Understanding the results of CATIE in the context of the field

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.

Designing outcome studies to determine efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for 'real world' treatment of schizophrenia

Over the last 5 years, some studies have questioned the efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics over first-generation neuroleptics in the treatment of schizophrenia. At the same time, these study results have led to re-examination of their design--particularly CATIE and CUtLASS--which essentially measured relatively short-/mid-term outcome and did not always take into account real-world clinical practice and outcome measures (e.g. prevalence of positive acute symptoms, exclusion of comorbidity with substance abuse, predominance of chronic patients, lack of quality of life/wellbeing measures, etc.). In fact, one of the greatest challenges to treatment of schizophrenia is its life-long, multifaceted, functional disability associated with progressive cognitive deterioration after each acute episode. As such, the most important goal of the treatment is not just to deal with acute episodes, but rather to improve long-term outcome. Specifically, we aim for modest improvement and then stabilization of the different clinical dimensions involved in the overall symptomatology (i.e. negative/anergic, impulsive, positive, mood and cognitive impairments), and to achieve 'clinical stabilization' after obtaining a partial or full remission of acute symptoms, thus reducing the risk of a progressive cognitive deterioration. All these aspects need to be properly evaluated in a long-run perspective.

The CATIE and CUtLASS studies in schizophrenia: results and implications for clinicians

Numerous double-blind studies have compared second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), with most finding better efficacy and tolerability for SGAs. However, these 'efficacy trials' were generally short term and included only highly selected patients. Mostly because of weight gain and other metabolic effects of the SGAs, as well as their high acquisition price, the debate on the (cost) effectiveness of the SGAs led to two pragmatic clinical trials with no sponsorship by industry. Both trials had broad inclusion criteria and long follow-up, and tried to mimic clinical routine: CATIE (Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness) and CUtLASS (Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic drugs in Schizophrenia Study). 1493 patients participated in CATIE, an 18-month, double-blind trial comparing the SGAs olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone with the FGA perphenazine. If efficacy or tolerability was insufficient, patients were re-randomized to a medication other than the one they previously received. Improvement of psychopathology and of quality of life was only moderate. Overall, 74% of patients discontinued study medication before 18 months, and the median time to discontinuation was 4.6 months. Aside from olanzapine (time to discontinuation 9.2 months), the other SGAs did not differ from each other or from perphenazine. Except for adverse effects as a reason for discontinuation, differences between the SGAs and the FGA were minimal. In CUtLASS, a 12-month open-label trial, 277 patients were randomized to receive an FGA or a SGA. Again, efficacy was rather similar between the two groups, with only limited improvement of psychopathology and quality of life. The authors of both trials concluded that SGAs do not markedly differ from FGAs regarding compliance, quality of life and effectiveness. The methodological problems of both trials have been discussed extensively. Patients had psychotic symptoms that were moderate in severity and were at least partially treatment resistant. The marginal improvement observed indicated that this population might not be appropriate to detect differences between FGAs and SGAs. Specific issues of CATIE include the exclusion of patients with tardive dyskinesia in the perphenazine arm and the high discontinuation rate. In CUtLASS, the concept of including 13 different FGAs and four SGAs in the respective classes was problematic. It is of interest that the most widely prescribed drug was sulpiride--of the FGAs, this is probably the 'most atypical' drug. Aside from the finding that the advantages of the SGAs are not as strong as early trials and marketing suggested or promised, the trials do not provide much helpful information regarding everyday practice. For tardive dyskinesia, no conclusions at all can be drawn. Similarly, methodological problems inhibited the detection of the other major advantage of the SGAs, i.e. the improved subjective well-being/quality of life while receiving these agents. It is well known that patients' and doctors' perspectives differ markedly, and the Quality of Life Scale (QLS), an expert-rated scale used in both trials, might not be sensitive enough to detect the subjective advantages reported by the majority of patients in other trials. CATIE and CUtLASS suggest that SGAs do not live up to all the previous expectations. However, even if most of these advantages are debatable, the lower risk of tardive dyskinesia and the better subjective effects should be strong enough reasons to favour these drugs. There is no single antipsychotic that is best for every schizophrenia patient, as individual responses differ markedly. For successfully individualized treatment, a multitude of antipsychotic options are needed.

Contrasting measures of adherence with simple drug use, medication switching, and therapeutic duplication

BACKGROUND

Multiple measures of adherence have been reported in the research literature and it is difficult to determine which is best, as each is nuanced. Occurrences of medication switching and polypharmacy or therapeutic duplication can substantially complicate adherence calculations when adherence to a therapeutic class is sought.

OBJECTIVE

To contrast the Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) adherence metric with 2 variants of the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR, truncated MPR).

