1
|
Vrublevska J. Case report: Successful administration of cariprazine in a young, severely ill patient with recurrent relapses of schizophrenia and persistent negative symptoms. Front Psychiatry 2023; 14:1134692. [PMID: 36970274 PMCID: PMC10034963 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1134692] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The present case report describes a young man diagnosed with schizophrenia and presents a "revolving door" (RD) phenomenon. He was hospitalized in an acute psychiatric clinic three times in 1 year. After each hospitalization, he was discharged with incompletely reduced psychotic symptoms, persistent negative symptoms, low functioning, lack of insight, and adherence. He had an insufficient response to maximally tolerated doses of antipsychotic monotherapy with haloperidol and risperidone. Moreover, his treatment was complicated due to the low accessibility of long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotics (LAI) in the country and his refusal of the only available atypical LAI paliperidone palmitate and refusal to take clozapine. Due to limited alternatives, the decision to administer combinations of antipsychotics was made. Since his diagnosis, he received several combinations of antipsychotics, i.e., haloperidol + quetiapine, risperidone + quetiapine, haloperidol + olanzapine, risperidone + olanzapine, but without sufficient clinical effectiveness. Although combinations of antipsychotics reduced his positive symptoms to some degree, persistent negative symptoms and extrapyramidal side effects were observed. After initiating cariprazine, which was combined with olanzapine, improvement in the patient's positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and overall functioning was detected. The combination of medications mentioned above facilitated the therapeutic alliance, thus providing control over the symptoms and preventing psychiatric hospitalizations.
Collapse
|
2
|
What happens with schizophrenia patients after their discharge from hospital? Results on outcome and treatment from a "real-world" 2-year follow-up trial. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2020; 270:661-671. [PMID: 31463563 DOI: 10.1007/s00406-019-01055-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2018] [Accepted: 08/07/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
Aim of the study was to examine the course of schizophrenia patients within 2 years after discharge. Within a multicenter study of the German Competence Network on Schizophrenia, patients suffering from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder were examined regarding their psychopathological improvement, tolerability, and the treatment regime applied during hospitalization and a 2-year follow-up period. Response, remission, the level of everyday functioning, and relapse were furthermore evaluated during the follow-up period using established definitions for these outcome domains. The psychopharmacological treatment was specifically evaluated in terms of a potential association with relapse. 149 patients were available for analysis, with 65% of the patients being in response, 52% in symptomatic remission, and 64% having a satisfiable everyday functioning 2 years after their discharge from hospital. Despite these favorable outcome rates, 63% of the patients suffered from a relapse within the 2-year follow-up period with 86% of these patients being rehospitalized. Discharge non-responder and non-remitter were twice as likely to relapse during follow-up. A significant decrease of side-effects was observed with negligible rates of extrapyramidal side-effects, sedation, and weight gain during follow-up. Patients receiving treatment with atypical antipsychotics were found to have the lowest risk to relapse (p < 0.0001). The results highlight the natural and unsteady course of schizophrenia in most patients underlining the need to develop more specific treatment strategies ensuring ongoing stability and preventing relapse.
Collapse
|
3
|
Schennach R, Obermeier M, Spellmann I, Seemüller F, Musil R, Jäger M, Schmauss M, Laux G, Pfeiffer H, Naber D, Schmidt LG, Gaebel W, Klosterkötter J, Heuser I, Bauer M, Adli M, Zeiler J, Bender W, Kronmüller KT, Ising M, Brieger P, Maier W, Lemke MR, Rüther E, Klingberg S, Gastpar M, Möller HJ, Riedel M. Remission in schizophrenia - What are we measuring? Comparing the consensus remission criteria to a CGI-based definition of remission and to remission in major depression. Schizophr Res 2019; 209:185-192. [PMID: 31138482 DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2019.04.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2018] [Revised: 03/03/2019] [Accepted: 04/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite being recommended for use in clinical trials, the consensus remission criteria were found to leave patients with persisting symptoms, relevant areas of functional impairment and a decreased sense of wellbeing. Therefore, to evaluate the appropriateness of the schizophrenia consensus criteria, a definition of remission based on the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) was developed and remitter subgroups were compared. METHODS 239 patients with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder were evaluated regarding their remission status after inpatient treatment. Remission in schizophrenia was defined according to the symptom-severity component of the consensus criteria by Andreasen et al. and a CGI based definition was calculated using sensitivity and specificity using receiver operating curves (asymptomatic remitter). Both remitter groups (schizophrenia consensus versus asymptomatic remitters) were compared regarding different clinical variables at discharge as well as the likelihood to relapse within a 1-year follow-up period. Both schizophrenia remitter subgroups were compared to remitters in major depression as a reference value. RESULTS Following the consensus criteria, 63% of the schizophrenia patients were in remission compared to only 18% following the asymptomatic criterion. The schizophrenia consensus remitters were less likely to be concurrent treatment responders (p < 0.0001), had a significantly greater illness severity (p < 0.0001) and less functioning (p = 0.0358) as well as a significantly greater risk to relapse (p = 0.0174) compared to the schizophrenia asymptomatic remitters as well as the depressed remitters. CONCLUSION It should be critically re-evaluated if the currently proposed consensus criteria are adequate to measure what is traditionally understood to be remission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Schennach
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany; Schön Clinic Roseneck, Germany.
