Augmentation strategies for clozapine resistance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of electroconvulsive therapy in patients with clozapine-resistant schizophrenia

There is no established treatment for patients with clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). Clozapine augmentation strategies with antipsychotics or others substances are effective in comparison with placebo while and Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) showed to be effective in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) but not with placebo (sham-ECT). In the present double- blind randomized controlled trial, we compared 40 outpatients who received 20 sessions of ECT (n = 21) or sham-ECT (n = 19) (age = 37.40 ± 9.62, males = 77.5 %, illness duration = 14.95 ± 8.32 years, mean total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) = 101.10 ± 24.91) who fulfilled well-defined CRS criteria including baseline clozapine plasma levels ≥350 ng/mL. The primary outcome was the ≥50 % PANSS Total Score reduction; secondary outcomes were the scores of the PANSS subscales, PANSS five-factor dimensions, PANSS-6 and the Calgary Depression Rating Scale (CDRS). Treatment response was analyzed by percentage reduction, Linear Mixed Models and effect sizes. At baseline both groups showed no differences except for years of school education (included as a covariate). At endpoint, only 1/19 of the completers (5.26 %) in the ECT group and 0/17 in the sham-ECT group showed a ≥50 % total PANSS score reduction. Both groups showed no significant differences of the total PANSS score (F = 0.12; p = 0.73), Positive (F = 0.27, p = 0.61), Negative (F = 0.25, p = 0.62), and General Psychopathology scores (F = 0.01, p = 0.94) as well for all PANSS five factors, the PANSS-6 and CDRS. Thus, the present study found no evidence that ECT is better than Sham-ECT in patients with CRS. Future sham-ECT controlled studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to test the efficacy of ECT for patients with CRS.

Optimizing antidepressant and clozapine co-prescription in clinical practice: A systematic review and expert recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the information relevant for clinical practice on clozapine-antidepressant co-prescription concerning pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDI), adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the co-prescription, antidepressant add-on for clozapine-resistant symptoms and antidepressant add-on for clozapine-induced ADRs.

METHODS

Articles were identified with MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and PsycINFO search from inception through April 2023. Data were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

ADRs are most often induced by the co-prescription of antidepressants that inhibit CYP enzymes (fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, paroxetine). Fluvoxamine add-on is hazardous because of its potent inhibition of clozapine metabolism and has few indications (lowering daily number of clozapine tablets, reducing norclozapine-induced metabolic disturbances and other dose-dependent clozapine-induced ADRs). ADR frequency may be reduced by therapeutic drug monitoring and knowledge of other factors impacting clozapine metabolism (pneumonia, inflammation, smoking, etc.). Improvement of negative symptoms is the most documented beneficial effect of antidepressant add-on for clozapine-resistant psychotic symptoms. The add-on antidepressant should be chosen according to its safety profile regarding DDI with clozapine: antidepressants inhibiting clozapine metabolism or increasing the anticholinergic load should be avoided. Other indications of antidepressant add-on (affective or obsessive compulsive symptoms, sialorrhea, and enuresis) are poorly documented.

CONCLUSION

Antidepressant add-on to clozapine is associated with potential benefits in clozapine users as this strategy may contribute to reduce the burden of clozapine-resistant symptoms or of clozapine-induced ADRs. Further studies are needed to determine whether antidepressant add-on can reduce the risk of clozapine discontinuation.

Optimizing co-prescription of clozapine and antiseizure medications: a systematic review and expert recommendations for clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Antiseizure medication (ASM) add-on to clozapine may be efficient to target clozapine-resistant mood or psychotic symptoms or clozapine-related adverse drug reactions (ADR) such as seizures. We aimed to synthesize the information relevant for clinical practice on the risks and benefits of clozapine-ASM co-prescription.

AREAS COVERED

Articles were identified with MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and PsycINFO search from inception through October 2023. The review was restricted to ASM with mood-stabilizing properties or with potential efficacy for resistant psychotic symptoms (valproate (VPA), lamotrigine, topiramate, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine).

EXPERT OPINION

VPA add-on to clozapine is associated with a high risk of serious ADR (myocarditis, neutropenia, pneumonia) mostly explained by complex time-dependent drug-drug interactions. The initial inhibitory effects on clozapine metabolism require slow titration to avoid immuno-allergic reactions. After the titration period, VPA has mainly inductive effects on clozapine metabolism that are more marked in smokers requiring therapeutic drug monitoring. Lamotrigine and topiramate add-on may be recommended as the first-line treatment for clozapine-related seizures, but there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of this strategy for clozapine-resistant psychotic symptoms. Carbamazepine should not be co-prescribed with clozapine because of its potential for agranulocytosis and for inducing clozapine metabolism.

Comprehensive evaluation of 45 augmentation drugs for schizophrenia: a network meta-analysis

Background

Antipsychotics are the gold standard treatment for schizophrenia, but many patients who receive treatment experience persistent symptoms. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of augmentation drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia.

Methods

In accordance with the PRISMA statement, the PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, clinical trial and EUDRACT databases were searched from inception to May 15th, 2023. To ensure the robustness of the results, only double-blind randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias (measured by the Risk Of Bias v2 (ROB2) tool) were included. The studies were categorised according to the background regimen: participants were treated with risperidone, mixed antipsychotics or clozapine. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. PROSPERO register: CRD42023420964.

