A prescription survey of antipsychotic use in England and Wales following the introduction of NICE guidance

Antipsychotic Use: Cross-Sectional Opinion Survey of Psychiatrists in India and United Kingdom

The aim of this survey of psychiatrists from the UK and India was to compare their opinions on antipsychotic medication choice and their experiences of such medications' effectiveness and tolerability in patients who were newly diagnosed with acute schizophrenia. Following ethical approval, a cross-sectional online survey of psychiatrists from the UK and India was conducted. Ninety-five responses were received from each country. The most selected first-line APDs in both countries were olanzapine (47.5%), risperidone (42.8%) and aripiprazole (25.3%). A total of 60% of psychiatrists from India (60%) and 48% from the UK (48%) selected 'medication efficacy' as the main factor in their choice. Reassessment and consideration to switch most often took place within 4-6 weeks (53.7%) and 3-6 months (11.6%). The major reasons for switching antipsychotic medications were poor clinical efficacy (69%) and lack of tolerability (45%). Nonadherence was the most common reason for relapse (90% of UK psychiatrists and 70% of Indian psychiatrists), followed by illicit drug use (27.6%). The most commonly reported side effects that led to nonadherence were weight gain (10.8%), drowsiness (10.4%), erectile dysfunction and movement disorders (equally 8.7%). It was concluded that olanzapine, risperidone and aripiprazole are the most commonly selected as the initial treatment choice by psychiatrists from India and the UK. They are perceived as widely effective and well tolerated.

Dose equivalents for second generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics: The minimum effective dose method

BACKGROUND

The concept of dose equivalence of depot medication is important for many scientific and clinical purposes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search on four second-generation antipsychotics available as long-acting injectable drugs and haloperidol was conducted. We used the minimum effective dose method which is based on randomized fixed dose studies where the smallest dose which was significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome was declared as minimum effective dose. We calculated equivalent doses from acute phase studies but we also reported the minimum effective doses found in relapse prevention studies.

RESULTS

The acute phase minimum effective doses/olanzapine equivalents were: aripiprazole lauroxil 441mg (300mg aripiprazole)/4wks/0.71; aripiprazole 400mg/4weeks/0.95 (aripiprazole maintena); paliperidone palmitate 25mg/4weeks/0,06; risperidone 25mg/2weeks/0,12; RBP-7000 90mg/4weeks/0,21; olanzapine 210mg/2weeks/1.

CONCLUSIONS

The minimum effective dose method is an operationalized and evidence-based approach for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence which can also be applied to long-acting injectable formulations. Doses may not have been chosen low enough to find the truly minimum effective dose. Comparisons with other methods will be necessary to come to ultimate conclusions.

Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Oral zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride (Clopixol) is an anti-psychotic treatment for people with psychotic symptoms, especially those with schizophrenia. It is associated with neuroleptic malignant syndrome, a prolongation of the QTc interval, extra-pyramidal reactions, venous thromboembolism and may modify insulin and glucose responses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride for treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (latest search 09 June 2015). There were no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride for schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials, randomising 1850 participants. Data were reported for 12 comparisons, predominantly for the short term (up to 12 weeks) and inpatient populations. Overall risk of bias for included studies was low to unclear.Data were unavailable for many of our pre-stated outcomes of interest. No data were available, across all comparisons, for death, duration of stay in hospital and general functioning.Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride versus: 1. placeboMovement disorders (EPSEs) were similar between groups (1 RCT, n = 28, RR 6.07 95% CI 0.86 to 43.04 very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 100, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.60, very low-quality evidence). 2. chlorpromazineNo clear differences were found for the outcomes of global state (average CGI-SI endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 60, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.49) or movement disorders (EPSEs) (3 RCTs, n = 199, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.45), both very low-quality evidence. More people left the study early for any reason from the zuclopenthixol group (6 RCTs, n = 766, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81, low-quality evidence). 3. chlorprothixeneThere was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 20, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.93, very low-quality evidence). 4. clozapineNo useable data were presented. 5. haloperidolNo clear differences between treatment groups were found for the outcomes global state score (average CGI endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 49, MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.55) or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.35), both very low-quality evidence. 6. perphenazineThose receiving zuclopenthixol were more likely to require medication in the short term for EPSEs than perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 50, RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.22, very low-quality evidence). Similar numbers left the study early (2 RCTs, n = 104, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.47, very low-quality evidence). 7. risperidoneThose receiving zuclopenthixol were more likely to require medications for EPSEs than risperidone (1 RCT, n = 98,RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.28, very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early ( 3 RCTs, n = 154, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.02) or in mental state (average PANSS total endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 25, MD -3.20, 95% CI -7.71 to 1.31), both very low-quality evidence). 8. sulpirideNo clear differences were found for global state (average CGI endpoint score) ( 1 RCT, n = 61, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.85, very low-quality evidence), requiring hypnotics/sedatives (1 RCT, n = 61, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.32, very low-quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 61, RR 2.07 95% CI 0.97 to 4.40, very low-quality evidence). 9. thiothixeneNo clear differences were found for the outcomes of 'global state (average CGI endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 20, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.46) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 20, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.35), both very low-quality evidence). 10. trifluoperazineNo useable data were presented. 11. zuclopenthixol depotThere was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 46, RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.58, very low-quality evidence). 12. Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride (cis z isomer) versus zuclopenthixol (cis z/trans e isomer)There were no clear differences in reported side-effects ( 1 RCT, n = 57, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.18, very low-quality evidence) and in numbers leaving the study early (4 RCTs, n = 140, RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.41, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride appears to cause more EPSEs than clozapine, risperidone or perphenazine, but there was no difference in EPSEs when compared to placebo or chlorpromazine. Similar numbers required hypnotics/sedatives when zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride was compared to sulpiride, and similar numbers of reported side-effects were found when its isomers were compared. The other comparisons did not report adverse-effect data.Reported data indicate zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride demonstrates no difference in mental or global states compared to placebo, chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, clozapine, haloperidol, perphenazine, sulpiride, thiothixene, trifluoperazine, depot and isomers. Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride, when compared with risperidone, is favoured when assessed using the PANSS in the short term, but not in the medium term.The data extracted from the included studies are mostly equivocal, and very low to low quality, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Prescribing practice is unlikely to change based on this meta-analysis. Recommending any particular course of action about side-effect medication other than monitoring, using rating scales and clinical assessment, and prescriptions on a case-by-case basis, is also not possible.There is a need for further studies covering this topic with more antipsychotic comparisons for currently relevant outcomes.