| | - Michael Obermeier
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Ilja Spellmann
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany; Department of Special Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Klinikum Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Florian Seemüller
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Richard Musil
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Markus Jäger
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany; Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic and Psychotherapy, Bezirkskrankenhaus Kempten, Germany
| | - Max Schmauss
- Psychiatric Clinic, District Hospital Augsburg, Germany
| | - Gerd Laux
- Psychiatric Clinic, Inn-Salzach Hospital Wasserburg/Inn, Germany
| | - Herbert Pfeiffer
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Munich East, kbo-Isar-Amper-Klinikum Haar, Germany
| | - Dieter Naber
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Hamburg, Germany
| | - Lutz G Schmidt
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Mainz, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Gaebel
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Dusseldorf, Germany
| | | | - Isabella Heuser
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charite Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Germany
| | - Michael Bauer
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | | | - Joachim Zeiler
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Auguste-Viktoria-Krankenhaus Berlin, Germany
| | - Wolfram Bender
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Munich East, kbo-Isar-Amper-Klinikum Haar, Germany
| | | | - Marcus Ising
- Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany
| | - Peter Brieger
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Munich East, kbo-Isar-Amper-Klinikum Haar, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Maier
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Germany
| | | | - Eckart Rüther
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Göttingen, Germany
| | - Stefan Klingberg
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Germany
| | - Markus Gastpar
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Essen, Germany
| | - Hans-Jürgen Möller
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Riedel
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany; Psychiatric Clinic Rodewisch, Rodewisch, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Validity of remission and recovery criteria for schizophrenia and major depression: comparison of the results of two one-year follow-up naturalistic studies. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2017; 267:303-313. [PMID: 27785605 DOI: 10.1007/s00406-016-0741-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2016] [Accepted: 10/13/2016] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
The objective of the present study was the application and comparison of common remission and recovery criteria between patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder (MDD) under inclusion of other outcome parameters. Patients with schizophrenia and MDD who were treated as inpatients at the beginning of the study were examined within two naturalistic follow-up trials from admission to discharge of an inpatient treatment period and the one-year follow-up assessment. PANSS criteria of the Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group (RSWG) for schizophrenia and HAMD criteria of the ACNP Task Force in MDD for depressive patients as well as the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) were applied as symptomatic outcome measures additionally to functional outcome parameters. Data of 153 schizophrenia patients and 231 patients with a MDD episode have been included in the analysis. More depressive than schizophrenia patients reached a threshold score of ≤3 on the CGI-S, indicating symptomatic remission at discharge and at the one-year follow-up. In contrast similar proportions of patients reaching symptomatic remission at discharge from inpatient treatment and at the one-year follow-up in the schizophrenia and in the MDD group were found when disease-related consensus criteria (RSWG vs. ACNP Task Force) were used. Functional remission and recovery rates were significantly lower in schizophrenia than in depressive patients at the one-year follow-up visit. Common outcome criteria for remission and recovery in schizophrenia and major depression were not directly comparable. However, our results indicated a significantly poorer outcome in schizophrenia than in depressive patients according to terms of remission and recovery.
