Unanswered questions in schizophrenia clinical trials

Pharmacological management of neurocognitive impairment in schizophrenia: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment are among the core features of schizophrenia, experienced by up to 75% of patients. Available treatment options for schizophrenia including dopamine antagonists and traditional antipsychotic medications have not been shown to confer significant benefits on cognitive deficits. Contrary to the focus on management of positive symptoms in schizophrenia, cognitive abilities are main predictor of independent living skills, functional abilities, employment, engagement in relapse prevention, and patients' subjective sense of well-being and quality of life. This review aims to provide a summary of recent literature on pharmacological options for the treatment of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of studies from 2011 to 2021 across four electronic databases including PubMed, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and Embase. Human studies using a pharmacological treatment for cognitive impairment in schizophrenia were included.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight eligible publications, representing 11 pharmacological classes, were included in this review. Major limitations involved small sample size, methodological limitations as well as heterogeneity of participants and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall evidence remains inconclusive for any pharmacological classes studied for the treatment of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Methodological limitations in a majority of the studies rendered their findings preliminary. We further discuss possible explanations for these findings that could guide future research.

Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Among interventional studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence. However, RCTs can be susceptible to the risk of bias (RoB). Systematic reviews can be performed to appraise RoB in the included articles using evaluative tools. This study aimed to describe the main characteristics and focus on the RoB of RCTs conducted in Iran and included in Cochrane Reviews (CRs).

METHODS

We searched "Iran" by selecting the "Search All Text" and "Review" fields in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within Ovid. CRs that included the RCTs conducted in Iran were retrieved. A trial was selected only if it was included in CRs, described as a controlled clinical trial, involved human subjects and CR authors assessed its RoB. The trials were characterized by investigating the relevant articles and the table "Characteristics of included studies" in each CR. The RoB was investigated by collecting the review authors' judgments based on RoB assessment tables in the CRs.

RESULTS

Out of 1166 Iranian RCTs included by 571 CRs, low RoB was found in 44.9% for random sequence generation, 20.8% for allocation concealment, 32.3% for blinding of participants/personnel, 36.5% for blinding of outcome assessors, 56.3% for incomplete outcome data, 41.3% for selective outcome reporting and 53.8% for other sources of bias.

CONCLUSION

The RoB in Iranian RCTs was found to be mostly high or unclear. While this is similar to the global situation, it is recommended that the methodological quality of conducting and reporting RCTs be addressed in Iran.

Post hoc analysis of a randomised, placebo-controlled, active-reference 6-week study of brexpiprazole in acute schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

We provide a closer look at the result of a randomised, placebo-controlled, active-reference (quetiapine XR), flexible-dose, 6-week study of brexpiprazole in schizophrenia, which did not meet its primary endpoint - change from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. We also investigate potential expectancy bias from the well-known side-effect profile of the active reference that could have affected the study outcome.

METHODS

Pre-specified sensitivity analyses of the primary end point were performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) last observation carried forward (LOCF) and observed cases (OC). Post hoc analyses of change from baseline in PANSS total score were performed using the mixed model for repeated measures approach with treatment groups split by having typical adverse events with potential for functional unblinding, for example, somnolence, increase in weight, dizziness, dry mouth and sedation.

RESULTS

Pre-specified sensitivity analyses showed separation from placebo for brexpiprazole at week 6: LOCF, ANCOVA: -4.3 [95% CI (-8.0, -0.5), p = 0.0254]. OC, ANCOVA: -3.9 [95% CI (-7.3, -0.5), p = 0.0260]. Patients treated with brexpiprazole experiencing typical adverse events with potential for functional unblinding before or at Week 2 had a least square (LS) mean PANSS change of -29.5 (improvement), with a difference in change from baseline to Week 6 in PANSS total score between brexpiprazole and placebo of -13.5 [95% CI (-23.1, -4.0), p = 0.0057], and those who did not had an LS mean change of -18.9 and a difference between brexpiprazole and placebo of -2.9 [95% CI (-7.2, 1.4), p = 0.1809].

CONCLUSION

Pre-specified sensitivity analyses showed separation from placebo for brexpiprazole at Week 6. A post hoc analysis suggested a potential confounding of efficacy rating towards symptom improvement in patients who experience known side effects of quetiapine XR.