Dose Equivalents for Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs: The Classical Mean Dose Method

BACKGROUND

The concept of dose equivalence is important for many purposes. The classical approach published by Davis in 1974 subsequently dominated textbooks for several decades. It was based on the assumption that the mean doses found in flexible-dose trials reflect the average optimum dose which can be used for the calculation of dose equivalence. We are the first to apply the method to second-generation antipsychotics.

METHODS

We searched for randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia that examined 13 oral second-generation antipsychotics, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine (last search June 2014). We calculated the mean doses of each drug weighted by sample size and divided them by the weighted mean olanzapine dose to obtain olanzapine equivalents.

RESULTS

We included 75 studies with 16 555 participants. The doses equivalent to 1 mg/d olanzapine were: amisulpride 38.3 mg/d, aripiprazole 1.4 mg/d, asenapine 0.9 mg/d, chlorpromazine 38.9 mg/d, clozapine 30.6 mg/d, haloperidol 0.7 mg/d, quetiapine 32.3mg/d, risperidone 0.4 mg/d, sertindole 1.1 mg/d, ziprasidone 7.9 mg/d, zotepine 13.2 mg/d. For iloperidone, lurasidone, and paliperidone no data were available.

CONCLUSIONS

The classical mean dose method is not reliant on the limited availability of fixed-dose data at the lower end of the effective dose range, which is the major limitation of "minimum effective dose methods" and "dose-response curve methods." In contrast, the mean doses found by the current approach may have in part depended on the dose ranges chosen for the original trials. Ultimate conclusions on dose equivalence of antipsychotics will need to be based on a review of various methods.

Reducing the rates of prescribing high-dose antipsychotics and polypharmacy on psychiatric inpatient and intensive care units: results of a 6-year quality improvement programme

BACKGROUND

There is no conclusive evidence that either high doses or combinations of antipsychotics are more effective than standard doses or monotherapy alone. Nonetheless, prescription of both remains prevalent in the UK. In 2006 the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLAM) participated in a national survey of prescription of antipsychotic medications, organized by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health. Over half of the patients on SLAM inpatient or psychiatric intensive care units were prescribed a high-dose antipsychotic or a combination of antipsychotics. Prescribing high-dose antipsychotics and polypharmacy in SLAM was found to be among the highest in the UK.

AIM

To assess the impact of a 6-year quality improvement programme aimed at reducing the rates of prescribing high-dose antipsychotics and polypharmacy on SLAM inpatients and psychiatric intensive care units.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction between baseline and final survey in the rates of prescription of both high-dose antipsychotics and polypharmacy on SLAM inpatients and intensive care units (58% versus 10% p < 0.0001 and 57% versus 16%, p < 0.0001 respectively). The proportion of patients at final survey prescribed a high-dose antipsychotic and a combination was substantially lower in SLAM than in the national sample (10% versus 28%, p < 0.0001 and 16% versus 38%, p < 0.0001 respectively).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

A sustained change in the prescribing culture of an organization can be achieved through a targeted improvement programme.

