Episode Psychosis

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the association between genetically predicted CYP2D6 phenotypes and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs).

METHODS/PROCEDURES

Data from the Tolerability and Efficacy of Antipsychotics trial of adolescents with first-episode psychosis randomized to aripiprazole versus quetiapine extended release were studied. Extrapyramidal symptom assessments included the Simpson-Angus Scale and the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale. Patients were CYP2D6 genotyped. Plasma concentrations of antipsychotics and antidepressants were analyzed.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

One hundred thirteen youths (age, 12-17 years; males, 30%; antipsychotic naive, 51%) were enrolled. Poor metabolizers had a significantly higher dose-adjusted aripiprazole plasma concentration (±SD) compared with normal metabolizers at week 4 (24.30 ± 6.40 ng/mL per milligram vs 14.85 ± 6.15 ng/mL per milligram; P = 0.019), but not at week 12 (22.15 ± 11.04 ng/mL per milligram vs 14.32 ± 4.52 ng/mL per milligram; P = 0.067). This association was not found in the quetiapine extended release group. No association between CYP2D6 genotype groups and global Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale score or Simpson-Angus Scale score was found in any of the treatment arms.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Our results do not support routine use of CYP2D6 testing as a predictor of drug-induced parkinsonism or akathisia risk in clinical settings. Further studies with larger samples of CYP2D6 poor metabolizers are needed.

Dosing antipsychotics in special populations of patients with schizophrenia: severe psychotic agitation, first psychotic episode and elderly patients

Antipsychotic (AP) dosing is well established in nonelderly patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia, but not in special populations.This review describes the AP dosing procedures that have been used in clinical studies for acute psychotic agitation, a first episode of psychosis (FEP), and elderly patients. AP dosing data was extracted from the databases of drug regulatory authorities, and from clinical studies available in the medical literature. In acute psychotic agitation, intramuscular and oral APs are frequently prescribed in higher doses than those that saturate D2 receptors. Supersaturating doses of APs should be avoided due to an increased risk of adverse effects. In FEP, many studies showed efficacy of low doses of APs. Studies with risperidone and haloperidol suggested a dose reduction of approximately one third. Titration with a lower starting dose is recommended in elderly patients, due to possible decreases in pharmacokinetic clearance, and due to the risk of concomitant diseases and drug interactions. Exposure to some APs has been associated with QTc prolongation and arrhythmias, and a small but significant increase in the risk of stroke and mortality with APs has been seen, particularly in older people with dementia-related psychosis.

Differential effects of age at illness onset on verbal memory functions in antipsychotic-naïve schizophrenia patients aged 12-43 years

BACKGROUND

The typical onset of schizophrenia coincides with the maturational peak in cognition; however, for a significant proportion of patients the onset is before age 18 and after age 30 years. While cognitive deficits are considered core features of schizophrenia, few studies have directly examined the impact of age of illness onset on cognition.

METHODS

The aim of the study was to examine if the effects of age on cognition differ between healthy controls (HCs) and patients with schizophrenia at illness onset. We examined 156 first-episode antipsychotic-naïve patients across a wide age span (12-43 years), and 161 age- and sex-matched HCs. Diagnoses were made according to ICD-10 criteria. Cognition was assessed using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), and IQ was estimated using subtests from the Wechsler adult- or child-intelligence scales. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to examine linear and quadratic effects of age on cognitive scores and interactions by group, including sex and parental socioeconomic status as covariates.

RESULTS

There was a significant overall effect of age on BACS and IQ (p < 0.001). Significant group-by-age interactions for verbal memory (for age-squared, p = 0.009), and digit sequencing (for age, p = 0.01; age-squared, p < 0.001), indicated differential age-related trajectories between patients and HCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive functions showing protracted maturation into adulthood, such as verbal memory and verbal working memory, may be particularly impaired in both early- and late-schizophrenia onset. Our findings indicate a potential interaction between the timing of neurodevelopmental maturation and a possible premature age effect in late-onset schizophrenia.

Efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole versus D2 antagonists in the early course of schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Early intervention is essential for favorable long-term outcomes in schizophrenia. However, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature on how best to choose between dopamine D₂ receptor (D₂R) partial agonists and D₂R antagonists in early stages of schizophrenia. The aim of this meta-analysis was to directly compare D₂R partial agonists with D₂R antagonists for efficacy and tolerability, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved participants diagnosed with first-episode psychosis, schizophrenia, or related psychotic disorders with a duration of illness ≤5 years. Fourteen RCTs, involving 2494 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Aripiprazole was the only identified D₂R partial agonist, and was not significantly different from pooled D₂R antagonists for overall symptom reduction or all-cause discontinuation. However, aripiprazole was more favorable than pooled D₂R antagonists for depressive symptoms, prolactin levels, and triglyceride levels. Specifically, aripiprazole was more favorable than paliperidone for triglyceride levels and more favorable than risperidone and olanzapine, but less favorable than ziprasidone, for weight gain. In addition, aripiprazole was less favorable for akathisia compared with second-generation D₂R antagonists, in particular olanzapine and quetiapine, and less favorable for discontinuation due to inefficacy than risperidone. Lastly, aripiprazole was more favorable than haloperidol for various efficacy and tolerability outcomes. In conclusion, aripiprazole’s efficacy did not differ substantially from D₂R antagonists in the early course of schizophrenia, whereas differential tolerability profiles were noted. More double-blind RCTs are required comparing the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole as well as other D₂R partial agonists with D₂R antagonists in early stages of schizophrenia.

Psychological intervention, antipsychotic medication or a combined treatment for adolescents with a first episode of psychosis: the MAPS feasibility three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

When psychosis emerges in young people there is a risk of poorer outcomes, and access to evidence-based treatments is paramount. The current evidence base is limited. Antipsychotic medications show only a small benefit over placebo, but young people experience more side effects than adults. There is sparse evidence for psychological intervention. Research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention versus antipsychotic medication versus a combined treatment for adolescents with psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) was to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to answer the question of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these three treatment options.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, randomised, open-blinded, evaluation feasibility trial with a single blind. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive antipsychotic medication, psychological intervention or a combination of both. A thematic qualitative study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the trial.

SETTING

Early intervention in psychosis services and child and adolescent mental health services in Manchester, Oxford, Lancashire, Sussex, Birmingham, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear.

PARTICIPANTS

People aged 14-18 years experiencing a first episode of psychosis either with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis or meeting the entry criteria for early intervention in psychosis who had not received antipsychotic medication or psychological intervention within the last 3 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Psychological intervention involved up to 26 hours of cognitive-behavioural therapy and six family intervention sessions over 6 months, with up to four booster sessions. Antipsychotic medication was prescribed by the participant's psychiatrist in line with usual practice. Combined treatment was a combination of psychological intervention and antipsychotic medication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, treatment adherence and retention). We used a three-stage progression criterion to determine feasibility. Secondary outcomes were psychosis symptoms, recovery, anxiety and depression, social and educational/occupational functioning, drug and alcohol use, health economics, adverse/metabolic side effects and adverse/serious adverse events.

RESULTS

We recruited 61 out of 90 (67.8%; amber zone) potential participants (psychological intervention, n = 18; antipsychotic medication, n = 22; combined treatment, n = 21). Retention to follow-up was 51 out of 61 participants (83.6%; green zone). In the psychological intervention arm and the combined treatment arm, 32 out of 39 (82.1%) participants received six or more sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (green zone). In the combined treatment arm and the antipsychotic medication arm, 28 out of 43 (65.1%) participants received antipsychotic medication for 6 consecutive weeks (amber zone). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial and one related adverse event. Overall, the number of completed secondary outcome measures, including health economics, was small.

LIMITATIONS

Medication adherence was determined by clinician report, which can be biased. The response to secondary outcomes was low, including health economics. The small sample size obtained means that the study lacked statistical power and there will be considerable uncertainty regarding estimates of treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to conduct a trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotic medication and a combination treatment in young people with psychosis with some adaptations to the design, including adaptations to collection of health economic data to determine cost-effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

An adequately powered definitive trial is required to provide robust evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80567433.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interview and questionnaire assessment of cognitive impairment in subjects at ultra-high risk for psychosis: Associations with cognitive test performance, psychosocial functioning, and positive symptoms

Impaired cognitive test performance is well-documented in subjects at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis. However, assessment of cognitive deficits as manifested in real life is a neglected area of UHR research that may add to the understanding of cognitive impairment and its relationship with psychosocial functioning and positive symptomatology. This study applied the interview-based Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS) and the questionnaire-based Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult Version (BRIEF-A) in a cross-sectional sample of 39 UHR subjects and 50 healthy controls. Cognitive test performance, psychosocial functioning, and positive symptoms were also assessed. The UHR subjects demonstrated significant cognitive impairment, with large effect sizes for the SCoRS and BRIEF-A composite outcome variables (rs = -0.67 to -0.80) and a neurocognitive composite score (d = -0.97). Within the UHR group, several significant associations between worse cognitive ratings and worse cognitive test performance (rs = -0.210 to -0.343), poorer psychosocial functioning (rs = -0.058 to -0.728), and worse positive symptoms (rs= 0.415 to 0.478) were found. Worse cognitive test performance showed significant associations with more pronounced positive symptoms (rs = -0.299 to -0.457). Interview and questionnaire assessment may hold promise for supplementing traditional performance-based cognitive assessment in identifying treatment targets in the UHR population.