Practical pharmacotherapy for acute schizophrenia patients

Well-organized clinical guidelines of pharmacotherapy for schizophrenia are not necessarily applicable to emergency and acute-phase situations. Thus, practical pharmacotherapy for acute schizophrenia patients should be based on data from real clinical practice and be independent of pharmaceutical companies. This study investigated the current guidelines being used to determine the initially preferred antipsychotics, durations required before an antipsychotic is viewed as being ineffective, and the strategies utilized for early non-responders that include switching, high dose, and augmentation. In patients who develop side-effects to the preferred antipsychotic drug, continued use may depend on the specific characteristics of the side-effects. For acute-phase patients, antipsychotics with high efficacy and effectiveness may be chosen based on meta-analysis findings for not only double-blinded but also rater-blinded randomized controlled trials. Many previous studies have reported being able to make an early prediction at 2 weeks regarding the later response. These predictions were supported by the findings of a recent meta-analysis of 34 studies that examined 9975 participants. In early non-responders to the initial antipsychotic, the effectiveness of the switching strategy appears to depend on the initial antipsychotic administered and the antipsychotic the patient is subsequently switched to. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the strategy between switching and augmentation might also depend on the initial antipsychotic administered. The current findings might serve as the basis for the use of dosing above the licensed range versus continuing the use of conventional dosing in non-responders, provided there is close monitoring of the side-effects. Further research is required before any modifications of routine practices are undertaken regarding the direction of new potential treatments.

Strategies for Early Non-response to Antipsychotic Drugs in the Treatment of Acute-phase Schizophrenia

As a strategy for antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia, monotherapy is clearly optimal when both effective and tolerated. When a patient fails to respond to an adequate dose of an antipsychotic, alternatives include switching, administering a higher dose (above the licensed dose), polypharmacy or clozapine. Clozapine is the only option with established efficacy, but is less manageable than other antipsychotics. We therefore reviewed other options, focusing on the treatment of acute-phase schizophrenia. According to recent evidence, an antipsychotic may be viewed as ineffective within 1-4 weeks in acute-phase practice, although some differences may exist among antipsychotics. Whether a switching strategy is effective might depend on the initial antipsychotic and which antipsychotic is switched to. As weak evidence points toward augmentation being superior to continuation of the initial antipsychotic, inclusion of augmentation arms in larger studies comparing strategies for early non-responders in the acute-phase is justified. With respect to high-doses, little evidence is available regarding acute-phase treatment, and the issue remains controversial. Although evidence for antipsychotic switching, augmentation, and high-doses has gradually been accumulating, more studies performed in real clinical practice with minimal bias are required to establish strategies for early non-response to an antipsychotic drug in the treatment of acute-phase schizophrenia.

Patient-reported outcome measures: are they patient-generated, patient-centred or patient-valued?

BACKGROUND

In the past two decades, there has been a growing interest in the development of a more patient-centred approach to assessing treatment outcomes. This interest has resulted in the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in both clinical trials and usual clinical practice.

AIMS

To briefly discuss the paucity of efficacy and effectiveness studies in the field of mental health (exemplified by schizophrenia, depression and opioid dependence) that significantly incorporate the patient's perspective. The limited concordance between the perspectives of patients and clinicians in outcome assessment is also addressed. Finally, we propose a new PROM classification system based on the degree to which these instruments incorporate the patient's perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs may differ little from traditional instruments unless they truly incorporate the patient's perspective and not just the perspectives of clinicians and researchers. Efforts to develop new PROMs that provide a more patient-centred outcome assessment should use qualitative and participatory methods to capture and incorporate patient perspectives and values.

A comparison between augmentation with olanzapine and increased risperidone dose in acute schizophrenia patients showing early non-response to risperidone

We examined whether augmentation with olanzapine would be superior to increased risperidone dose among acute schizophrenia patients showing early non-response to risperidone. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized controlled trial at psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia. Early response was defined as Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale score ≤3 following 2 weeks of treatment. Early non-responders were allocated to receive either augmentation with olanzapine (RIS+OLZ group) or increased risperidone dose (RIS+RIS group). The 78 patients who completed 2 weeks of treatment were divided into 52 early responders to risperidone and 26 early non-responders to risperidone (RIS+OLZ group, n=13; RIS+RIS group, n=13). No difference in the achievement of ≥50% improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score was observed between RIS+OLZ and RIS+RIS groups. Although time to treatment discontinuation for any cause was significantly shorter in the RIS+RIS group (6.8 weeks [95% confidence interval, 5.2-8.4]) than in early responders to risperidone (8.6 weeks [7.9-9.3]; P=0.018), there was no significant difference between the RIS+OLZ group (7.9 weeks [6.3-9.5]) and early responders to risperidone. Secondary outcomes justify the inclusion of augmentation arms in additional, larger studies comparing strategies for early non-responders.