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of the North Carolina Medicaid administrative claims data from July 1999 to June 2000. Data for patients with schizophrenia (ICD-9-CM code 295.xx) who were not part of a health maintenance organization, not hospitalized, and not pregnant, taking at least one antipsychotic, were aggregated for each person into person-quarters. The numerator for PDC was defined as the number of days one or more antipsychotics was available and the MPR numerator was defined as the total days' supply of antipsychotics; both were divided by the total days in each person-quarter. Adherence rates were estimated for subjects who used only one antipsychotic, switched medications, or had therapeutic duplication in the quarter.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 25,200 person-quarters from 7069 individuals. For person-quarters with single antipsychotic use, adherence to antipsychotics as a class was: PDC 0.607, truncated MPR 0.640, and MPR 0.695 (p < 0.001). For person-quarters with switching, the average MPR was 0.690, truncated MPR was 0.624, and PDC was 0.562 (p < 0.001). In the presence of therapeutic duplication, the PDC was 0.669, truncated MPR was 0.774, and MPR was 1.238 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The PDC provides a more conservative estimate of adherence than the MPR across all types of users; however, the differences between the 2 methods are more substantial for persons switching therapy and prescribed therapeutic duplication, where MPR may overstate true adherence. The PDC should be considered when a measure of adherence to a class of medications is sought, particularly in clinical situations in which multiple medications within a class are often used concurrently.

Shared decision making in antipsychotic management

The similar efficacies of currently available antipsychotic medications (other than clozapine) make them appropriate for preference-sensitive care; therefore, prescribing these medications is amenable to shared decision-making. In this conceptual article, we describe the current state of antipsychotic prescribing based on a review of the literature from recent landmark studies and updated prescribing guidelines. Recent literature and guidelines on schizophrenia treatment in the United States do not reveal strong endorsement of the idea of shared decision-making. We suggest methods for incorporating shared decision-making into antipsychotic prescribing in the future, with an emphasis on the use of information technology.

Do effectiveness ("real world") studies on antipsychotics tell us the real truth?

In recent years, so-called "effectiveness studies" have gained increasing importance in the context of evidence-based medicine. These studies supposedly follow less restrictive methodological standards than phase III studies in terms of patient selection, co-medication and other design issues, and their results should therefore be better generalisable than those of phase III studies. Effectiveness studies, like other types of phase IV studies, can therefore contribute to the knowledge about antipsychotics or other psychopharmaceuticals and supply relevant information in addition to that gained from phase III trials. However, the less restrictive design and inherent methodological problems of phase IV studies mean that their results cannot falsify the results of phase III studies. The greater complexity of phase IV studies, for example the greater variance caused by the different kinds of confounders, means that their results have to be interpreted with great care and especially with a high degree of awareness of problematic design issues, such as insensitive primary outcome criteria, biased randomisation, unblinded treatment conditions, inclusion of chronic refractory patients, etc. Some recently published effectiveness studies on antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia will be discussed under these methodological aspects. The main conclusions of these trials will be questioned on the basis of their severe methodological pitfalls.

Update on the treatment and management of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are two debilitating mental health disorders, both of which manifest early in adulthood and are associated with severe impairment as well as increased suicide risk. In addition, factors affecting disease severity, such as substance abuse, are often prevalent in these patient populations. In the United States, the prevalence of bipolar disorder is believed to be approximately 3.5%, while the rate for schizophrenia is approximately 1%. Although each disorder presents with its own symptom profile, the approaches to treatment are similar and include early diagnosis and use of psychosocial therapy. Research initiatives, such as genetic studies, are used in both disorders as well. For schizophrenia, treatment typically includes the combination of an antipsychotic and psychosocial intervention. For bipolar disorder, clinicians commonly prescribe mood-stabilizing drugs (eg, lithium, valproic acid) as first-line treatment. Many of the second-generation antipsychotics have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for bipolar disorder treatment in the manic phase. Patients who are affected by either disorder also face the challenges of treatment nonadherence, which can be affected by substance abuse and can hinder symptom remission as well as spur unnecessary medication switches due to nonresponse. Family members play a key role in the treatment of either disorder. This expert review supplement focuses on treatment options and research strategies being utilized for the management and advanced understanding of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Research examining the pharmacology of commonly used medications for the treatment of both disorders is also presented.

Reducing variation in the pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia: defining acceptable standards of treatment

Clinicians are exhorted to improve the quality of care for patients with schizophrenia by applying evidence-based medication treatment guidelines. Unfortunately, although there are many guidelines, they are all more or less out of date, and their recommendations often are inconsistent, leaving clinicians uncertain about the definition of acceptable standards of care. This paper reviews existing guideline recommendations and recently published research related to two parameters of care: 1) first-line treatment of multiepisode psychosis and 2) the care of treatment-resistant patients. Its purpose is to help clinicians understand the implications of the latest research for the content of schizophrenia guidelines and for the clinical practice they are supposed to inform.