Findings

A total of 44 trials (comprising 45 augmentation drugs and 3358 participants) were included in the analysis. One-third of the drugs (16 drugs) demonstrated significant efficacy vs. placebo for at least one outcome. The most notable effect sizes (ESs) were observed for the use of tropisetron (standard mean difference: -0.83 [95% interval confidence -1.12 to -0.55]), memantine (-0.50 [-0.66 to -0.32]) and minocycline (-0.56 [-0.72 to -0.39]) to treat negative symptoms among patients treated with risperidone (moderate-to-high ESs). Studies involving mixed antipsychotics yielded lower ESs (small-to-moderate). Sodium benzoate (-0.41 [-0.60 to -0.21]) and memantine (-0.23 [-0.36 to -0.11]) were found have significant effects on positive symptoms, while memantine demonstrated efficacy for negative symptoms (-0.32 [-0.45 to -0.19]) and general psychopathology (-0.32 [-0.44 to -0.20]). Studies focusing exclusively on patients treated with clozapine revealed that duloxetine produced the best results (negative symptoms: -1.12 [-1.35 to -0.91]). Sodium benzoate was the only augmentation drug that demonstrated efficacy in relieving persistent positive symptoms (-0.32 [-0.59 to -0.08]) among patients treated with clozapine. Treatment with clozapine in combination with antipsychotics yielded small-to-moderate ESs.

Interpretation

The GRADE framework indicated that the quality of the evidence among the included studies was moderate, primarily due to the limited number of randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Important drugs did not appear in these results due to insufficient low-risk-of-bias data for these medications. These results highlight new pathways for treating schizophrenia that should be incorporated into future guidelines after further validation.

Funding

No funding.

The clinical profile and outcome of patients receiving continuation electroconvulsive therapy (C-ECT): A retrospective study

Background

There is a lack of data on the use of continuation electroconvulsive therapy (C-ECT) from India.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical profile and outcome of patients receiving C-ECT.

Materials and Methods

The ECT register was used to identify patients receiving C-ECT (ECT after completion of an acute course, to maintain remission or prevent relapse) from 2011 to July 2022. Socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment outcome details were extracted from their treatment records.

Results

A total of 72 C-ECT courses were identified that were used in 60 patients. Out of all the patients receiving ECT, only 3.25% of patients receive C-ECT. The majority of the patients were male (60%). The mean age of the patients at the time of starting ECT was around 39 years. The most common diagnosis was schizophrenia (73.3%), followed by recurrent depressive disorder (21.6%). The most common indication was persistent psychotic symptoms poorly responding to multiple antipsychotic trials of 3.09 (SD: 1.39), including clozapine. These patients received a mean of 22.58 (SD: 8.05; range: 10 to 46) ECTs, with 10.0 (SD: 4.83) ECTs for the management of the acute phase of illness and 12.57 (SD: 6.20) ECTs as part of continuation treatment. The majority (61.1%) of the patients received four (once weekly) C-ECTs in the first month, followed by three more in the next month. However, 16 patients received weekly ECTs during the second month too, as symptoms worsened with the lowering of frequencies. Twelve patients received more than one C-ECT course. The majority of the patients maintained the improvement gained during the acute phase or showed further improvement with C-ECT along with ongoing pharmacotherapy as rated on appropriate scales. The Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) difference before and after C-ECTs was 2.94 (SD: 0.88).

Conclusions

C-ECT is considered in only in a small proportion of patients. However, when used, it is effective in maintaining the benefits gained during the acute course of ECT and preventing relapse.

Resting-state functional MRI in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Abnormalities in brain regions involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia (SCZ) may present insight into individual clinical symptoms. Specifically, functional connectivity irregularities may provide potential biomarkers for treatment response or treatment resistance, as such changes can occur before any structural changes are visible. We reviewed resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) findings from the last decade to provide an overview of the current knowledge on brain functional connectivity abnormalities and their associations to symptoms in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and ultra-treatment-resistant schizophrenia (UTRS) and to look for support for the dysconnection hypothesis.

METHODS

PubMed database was searched for articles published in the last 10 years applying rs-fMRI in TRS patients, i.e., who had not responded to at least two adequate treatment trials with different antipsychotic drugs.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles were selected for this review involving 648 participants (TRS and control cohorts). The studies showed frontal hypoconnectivity before the initiation of treatment with CLZ or riluzole, an increase in frontal connectivity after riluzole treatment, fronto-temporal hypoconnectivity that may be specific for non-responders, widespread abnormal connectivity during mixed treatments, and ECT-induced effects on the limbic system.

CONCLUSION

Probably due to the heterogeneity in the patient cohorts concerning antipsychotic treatment and other clinical variables (e.g., treatment response, lifetime antipsychotic drug exposure, duration of illness, treatment adherence), widespread abnormalities in connectivity were noted. However, irregularities in frontal brain regions, especially in the prefrontal cortex, were noted which are consistent with previous SCZ literature and the dysconnectivity hypothesis. There were major limitations, as most studies did not differentiate between TRS and UTRS (i.e., CLZ-resistant schizophrenia) and investigated heterogeneous cohorts treated with mixed treatments (with or without CLZ). This is critical as in different subtypes of the disorder an interplay between dopaminergic and glutamatergic pathways involving frontal, striatal, and hippocampal brain regions in separate ways is likely. Better definitions of TRS and UTRS are necessary in future longitudinal studies to correctly differentiate brain regions underlying the pathophysiology of SCZ, which could serve as potential functional biomarkers for treatment resistance.