Efficacy of olanzapine long-acting injection in patients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia: an insight from effect size comparison with historical oral data

BACKGROUND

To treat acute schizophrenia, a long-acting injectable antipsychotic needs a rapid onset of action and therapeutic profile similar to that of oral agents. The present post-hoc analyses compared results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) for acute schizophrenia with those observed in similarly designed trials of oral olanzapine.

METHODS

Six-week results from the olanzapine LAI study (N = 404) were compared with those of 3 oral studies (study 1: olanzapine vs. haloperidol vs. placebo [N = 335]; study 2: olanzapine vs. haloperidol vs. low-dose olanzapine [N = 431]; study 3: olanzapine vs. placebo vs. low-dose olanzapine [N = 152]). All patients had baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores ≥24 (0-6 scale). Six-week effect sizes were calculated. Efficacy onset, pharmacokinetics, discontinuations, weight gain, and extrapyramidal symptoms were also assessed.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, mean BPRS scores decreased by 14 to 15 points for olanzapine LAI (405 mg/4 weeks, 210 or 300 mg/2 weeks), by 8 to 16 for oral olanzapine (10 ± 2.5 or 15 ± 2.5 mg/day), and by 12 to 13 for haloperidol (15 ± 5 mg/day). For those same dose groups, effect sizes vs. placebo for the BPRS were 0.7 to 0.8 for olanzapine LAI, 0.5 to 0.7 for oral olanzapine, and 0.6 for haloperidol. The first statistically significant separation from placebo on the BPRS occurred at 3 days for the olanzapine LAI groups and at 1 week for oral olanzapine and haloperidol (15 ± 5 mg/day) in oral study 1 although as late as week 6 for the 10-mg/day olanzapine dose in oral study 3. Olanzapine concentrations were similar across studies. Weight gain ≥7% of baseline occurred in up to 35% of olanzapine LAI and oral patients versus up to 12% of haloperidol and placebo patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms were lowest in the olanzapine LAI groups and significantly greater in the haloperidol groups. No post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome events occurred in the olanzapine LAI study.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated acutely with olanzapine LAI showed a similar pattern of improvement to that seen historically with oral olanzapine. With the exception of injection-related adverse events, the efficacy and tolerability profile of olanzapine LAI is similar to oral olanzapine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: http://http//www.clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00088478; ClinicalStudyResults.org ID; URL: http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org/: 917, 978, 982, and 5984.

Hospitalisation Utilisation and Costs in Schizophrenia Patients in Finland before and after Initiation of Risperidone Long-Acting Injection

Objectives. Quantify changes in hospital resource use in Finland following initiation of risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI). Materials and Methods. A retrospective multi-center chart review (naturalistic setting) was used to compare annual hospital bed-days and hospital episodes for 177 schizophrenia patients (mean age 47.1 years, 52% female, 72% hospitalized) before and after initiation of RLAI (between January 2004 and June 2005) using the within-patient "mirror-image" study design. The base case analytical approach allocated hospital episodes overlapping the start date entirely to the preinitiation period. In order to investigate the impact of inpatient care ongoing at baseline, the change in bed-days was also estimated using an alternative analytical approached related to economic modelling. Results. In the conventional analysis, the mean annual hospitalisation costs declined by €11,900 and the number of bed-days was reduced by 40%, corresponding to 0.19 fewer hospital episodes per year. The reductions in bed-days per patient-year were similar for patients switched to RLAI as inpatients and as outpatients. In the modelling-based analysis, an 8% reduction in bed-days per year was observed. Conclusion. Despite uncertainty in the choice of analytic approach for allocating inpatient episodes that overlapping this initiation, consistent reductions in resource use are associated with the initiation of RLAI in Finland.

Perceptions of relapse risks following first-episode psychosis and attitudes towards maintenance medication: a comparison between nursing and social work professionals

AIM

Existing clinical guidelines have not yet identified an optimal duration of maintenance antipsychotic drug treatment for stable, remitted first-episode psychosis patients. This study compares the perception of relapse risk and attitudes towards maintenance medication among professionals in nursing and social work fields who have direct clinical experience with first-episode psychosis patients. We explore a perception model that identifies the decision-making factors in the clinical dilemma between relapse and maintenance.