Dose equivalents for second-generation antipsychotics: the minimum effective dose method

BACKGROUND

Clinicians need to know the right antipsychotic dose for optimized treatment, and the concept of dose equivalence is important for many clinical and scientific purposes.

METHODS

We refined a method presented in 2003, which was based on the minimum effective doses found in fixed-dose studies. We operationalized the selection process, updated the original findings, and expanded them by systematically searching more recent literature and by including 13 second-generation antipsychotics. To qualify for the minimum effective dose, a dose had to be significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome of at least one randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose trial. In a sensitivity analysis, 2 positive trials were required. The minimum effective doses identified were subsequently used to derive olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine equivalents.

RESULTS

We reviewed 73 included studies. The minimum effective daily doses/olanzapine equivalents based on our primary approach were: aripiprazole 10 mg/1.33, asenapine 10 mg/1.33, clozapine 300 mg/40, haloperidol 4 mg/0.53, iloperidone 8 mg/1.07, lurasidone 40 mg/5.33, olanzapine 7.5 mg/1, paliperidone 3 mg/0.4, quetiapine 150 mg/20, risperidone 2 mg/0.27, sertindole 12 mg/1.60, and ziprasidone 40 mg/5.33. For amisulpride and zotepine, reliable estimates could not be derived.

CONCLUSIONS

This method for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence entails an operationalized and evidence-based approach that can be applied to the various antipsychotic drugs. As a limitation, the results are not applicable to specific populations such as first-episode or refractory patients. We recommend that alternative methods also be updated in order to minimize further differences between the methods and risk of subsequent bias.

How to compare doses of different antipsychotics: a systematic review of methods

BACKGROUND

The ability to calculate equivalent dosage is important when comparing or switching between doses of different antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. It is also necessary when designing antipsychotic comparator trials which control for dosage.

METHOD

A systematic review to identify and critically evaluate the methods available for the estimation of antipsychotic dose equivalence was conducted. Electronic searches were carried out using Medline and PubMed and additional information was requested from pharmaceutical companies. The identified methods were evaluated against specific criteria regarding scientific rigour, quality of source data underpinning the method, clinical applicability and utility.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were identified that described methodologies for antipsychotic dose equivalence. Seven of these referred to calculated methods, including chlorpromazine equivalence, maximum dose and daily-defined dose, and relied on an evidence base from both fixed and flexible dosing data. The remaining four described consensus methods which were based on the knowledge and experience of experts. Chlorpromazine was used as the standard comparator drug in the majority of the calculated equivalence studies, whereas risperidone was used for most consensus methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of methods for calculating antipsychotic dose equivalence suggests that different methods yield different equivalencies and the evidence is not sufficiently robust for any of these to be considered as a gold standard method. Thus, choice of method may introduce bias, either an over or underestimate of equivalent dosage, when designing head-to-head, antipsychotic, fixed-dose trials. Consequently, clinical trial reports should routinely include justification of the choice of method for calculating dose equivalence.

Prescription profiles for pharmacological treatment of Japanese inpatients with schizophrenia: comparison between 2007 and 2009

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pharmacological treatment of schizophrenic patients in Japan is characterized by polypharmacy with high doses of antipsychotics. In this study, we examined the profiles of antipsychotic drug therapy in 2007 and 2009 to determine if there have been any recent shifts in treatment strategy.

METHOD

The subjects were schizophrenic inpatients (ICD-10-F20) admitted to 100 hospitals in 2007 and 152 hospitals in 2009. Information on the psychotropic agents prescribed on specified days in November 2007 and 2009 was acquired for each patient.

RESULTS

Although no changes were observed in the rate of antipsychotic medications being prescribed, the rate of antipsychotic monotherapy in 2009 increased significantly. In 2007, among 15,761 patients, 4977 (31.6%) received antipsychotic monotherapy (i.e., administration of a single antipsychotic medication). In 2009, among 22,911 patients, 7741 (33.8%) received antipsychotic monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The rate of use of antipsychotic monotherapy has gradually increased, although the total dose has not changed significantly. The increase in the concomitant use of two or more second-generation antipsychotics is a recent trend in Japan, despite the lack of information on the efficacy and safety of this treatment strategy.

A study of an antipsychotic prescription pattern of patients with schizophrenia in a developing country

BACKGROUND

Though there are several recommended guidelines for treating schizophrenia, in routine clinical practice, these are not followed.

AIM

To conduct an audit of the prescription pattern of antipsychotic drugs in patients with schizophrenia, in a tertiary care centre in India, during a period of 1 year and compare it with Maudsley guidelines and Clinical practice guidelines for Psychiatrists in India (IPS guidelines).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from the case records, compiled, and analyzed. The concordance or discordance with Maudsley and IPS guidelines were studied.