Measuring movements in adolescents with psychosis using the Microsoft Kinect sensor: a pilot study exploring a new tool for assessing aspects of antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism

BACKGROUND

The assessment of motor disturbances in antipsychotic-treated adolescent patients is often limited to the use of observer-based rating scales with interobserver variability. The objectives of this pilot study were to measure movement patterns associated with antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism in young patients with psychosis and initiating/treated with antipsychotics, using a computer application connected with the Microsoft Kinect sensor (Motorgame).

METHOD

All participants were assessed by neurological examination, clinical side effect rating scales (Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side Effect Rating Scale, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, Simpson Angus Scale (SAS), and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale), and the Motorgame. Furthermore, speed of information processing and motor speed with subtests from the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia test battery was assessed.

RESULTS

We included 21 adolescents with first-episode psychosis (62% treated with antipsychotics; males 38%; mean age 16 ± 1.4 years) and 69 healthy controls (males 36%; mean age 16 ± 1.5 years). Prolonged time of motor performance (TOMP) in the Motorgame was associated with higher SAS scores for arm dropping (p = .009). A consistent practice effect was detected (p < .001). We found no significant associations between TOMP and age, height, body weight, sex, antipsychotic dosage, or information processing speed.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an uncorrected significant association between prolonged TOMP and shoulder bradykinesia. The Motorgame was found useful in assessing parkinsonian symptoms in early-onset psychosis and accepted by participants. Future studies of larger cohorts, including patients with high scores in clinical motor side effect scales, are required to establish solid validity of the novel test.

Incidence of adverse events in antipsychotic-naïve children and adolescents treated with antipsychotic drugs: Results of a multicenter naturalistic study (ETAPE)

The main objective of ETAPE study was to determine the incidence of adverse events (AEs) potentially related to antipsychotic (AP) during a 12-months observational study of naturalistic treatment. ETAPE is a naturalistic prospective multicenter study conducted between April 2013 and May 2016. 200 patients were included. The mean age was 12 ± 3 years, with 73.6% being males. Patients presented a significant clinical improvement over time. At baseline, 92% of patients received a second generation AP, 74% AP monotherapy and 79.5% off-label AP prescriptions. Clinical diagnoses were heterogeneous including psychosis, anxiety, mood and neurodevelopmental disorders. The overall AE incidence rate was 11.52 AEs per person-years. Among AEs potentially attributable to AP, 15.4% were neuromotor, 14.8% gastroenterological, 12.2% metabolic and 11.8% general symptoms. Weight and body mass index increased significantly. More than half of AE appeared during the first 3 months, but onset of AE was noted all over follow-up. The presence of AEs was stable over time. ETAPE study highlights a high incidence rate of AE in children treated with AP. A careful and continuous clinical and biological monitoring is required to adapt treatment decisions based on benefice-risk-analysis. Moreover, additional research is warranted, also in regard of high proportion of off-label prescriptions.

Aripiprazole compared with placebo for auditory verbal hallucinations in youth with borderline personality disorder: Protocol for the VERBATIM randomized controlled trial

AIM

Up to half of patients with borderline personality disorder report auditory verbal hallucinations that are phenomenologically indistinguishable from those in schizophrenia, occur early in the course of the disorder, and are enduring, distressing and disabling. In clinical practice, this symptom is widely assumed to be unresponsive to treatment with antipsychotic medication and early intervention is rarely offered. The Verbal Experiences Response in Borderline personality disorder to Aripiprazole TrIal Medication (VERBATIM) study aims to be the first controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of conventional pharmacotherapy for this symptom in this patient group.

METHOD

VERBATIM is a 12-week, triple-blind, single-centre, parallel groups randomised controlled trial, with a 27-week follow-up period. Participants between the ages of 15 and 25 years receive either aripiprazole or placebo daily, commencing at 2 mg and increasing to 10 mg by day 15. Further dose escalations (up to 30 mg) may occur, as clinically indicated. This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001192471 on 30/08/2016.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is severity of auditory verbal hallucinations assessed using the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes include the severity of general psychopathology, borderline personality pathology, social and occupational functioning and change in brain resting state connectivity. The primary endpoint is week 12 and secondary endpoint is week 39.

CONCLUSION

The results will inform treatment decisions for individuals with borderline personality disorder who present with auditory verbal hallucinations.

