Patients' Experiences of Clozapine for Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review

Patient and caregivers perspective about clozapine: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is a gold standard treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, the patients' and caregivers' perception and their experience with clozapine has remained much less explored.

AIM

To review the available literature on the patients' and caregivers' attitudes, perceptions, and experiences with clozapine.

METHODOLOGY

27 original research and review articles published in PubMed-indexed journals till March 2023 in the English language, exploring the patient and/or caregiver/family member's experience with using clozapine, were included.

RESULTS

30-80 %of patients and 92-100 % of caregivers were found to have a positive attitude towards clozapine in terms of its impact on psychopathology, cognitive and social functioning of the patient, and caregiving needs. Most patients and caregivers also found that the positive effects of clozapine outweighed the side effects and distress related to repeated blood testing. However, a lack of satisfaction was noted among both patients and caregivers regarding the knowledge provided to them regarding clozapine, especially regarding its common adverse effects. Discontinuation of clozapine was found to be more commonly done by the patients' accord rather than clinicians, and the perceived side effects like hypersalivation and excessive sedation emerge as important factors that lead to discontinuation rather than the need for repeated blood testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients and their caregivers share a positive attitude towards clozapine and perceive it to be an effective and beneficial drug, but more effort needs to be directed by the clinical teams to educate the users of clozapine regarding its complete side effect profile and provide continuous guidance about dealing with the emerging side effects throughout treatment.

Clozapine augmentation with long-acting antipsychotic injections: A case series and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of patients with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant psychosis remain symptomatic despite an optimal trial with the gold standard treatment, clozapine. Emerging evidence suggests the clinical utility of long-acting injections (LAI) in such clinical scenarios. In this study, we aimed to describe clozapine augmentation with LAIs in an inner London hospital and explore the literature on the clinical effectiveness of this treatment modality.

METHODS

Patients prescribed clozapine, who were commenced on a LAI between 2007 and 2023 by the United Kingdom's largest mental health trust, were identified from electronic patient records. First, routine clinical data were used to describe the use, effectiveness, and safety of this augmentation strategy. Second, we conducted a literature search up to 1st June 2023 to identify published studies describing clinical outcomes after clozapine augmentation with a LAI. Clinical outcomes were collated and presented in a table, including hospitalisation rates and quantitative clinical assessments using validated scales.

RESULTS

Of the 1248 patients prescribed clozapine in SLaM, three patients (0.2%) received augmentation with the following LAIs: olanzapine embonate, paliperidone palmitate and pipotiazine palmitate. This treatment strategy was clinically effective and generally well tolerated in all three cases. Twelve published studies between 2010 and 2022 were included in the review. Eight distinct LAIs were reported (4 first and 4 second generation antipsychotics), with risperidone and paliperidone most widely studied. All the identified studies were observational including mirror-image studies, case series and case reports. Duration of follow up varied from 3 months to 3 years. There was evidence that the use of LAIs with clozapine can significantly reduce clinical symptoms, hospitalisation rates and bed days. No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary evidence suggests clinical utility of LAIs in alleviating residual symptoms and subsequently reducing hospitalisation rates in patients optimised on clozapine treatment. The current study warrants further investigations including a randomised controlled study to establish the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and place in therapy of this treatment modality.

Experience with and attitude toward clozapine use among patients receiving clozapine on long term and their caregivers

Background

Despite clozapine being the gold standard for treating patients suffering from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, the experience and attitude of patients receiving clozapine for a long duration and their caregivers have not been evaluated, especially in India and other low-middle-income countries. Also, no standardized scale has been validated for such assessment.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the perception regarding clozapine among patients and their caregivers. We also attempted to evaluate the factor structure of the scale for such assessment.

Methods

A total of 172 consenting patients who have been receiving clozapine for ≥1 year and their caregivers were evaluated on self-designed questionnaires (patient and caregiver versions containing 44 and 47 items, respectively) to assess various aspects of their experiences about clozapine use.

Results

A majority (70-80%) of patients and caregivers reported improvement in psychotic symptoms, mood symptoms, and overall functioning with starting of clozapine. However, about 40% of the patients reported cognitive side effects, and 20-25% reported disabling side effects like lethargy, forgetfulness and decreased attention, and distress related to blood testing after starting of clozapine. Factor analysis of the questionnaires yielded five- and seven-factor models for the experience and attitude of the patients and the caregivers, respectively. The positive experiences were associated clinical and functional improvement, lower disability, and improvement in functioning as well as the self-reported perceived improvement by the patient and caregiver.

Conclusion

This study suggests that patients tend to have an overall positive experience and attitude about using clozapine. The caregivers also report the beneficial effect on the caregiving. A good level of agreement was seen between the experience of patients, caregivers, and clinician-rated improvement in the psychopathology and functioning.

The lived experience of clozapine discontinuation in patients and carers following suspected clozapine-induced neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is the treatment of choice in refractory psychosis. In most countries, clozapine must be stopped indefinitely if white blood cells fall below a defined threshold during routine monitoring. Despite evidence of severe adverse consequences of clozapine discontinuation, published accounts on the lived experiences and perspectives of patients and carers are scarce.