RESULTS

The demographic variables of the patients and the prescription pattern of drugs were analyzed. The correlations between supramaximal and sub-threshold dosage of drugs to the gender, age, duration of illness, and combination of drugs were examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy of antipsychotics is common. 31% of patients were on combination of typical and atypical antipsychotics. 4% of patients were receiving supramaximal dose of antipsychotics and all of them were on combination (P =<0.03, x(2)). 24% of patients were on sub-threshold doses. 83% were not on anticholinergic drugs.

Augmentation of clozapine with a second antipsychotic--a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

Inadequate response to clozapine treatment is frequently encountered in practice and augmentation strategies have been developed in an attempt to improve response. Aims of the study were to evaluate the therapeutic effect of adding an antipsychotic drug to clozapine treatment.

METHOD

Meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled studies of antipsychotic augmentation of clozapine treatment.

RESULTS

Ten studies (including 522 subjects) met inclusion criteria. Antipsychotic augmentation showed significant benefit over the addition of placebo on only one outcome measure examined [mean effect size for rating scale score (BPRS/PANSS) -0.180, 95% CI -0.356 to -0.004]. Antipsychotic augmentation showed no advantage on withdrawals from trials (risk ratio 1.261, 95% CI 0.679-2.345) or on CGI scores (effect size -0.661, 95% CI -1.475 to 0.151). Duration of study was not associated with outcome (P = 0.95). There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

In studies lasting up to 16 weeks, the addition of an antipsychotic to clozapine treatment has marginal therapeutic benefit. Longer and larger trials are necessary to demonstrate the precise therapeutic utility of antipsychotic co-therapy with clozapine.

Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride, given orally, is commonly used for managing the signs and symptoms of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of zuclopenthixol dhydrochloride for treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (December 2004). This register is compiled of methodical searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, Sociofile, supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. To identify further trials we also contacted a pharmaceutical company and authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing zuclopenthixol dihydrocodine with antipsychotics or with placebo (or no intervention) for treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed articles and extracted data. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistics. For continuous data we calculated weighted mean differences with 95% CIs for non-skewed data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eighteen trials involving 1578 people. Two trials compared zuclopenthixol with placebo and neither reported global or mental state outcomes. People allocated zuclopenthixol did have increased risk of experiencing extraparamydal symptoms compared with placebo (n=64, RR 5.37, CI 1.12 to 29.34 NNH 2 CI 2 to 31). Ten short trials (total n=478) compared zuclopenthixol with other typical antipsychotics. Risk of being unchanged or worse was decreased by allocation to zuclopenthixol (n=357, 7 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.53 to 0.98, NNT 10 CI 6 to 131). No findings suggest any clear difference between zuclopenthixol and other typical antipsycotics across a whole range of adverse effects, including movement disorders (n=280, 6 RCTs, RR needing additional antiparkinsonian medication 1.07 CI 0.86 to 1.33) and general agitation (n=162, 3 RCTs, RR needing treatment with hypnotic/sedative drugs 1.09 CI 0.76 to 1.56). Fewer people allocated zuclopenthixol left in the short term compared with those given other typical antipsychotics (n=424, 22% vs 30%, 8 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.51 to 0.95, NNT 12 CI 7 to 67). Three short trials (total n=233) compared zuclopenthixol with atypical antipsychotics. Zuclopenthixol was associated with no greater risk of being unchanged or worse compared with risperidone (n=98, 1 RCT, RR 1.30 CI 0.80 to 2.11). People allocated zuclopenthixol were prescribed antiparkinsonian medication more frequently compared to those treated with risperidone (n=98, 1 RCT, RR 1.92 CI 1.12 to 3.28, NNH 3 CI 3 to 17). Weight gain was equal for people allocated zuclopenthixol and those given sulpiride (n=61, 1 RCT, WMD 1.60 CI 8.35 to 5.15). Many people left these short studies early (45% zuclopenthixol vs 30% risperidone, n=159, 2 RCTs, RR 1.48 CI 0.98 to 2.22). The two isomers of zuclopenthixol, when compared in four short studies (total n=140), did not result in clearly different outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is an indication that zuclopenthixol causes movement disorders, perhaps more so than the newer generation of drugs, though no more frequently than the older generation of antipsychotics. There is some suggestion from this review that oral zuclopenthixol may have some clinical advantage, at least in the short term, over other older drugs in terms of global state. If an older drug is going to be prescribed, zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride is a viable option but may be best taken with additional medication to offset movement disorders that occur in about half the people taking this drug. There is no information on service, functional, behavioural outcomes and important outcomes such as relapse, for such a widely used drug this would indicate the need for further studies. We feel that it should remain a choice in the treatment of those for whom older generation drugs are indicated.