Collapse
|
5
|
Schennach R, Möller HJ, Obermeier M, Seemüller F, Jäger M, Schmauss M, Laux G, Pfeiffer H, Naber D, Schmidt LG, Gaebel W, Klosterkötter J, Heuser I, Maier W, Lemke MR, Rüther E, Klingberg S, Gastpar M, Musil R, Spellmann I, Riedel M. Challenging the understanding of significant improvement and outcome in schizophrenia - the concept of reliable and clinically significant change methods. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2016; 25:3-11. [PMID: 26178421 PMCID: PMC6877263 DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2014] [Revised: 03/08/2015] [Accepted: 03/23/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Significant changes of schizophrenia patients during inpatient treatment were evalutaed and compared to established outcome criteria. The concept of reliable and clinically significant change methods was applied to three hundred and ninety-six patients suffering from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. First, information on whether or not the change of the patient's condition is sufficient in order to declare that it is beyond a measurement error or random effect (= reliable change) was evaluated and in a second step it was observed if the reliable change was clinically meaningful (= clinically significant change). Different Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia (PANSS) thresholds were applied to define the clinically significant change (40, 45 and 50 points). These changes were then compared to established outcome criteria such as response and remission. Seventy-nine of the 396 patients (20%) showed a reliable improvement of symptoms, whereas 70% improved without achieving a reliable change of their condition. Of the 79 patients achieving a reliable change during treatment 8-15% concurrently showed a clinically significant change depending on the respective PANSS threshold. In contrast, 56% of the patients achieved response and 60% were in remission at discharge when applying established outcome criteria. Our results showed that a rather small number of schizophrenia patients were found to reliably change during inpatient treatment, with even less patients achieving a clinically significant change. The concept of reliable and clinically significant changes revealed to be a lot more stringent than today's established outcome criteria and should be critically evaluated regarding its use in schizophrenia patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Schennach
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.,Schoen Clinic Roseneck, Prien am Chiemsee, Germany
| | - Hans-Jürgen Möller
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Obermeier
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Florian Seemüller
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Markus Jäger
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Max Schmauss
- Psychiatric Clinic, District Hospital Augsburg, Germany
| | - Gerd Laux
- Psychiatric Clinic, Inn-Salzach Hospital Wasserburg/Inn, Germany
| | | | - Dieter Naber
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Hamburg, Germany
| | - Lutz G Schmidt
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Mainz, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Gaebel
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Germany
| | | | - Isabella Heuser
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charite Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Maier
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Germany
| | | | - Eckart Rüther
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Göttingen, Germany
| | - Stefan Klingberg
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Germany
| | - Markus Gastpar
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Essen, Germany
| | - Richard Musil
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Ilja Spellmann
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Riedel
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.,Psychiatric Clinic, Vinzenz-von-Paul-Hospital, Rottweil, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
What are residual symptoms in schizophrenia spectrum disorder? Clinical description and 1-year persistence within a naturalistic trial. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2015; 265:107-16. [PMID: 25261210 DOI: 10.1007/s00406-014-0528-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2014] [Accepted: 08/25/2014] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate residual symptoms in patients achieving remission according to the consensus criteria and to analyze their potential influence on the patient's outcome one year after discharge. In total, 399 patients suffering from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder were evaluated within a naturalistic study. Remission status was examined using the consensus criteria. Residual symptoms were defined as any symptom present at the time-point of remission following analogous analyses performed in depressed patients. Therefore, a PANSS item with a symptom severity of >1 (= at least borderline mentally ill) was defined to be a residual symptom. Remitters with and without residual symptoms were compared regarding psychopathology, functioning and side effects. In total, 236 patients (59%) were remitters at discharge with 94% of them suffering from at least one residual symptom. The most common residual symptoms were blunted affect (49%), conceptual disorganization (42%) and social withdrawal (40%). A significant association was found between the presence of residual symptoms and the severity of side effects (p < 0.0001) and functioning (p = 0.0003) at discharge as well as between residual symptoms and the risk of relapse and chance of remission one year after discharge. Residual symptoms were highly prevalent in remitted schizophrenia inpatients following the suggested definition. Most residual symptoms were persistent baseline symptoms suggesting an ongoing illness severity. Also, the necessity to re-evaluate the consensus criteria questioning the status of remission in these patients is also pointed out.
Collapse
|