METHODS

A specially designed survey addressing perceptions of relapse risk and optimal duration of maintenance treatment was conducted among 63 experienced health-care professionals (30 nurses and 33 social workers) in the field of early psychosis in Hong Kong.

RESULTS

Two clinically relevant themes were identified that affected professionals' judgment on the optimal duration of maintenance treatment in stable, remitted first-episode psychosis patients: (i) the remission period; and (ii) professionals' perceptions of relapse risk involved in medication discontinuation. The remission period was a significant predictor of the perceived relapse risk. Compared with social workers, mental health nurses perceived a higher relapse risk for patients before Bonferroni adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

The three key clinical components discussed--remission period, perceived relapse risk and perceived optimal duration of maintenance treatment--are interconnected, collectively influencing health-care professionals' attitudes towards relapse and maintenance for patients. Our study identified differences between the perceptions of nursing and social work professionals, indicating a need for communication and discussion among professional groups in order to arrive at a coherent, efficacious team consensus.

Structural models describing placebo treatment effects in schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders

Large variation in placebo response within and among clinical trials can substantially affect conclusions about the efficacy of new medications in psychiatry. Developing a robust placebo model to describe the placebo response is important to facilitate quantification of drug effects, and eventually to guide the design of clinical trials for psychiatric treatment via a model-based simulation approach. In addition, high dropout rates are very common in the placebo arm of psychiatric clinical trials. While developing models to evaluate the effect of placebo response, the data from patients who drop out of the trial should be considered for accurate interpretation of the results. The objective of this paper is to review the various empirical and semi-mechanistic models that have been used to quantify the placebo response in schizophrenia trials. Pros and cons of each placebo model are discussed. Additionally, placebo models used in other neuropsychiatric disorders like depression, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease are also reviewed with the objective of finding those placebo models that could be useful for clinical studies of both acute and chronic schizophrenic disease conditions. Better understanding of the patterns of dropout and the factors leading to dropouts are crucial in identifying the true placebo response. We therefore also review dropout models that are used in the development of models for treatment effects and in the optimization of clinical trials by simulation approaches. The use of an appropriate modelling strategy that is capable of identifying the potential sources of variable placebo responses and dropout rates is recommended for improving the sensitivity in discriminating between the effects of active treatment and placebo.

Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia: opportunities, limitations, and trial design alternatives

State-of-the art clinical trial design and methodology are enormously important for the advancement of the field. In contrast, the critical relevance of trial conduct and implementation have only more recently been the focus of discussion and research. Although randomized controlled trials are generally considered the gold standard for the assessment of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions in medicine, trials are vulnerable to complications and influences that can seriously compromise their success, Like interventions, trial design and conduct are also contextual. They need to be individualized and adapted to a number of relevant variables, such as setting, population, illness phase, interventions, patient and rater expectations and biases, and the overall aims of the investigation. While this means that there is no unified approach possible, certain general principles and guidelines require careful consideration. Knowledge of basic solutions and alternatives, and the recognition of the complex challenges that need to be addressed proactively can help to minimize unwanted outcomes, including trial failure and uninformative or falsely negative outcomes. Moreover, novel design alternatives need to be explored that target sample enrichment according to the study question and enhancement of precision in the measurement of relevant outcomes. We propose two novel design strategies that take advantage of the recently validated early antipsychotic response paradigm (that has also been observed with antidepressants and mood stabilizers). In the “early responder randomized discontinuation design” all patients are assigned to the active drug, and only those who had at least a minimal response at 2 weeks are enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled discontinuation trial, enriching the placebo controlled trial portion with true drug responders. In the mirror image “early nonresponder randomized dose increase or augmentation design,” early nonresponders at 2 weeks are assigned to staying on the medication or going either to a higher dose or an augmentation agent. It is hoped that through increased attention to the issues raised in this article and further refinement of trial methodology and conduct, the field will make much needed additional progress in the prevention and treatment of schizophrenia.

Difference in early prediction of antipsychotic non-response between risperidone and olanzapine in the treatment of acute-phase schizophrenia

PURPOSE

We examined whether early response/non-response to risperidone according to the Clinical Global Impressions-improvement scale (CGI-I) at 2 weeks could predict subsequent response. This prediction was also applied to olanzapine. We then investigated whether early non-responders (ENRs) to risperidone or olanzapine who switched to the other showed significantly greater improvement, compared with those staying on the initial antipsychotic. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized controlled trial in 18 psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia. Early response was defined as CGI-I ≤ 3 following 2 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome measure was achievement of remission and ≥ 50% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale at 4 weeks.