Cardiometabolic Adverse Effects and Its Predictors in Children and Adolescents With First-Episode Psychosis During Treatment With Quetiapine-Extended Release Versus Aripiprazole: 12-Week Results From the Tolerance and Effect of Antipsychotics in Children and Adolescents With Psychosis (TEA) Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate cardiometabolic effects and their predictors in youths with first-episode psychosis (FEP) treated with quetiapine-extended release (ER) versus aripiprazole.

METHOD

Youths with FEP who were 12 to 17 years of age were randomized to quetiapine-ER or aripiprazole in the 12-week, double-blinded, Tolerability and Efficacy of Antipsychotics (TEA) trial. Primary outcome was change in body weight; secondary outcomes were changes in body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, and lipid and glucose metabolism parameters. Possible predictors of cardiometabolic changes were examined.

RESULTS

Altogether, 113 patients (schizophrenia-spectrum disorders = 93%; age [mean ± SD] = 15.7 ± 1.4 years; male participants = 30.1%) were randomized to quetiapine-ER (n = 55) or aripiprazole (n = 58). Quetiapine-ER led to significant increases in body weight (4.88 kg, 95% CI = 3.92-5.83, p < .0001), BMI z-score (0.43, 95% CI = 0.33-0.53, p < .0001), and WC z-score (0.97, CI = 0.7-1.23, p < .0001). Changes were significantly smaller with aripiprazole (all between-group p values <.0001): body weight: 1.97 kg (CI = 0.97-2.97, p = .0001), BMI z-score: 0.10 (CI = -0.01 to 0.20, p = .0646), and WC z-score: 0.18 (CI = -0.09 to 0.45, p = .1968). Lipid and glucose metabolism parameters increased significantly at week 4 and week 12 only with quetiapine-ER (p range = 0.0001-0.037). Quetiapine-ER was associated with an increased occurrence of obesity, elevated blood lipids and hyperinsulinemia (p range = 0.004-0.039). Early weight gain, obesity, or type 2 diabetes in the family significantly predicted weight and BMI gain at week 12.

CONCLUSION

In youths with FEP, quetiapine-ER was associated with significantly greater weight gain and adverse changes in metabolic outcomes than was aripiprazole. Early weight gain must be addressed and family lifestyle factors taken into consideration when treating youths with antipsychotics.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Tolerance and Effect of Antipsychotics in Children and Adolescents With Psychosis (TEA); https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01119014.

Current pharmacotherapy options for conduct disorders in adolescents and children

INTRODUCTION

Conduct disorder (CD) is a common mental health disorder of childhood and adolescence. CD's complexity, with its heterogenous clinical manifestations and overlapping comorbidities makes the application of evidence-based management approaches challenging. This article aims to combine a systematic review of the available literature, with a consensus opinion from both child and adolescent psychiatrists and developmental pediatricians on the clinical and pharmacological management of children and adolescents with conduct disorder (CD).

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the CD population and provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies using preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and strength of evidence recommendation taxonomy (SORT) guidelines. The authors then provide an expert clinical opinion for the use of different pharmacotherapies to address aggressive and disruptive behavior in children.

EXPERT OPINION

Atypical antipsychotics (e.g. risperidone) demonstrate evidence for efficacy in CD. Other pharmacotherapies (e.g. mood stabilizers, anticonvulsants, psychostimulants and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) have a low level of evidence for CD alone, however, can sometimes be effective in managing the symptoms of CD when other psychiatric disorders are also present.

A prospective study of adverse effects of antipsychotics in adolescents with schizophrenia during a 6-month follow-up

There is a paucity of follow-up studies of neurological, endocrine, and metabolic adverse effects of antipsychotics in adolescents from low-income and middle-income countries, who have a higher prevalence of obesity and overweight, and could present increased morbidity. A Mexican sample of 86 adolescents with schizophrenia was examined during a 6-month follow-up using the Simpson-Angus, abnormal involuntary movement and Barnes Akathisia rating scales, in addition to a side effects score sheet and other laboratory measures. Binary logistic regression models were used to identify specific variables as predictors of weight gain. Sleep difficulties, restlessness, drowsiness, changes in thyroid hormones, and a linear increase in weight gain were observed. A baseline positive and negative syndrome scale score greater than 97 predicted a 5 kg increase at month 3 (odds ratio: 4.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.5-13.2). The absence of a plateau in weight gain in the present study across the 6-month treatment period and its relationship with illness severity suggests that even longer follow-up time should be examined in future studies in these patient populations.

Efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with schizophrenia: A network meta-analysis

Children and adolescents with schizophrenia are a particularly vulnerable group. Thus, we integrated all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for this subgroup by performing a network-meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We searched multiple databases up to Nov 17, 2016 (final update search in PubMed: Dec 12, 2017). The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change/endpoint in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included positive and negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, sedation, prolactin, extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) and antiparkinsonian medication. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 3003 unique participants (58% males; mean age 14.41 years) published from 1967 to 2017 were identified. Clozapine was significantly more effective than all other analyzed antipsychotics. Nearly all antipsychotics were more efficacious compared to placebo, but ziprasidone showed no efficacy. In terms of preventing weight gain, molindone, lurasidone and ziprasidone were benign. The highest weight gain was found for clozapine, quetiapine and olanzapine. Most antipsychotics had some sedating effects. Risperidone, haloperidol, paliperidone and olanzapine were associated with prolactin increase. There were evidence gaps for some drugs and many outcomes, especially safety outcomes. Most of the comparisons are based only on one study or just on indirect evidence. Nevertheless, the available direct and indirect evidence showed that the treatment effects were similar compared to findings in adult patients with schizophrenia.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Change and dispersion of QT interval during treatment with quetiapine extended release versus aripiprazole in children and adolescents with first-episode psychosis: results from the TEA trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of quetiapine extended release (ER) versus aripiprazole on corrected QT interval (QTc) and QT dispersion (QTd) in youths with first-episode psychosis.

METHODS

Youths 12-17 years were randomized to quetiapine ER (daily dose range = 50 to 800 mg) or aripiprazole (daily dose range = 2.5 to 30 mg) in a 12-week double-blinded trial and examined at weeks 0, 4, and 12. Primary outcome was QTc change using Hodges formula (QTcH); secondary outcomes included QTcH > 450 ms, QTcH > 500 ms, QTcH change > 60 ms, QTd, and heart rate (HR).

RESULTS

Among 113 randomized youths, follow-up ECG was available for 93 patients (82.3%) (age = 15.8 ± 1.3 years, males = 34.4%, schizophrenia = 67.7%). Quetiapine ER treatment (n = 47) was associated with a significant increase in QTcH of + 6.8 ± 20.2 ms (p = 0.025), while the change from baseline in patients receiving aripiprazole (n = 46) was non-significant (- 3.4 ± 18.9 ms, p = 0.225). One patient in the quetiapine ER group had a QTcH change of + 62.3 ms. Age, sex, smoking, body mass index, and concomitant medication were not significantly associated with QTcH change, but higher baseline potassium was correlated to higher QTcH change in the quetiapine ER group. The HR increased significantly with quetiapine ER (+ 11.0 ± 14.2 bpm, p < 0.001) but not with aripiprazole (- 0.8 ± 12.0 bpm, p = 0.643). QTd did not significantly change with quetiapine ER or aripiprazole.

CONCLUSION

QTcH and HR increased significantly with quetiapine ER, although changes were small and likely not clinically significant in otherwise healthy patients. QTcH and HR were unchanged with aripiprazole. No significant change in QTd was seen. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01119014, EudraCT: 2009-016715-38.

The incidence, psychiatric co-morbidity and pharmacological treatment of severe mental disorders in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drug use among children and adolescents is increasing, and there is growing concern about off-label use and adverse effects. The present study aims to investigate the incidence, psychiatric co-morbidity and pharmacological treatment of severe mental disorder in Norwegian children and adolescents.

METHODS

We obtained data on mental disorders from the Norwegian Patient Registry on 0-18 year olds who during 2009-2011 were diagnosed for the first time with schizophrenia-like disorder (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes F20-F29), bipolar disorder (F30-F31), or severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms (F32.3 or F33.3). Data on filled prescriptions for psychotropic drugs were obtained from the Norwegian Prescription Database.

RESULTS

A total of 884 children and adolescents (25.1 per 100 000 person years) were first time diagnosed with schizophrenia-like disorder (12.6 per 100 000 person years), bipolar disorder (9.2 per 100 000 person years), or severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms (3.3 per 100 000 person years) during 2009-2011. The most common co-morbid mental disorders were depressive (38.1%) and anxiety disorders (31.2%). Antipsychotic drugs were prescribed to 62.4% of the patients, 72.0% of the schizophrenia-like disorder patients, 51.7% of the bipolar disorder patients, and 55.4% of the patients with psychotic depression. The most commonly prescribed drugs were quetiapine (29.5%), aripiprazole (19.6%), olanzapine (17.3%), and risperidone (16.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

When a severe mental disorder was diagnosed in children and adolescents, the patient was usually also prescribed antipsychotic medication. Clinicians must be aware of the high prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders among early psychosis patients.