METHOD

We completed semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 4) and family carers (n = 4) on experiences of clozapine cessation following suspected drug-induced neutropenia. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The two overarching themes comprised:(i) stress of clozapine below threshold neutrophil results and (ii) patient and carer priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a suggested need for evidence-based pharmacological and psychological approaches to support patients and carers after clozapine cessation. Such approaches will minimise the potentially negative physical and emotional sequela in the aftermath of a below threshold neutrophil result and reduce the likelihood of experiencing additional health and social inequalities after clozapine discontinuation.

What are the barriers and facilitators of clozapine use in early psychosis? A survey of UK early intervention clinicians

Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-resistant psychosis, but evidence points to substantial underuse, especially within early intervention psychosis (EIP) services. We explored clinicians' views on perceived barriers and facilitators to offering patients clozapine within EIP services. A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to clinicians practising in EIP services across England. A mixed methods approach was used to assess barriers to clozapine, and attitudes and opinions concerning clozapine underutilisation. Based on the barriers identified in the literature, clinicians were asked to rate each one (scale:1-7) based on importance, with a higher score indicating higher importance. Clinicians were also asked open-ended questions on barriers to clozapine and how access can be improved in EIP services. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed thematically. One hundred and nineteen EIP clinicians from 35 services in England completed the survey. In total, 37% (n = 45) of clinicians perceived that clozapine was under-prescribed in their EIP service. The most important barrier to utilising clozapine were patient concerns with side effects, followed by monitoring requirements and clinician concerns with side effects. Thematic analysis identified 17 perceived barriers, which were grouped into three major themes: administrative (5 subthemes), clinician-related (6 subthemes), and patient-related (6 subthemes). Perceived facilitators to improving clozapine use were greater training, improved resources, and optimised monitoring. The main barriers to clozapine in EIP services, as identified by clinicians, are patient concerns regarding side effects and monitoring requirements. Identified facilitators for improved clozapine use include clinician training, improved resources, guidelines, and point-of-care testing.

Clinical impact of reducing the frequency of clozapine monitoring: controlled mirror-image cohort study

BACKGROUND

To minimise infection during COVID-19, the clozapine haematological monitoring interval was extended from 4-weekly to 12-weekly intervals in South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.

AIMS

To investigate the impact of this temporary policy change on clinical and safety outcomes.

METHOD

All patients who received clozapine treatment with extended (12-weekly) monitoring in a large London National Health Service trust were included in a 1-year mirror-image study. A comparison group was selected with standard monitoring. The proportion of participants with mild to severe neutropenia and the proportion of participants attending the emergency department for clozapine-induced severe neutropenia treatment during the follow-up period were compared. Psychiatric hospital admission rates, clozapine dose and concomitant psychotropic medication in the 1 year before and the 1 year after extended monitoring were compared. All-cause clozapine discontinuation at 1-year follow-up was examined.

RESULTS

Of 569 participants, 459 received clozapine with extended monitoring and 110 controls continued as normal. The total person-years were 458 in the intervention group and 109 in the control group, with a median follow-up time of 1 year in both groups. During follow-up, two participants (0.4%) recorded mild to moderate neutropenia in the intervention group and one (0.9%) in the control group. There was no difference in the incidence of haematological events between the two groups (IRR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.02-28.15, P = 0.29). All neutropenia cases in the intervention group were mild, co-occurring during COVID-19 infection. The median number of admissions per patient during the pre-mirror period remained unchanged (0, IQR = 0) during the post-mirror period. There was one death in the control group, secondary to COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that the incidence of severe neutropenia was increased in those receiving extended monitoring.

Clozapine haematological monitoring for neutropenia: a global perspective

AIMS

Clozapine is licensed for treatment-resistant psychosis and remains underutilised. This may berelated to the stringent haematological monitoring requirements that are mandatory in most countries. We aimed to compare guidelines internationally and develop a novel Stringency Index. We hypothesised that the most stringent countries would have increased healthcare costs and reduced prescription rates.

METHOD

We conducted a literature review and survey of guidelines internationally. Guideline identification involved a literature review and consultation with clinical academics. We focused on the haematological monitoring parameters, frequency and thresholds for discontinuation and rechallenge after suspected clozapine-induced neutropenia. In addition, indicators reflecting monitoring guideline stringency were scored and visualised using a choropleth map. We developed a Stringency Index with an international panel of clozapine experts, through a modified-Delphi-survey. The Stringency Index was compared to health expenditure per-capita and clozapine prescription per 100 000 persons.

RESULTS

One hundred twocountries were included, from Europe (n = 35), Asia (n = 24), Africa (n = 20), South America (n = 11), North America (n = 7) and Oceania and Australia (n = 5). Guidelines differed in frequency of haematological monitoring and discontinuation thresholds. Overall, 5% of included countries had explicit guidelines for clozapine-rechallenge and 40% explicitly prohibited clozapine-rechallenge. Furthermore, 7% of included countries had modified discontinuation thresholds for benign ethnic neutropenia. None of the guidelines specified how long haematological monitoring should continue. The most stringent guidelines were in Europe, and the least stringent were in Africa and South America. There was a positive association (r = 0.43, p < 0.001) between a country's Stringency Index and healthcare expenditure per capita.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations on how haematological function should be monitored in patients treated with clozapine vary considerably between countries. It would be useful to standardise guidelines on haematological monitoring worldwide.