RESULTS

At 4 weeks, 53% of risperidone early responders (ERs) went into remission, whereas only 9% of ENRs staying on risperidone (n=11) did (P=0.016). Similarly, at 4 weeks, 81% of risperidone ERs achieved ≥ 50% response, whereas only 9% of ENRs staying on risperidone achieved ≥ 50% response (P < 0.0001). In contrast, 58% of olanzapine ERs (n=33) went into remission, whereas 38% of ENRs staying on olanzapine (n=8) did at 4 weeks (P=0.44). Similarly, 61% of olanzapine ERs achieved ≥ 50% response, whereas 25% of ENRs staying on olanzapine achieved ≥ 50% response (P=0.12). The negative likelihood ratio for the prediction of ≥ 50% response at 4 weeks by early response status to risperidone at 2 weeks was 0.057.

CONCLUSION

In newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia, non-response to risperidone using CGI-I at 2 weeks can predict subsequent response. It looks like there is significant response to olanzapine that doesn't occur until 4 weeks. Thus, clinicians may want to switch to another drug earlier when risperidone is the first drug, and later when olanzapine is the first drug.

Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia: opportunities, limitations, and trial design alternatives

State-of-the art clinical trial design and methodology are enormously important for the advancement of the field. In contrast, the critical relevance of trial conduct and implementation have only more recently been the focus of discussion and research. Although randomized controlled trials are generally considered the gold standard for the assessment of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions in medicine, trials are vulnerable to complications and influences that can seriously compromise their success. Like interventions, trial design and conduct are also contextual. They need to be individualized and adapted to a number of relevant variables, such as setting, population, illness phase, interventions, patient and rater expectations and biases, and the overall aims of the investigation. While this means that there is no unified approach possible, certain general principles and guidelines require careful consideration. Knowledge of basic solutions and alternatives, and the recognition of the complex challenges that need to be addressed proactively can help to minimize unwanted outcomes, including trial failure and uninformative or falsely negative outcomes. Moreover, novel design alternatives need to be explored that target sample enrichment according to the study question and enhancement of precision in the measurement of relevant outcomes. We propose two novel design strategies that take advantage of the recently validated early antipsychotic response paradigm (that has also been observed with antidepressants and mood stabilizers). In the "early responder randomized discontinuation design" all patients are assigned to the active drug, and only those who had at least a minimal response at 2 weeks are enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled discontinuation trial, enriching the placebo controlled trial portion with true drug responders. In the mirror image "early nonresponder randomized dose increase or augmentation design," early nonresponders at 2 weeks are assigned to staying on the medication or going either to a higher dose or an augmentation agent. It is hoped that through increased attention to the issues raised in this article and further refinement of trial methodology and conduct, the field will make much needed additional progress in the prevention and treatment of schizophrenia.

Past and present progress in the pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia

Despite treatment advances over the past decades, schizophrenia remains one of the most severe psychiatric disorders that is associated with a chronic relapsing course and marked functional impairment in a substantial proportion of patients. In this article, a historical overview of the pharmacologic advances in the treatment of schizophrenia over the past 50 years is presented. This is followed by a review of the current developments in optimizing the treatment and outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. Methodological challenges, potential solutions, and areas of particular need for further research are highlighted. Although treatment goals of response, remission, and recovery have been defined more uniformly, a good "effectiveness" measure mapping onto functional outcomes is still lacking. Moreover, the field must advance in transferring measurement-based approaches from research to clinical practice. There is an ongoing debate regarding whether and which first- or second-generation antipsychotics should be used. However, especially when considering individual adverse effect profiles, the differentiation into first- and second-generation antipsychotics as unified classes cannot be upheld, and a more differentiated view and treatment selection are required. The desired, individualized treatment approach needs to consider current symptoms, comorbid conditions, past therapeutic response, and adverse effects, as well as patient choice and expectations. Acute and long-term goals and effects of medication treatment should be balanced. To date, clozapine is the only evidence-based treatment for refractory patients, and the role of antipsychotic polypharmacy and other augmentation strategies remains unclear, at best. To discover novel treatments with enhanced/broader efficacy and improved tolerability, and to enable personalized treatment, the mechanisms underlying illness development and progression, symptomatic improvement, and side effect development need to be elucidated.

Maintenance treatment with quetiapine versus discontinuation after one year of treatment in patients with remitted first episode psychosis: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To study rates of relapse in remitted patients with first episode psychosis who either continued or discontinued antipsychotic drugs after at least one year of maintenance treatment.

DESIGN

12 month randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

SETTING

Early psychosis outpatient clinics in Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

178 patients with first episode psychosis who had received at least one year of antipsychotic drug treatment between September 2003 and July 2006 and had no positive symptoms of psychosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either maintenance treatment with quetiapine (400 mg/day) or placebo and were followed up for the next 12 months or until a relapse occurred.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Relapse assessed monthly and defined as re-emergence of psychotic symptoms (delusions, conceptual disorganisation, hallucinations, suspiciousness, and unusual thought content) according to predefined thresholds.

RESULTS

178 patients were randomised (89 to quetiapine and 89 to placebo). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the risk of relapse at 12 months was 41% (95% confidence interval 29% to 53%) for the quetiapine group and 79% (68% to 90%) for the placebo group (P<0.001). Although quetiapine was generally well tolerated, the rate of discontinuation due to adverse or serious adverse events was greater in the quetiapine group (18%; 16/89) than in the placebo group (8%; 7/89) (relative risk 2.29, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 5.28; chi(2)=3.20, df=1; P=0.07).

CONCLUSION

In a group of asymptomatic patients with first episode psychosis and at least one year of previous antipsychotic drug treatment, maintenance treatment with quetiapine compared with placebo resulted in a substantially lower rate of relapse during the following year. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00334035.

A systematic review of relapse measurement in randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention in first-episode psychosis

The prevention of relapse is an important treatment goal in first-episode psychosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the gold standard methodology for evaluating interventions for relapse prevention. Properly designed RCTs which include relapse as a treatment outcome should rigorously operationalize psychotic relapse. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate according to six criteria the operationalization of relapse in RCTs of clinical innovations for the prevention of relapse in first-episode psychosis. Through a systematic literature search of relevant RCTs in first-episode psychosis patients, eight pharmacological and eight non-pharmacological trials, published between 1982 and 2009, were identified. Readmission to a psychiatric hospital was the most common definition of psychotic relapse. Five studies did not measure relapse using any standardized or validated observer-rated instruments. The majority of the studies did not specify a duration criterion for relapse. Only three studies satisfied six criteria for the adequate operationalization of relapse. These results raise concerns regarding the internal and external validity of these research findings. There is an urgent need for a standardized, universally adopted set of criteria for psychotic relapse with appropriate specification of measurement instruments for use in future RCTs.

Progress in defining optimal treatment outcome in schizophrenia

Historically, schizophrenia has been associated with early-onset, persistent symptoms, and progressive decline accompanied by poor functional recovery. The advent of effective drugs in the 1950s improved symptom control, at least from the standpoint of positive features (e.g. hallucinations, delusions). However, even here the response was limited and efficacy in other symptom domains (cognitive, deficit/negative) was minimal. With clozapine as the prototype, the second-generation antipsychotics arrived in the 1990s with claims of improved tolerability, as well as greater and broader clinical efficacy, all of which was to translate to gains in functional outcome and quality of life. The capacity of these drugs to effect such changes has since been tempered, but it remains that the research and hope generated served as an impetus to redefine outcomes. A medical-based model, centred on pharmacotherapy and symptom resolution, has given way to a re-conceptualization of schizophrenia and treatment goals. There is a clearer distinction between clinical and functional outcomes, and, with this, greater attention has been given to these other symptom domains that curtail improvement in the latter. At the same time, a concerted shift to shared decision making has underscored quality-of-life issues that benefit from, but cannot be guaranteed by, either clinical or functional improvement. To this end, the field has now embraced a recovery model that is seen as a process, multidimensional and individualized, rather than dichotomous and symptom driven.

Aripiprazole in treatment-refractory schizophrenia

Clozapine is the first choice antipsychotic medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia; however, there are some disadvantages in using clozapine. A few reports have appeared concerning switching from clozapine to other antipsychotics for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. This report describes the case of a 58-year-old female patient with treatment-refractory schizophrenia who was successfully switched from clozapine 300 mg/day to aripiprazole 20 mg/day because of changes in consciousness. After the switch to aripiprazole, the patient's psychotic condition improved. As expected, we identified few successful cases of switches from clozapine in our search of the literature. Although controlled clinical trial data support use of clozapine in treatment-refractory schizophrenia, some patients cannot tolerate this agent or it may increase the risk of physical problems for some patients. In such situations, clinicians may want to consider prescribing a different antipsychotic or adding another antipsychotic and decreasing the dosage of clozapine.