Longitudinal comparative study of risperidone and conventional neuroleptics for treating patients with schizophrenia. The Quebec Schizophrenia Study Group

Antipsychotic agents. Gradually improving treatment from the traditional oral neuroleptics to the first atypical depot

Relapse is one of the key factors in the long-term outcome of schizophrenia. The consequences of relapse are diverse and often unpredictable, and the time to recovery and degree of recovery worsen with each successive relapse. There is now overwhelming evidence that advances in antipsychotic drug treatment have led to significant reductions in the rate of relapse. This review charts the developments that have taken place in antipsychotic therapy from the introduction of depot formulations, through atypical agents, to the development of the first long-acting atypical antipsychotic. Depot formulations of conventional antipsychotics were developed in the 1960s and led to fewer relapses and episodes of hospitalization, compared with oral equivalents. Meta-analysis has confirmed that patients receiving depot antipsychotics experience significantly greater global improvement than those receiving the respective oral agents. Conventional antipsychotics are, however, associated with a range of potentially serious adverse events. The atypical antipsychotics were introduced in the 1990s and have significant advantages over conventional agents with regard to positive and negative symptoms. There is also evidence that atypical agents can reduce the risk of relapse. Importantly, atypical antipsychotics have an improved safety profile compared with older agents, particularly with regard to extrapyramidal symptoms. One disadvantage of atypical agents has been that they are only available in an oral form. The recent development of a long-acting injectable formulation of risperidone means that a new treatment option is available to physicians.

Risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long-acting injection formulation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of depot risperidone for treatment of schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medication.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and cost-effectiveness of risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2002, 2012, and October 28, 2015). We also checked the references of all included studies, and contacted industry and authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing depot risperidone with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, with a total of 5723 participants were randomised to the following comparison treatments: Risperidone depot versus placebo Outcomes of relapse and improvement in mental state were neither measured or reported. In terms of other primary outcomes, more people receiving placebo left the study early by 12 weeks (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.74 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, very low quality evidence), experienced severe adverse events in short term (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.59 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93, very low quality evidence). There was however, no difference in levels of weight gain between groups (1 RCT, n=400, RR 2.11 95% CI 0.48 to 9.18, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus general oral antipsychotics The outcome of improvement in mental state was not presented due to high levels of attrition, nor were levels of severe adverse events explicitly reported. Most primary outcomes of interest showed no difference between treatment groups. However, more people receiving depot risperidone experienced nervous system disorders (long-term:1 RCT, n=369, RR 1.34 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58, very-low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral risperidoneData for relapse and severe adverse events were not reported. All outcomes of interest were rated as moderate quality evidence. Main results showed no differences between treatment groups with equivocal data for change in mental state, numbers leaving the study early, any extrapyramidal symptoms, weight increase and prolactin-related adverse events. Risperidone depot versus oral quetiapine Relapse rates and improvement in mental state were not reported. Fewer people receiving risperidone depot left the study early (long-term: 1 RCT, n=666, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence). Experience of serious adverse events was similar between groups (low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone experienced EPS (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.83 95% CI 1.07 to 3.15, low quality evidence), had greater weight gain (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.25 95% CI 0.25 to 2.25, low quality evidence) and more prolactin-related adverse events (1 RCT, n=666, RR 3.07 95% CI 1.13 to 8.36, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral aripiprazoleRelapse rates, mental state using PANSS, leaving the study early, serious adverse events and weight increase were similar between groups. However more people receiving depot risperidone experienced prolactin-related adverse events compared to those receiving oral aripiprazole (2 RCTs, n=729, RR 9.91 95% CI 2.78 to 35.29, very low quality of evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral olanzapineRelapse rates were not reported in any of the included studies for this comparison. Improvement in mental state using PANSS and instances of severe adverse events were similar between groups. More people receiving depot risperidone left the study early than those receiving oral olanzapine (1 RCT, n=618, RR 1.32 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58, low quality evidence) with those receiving risperidone depot also experiencing more extrapyramidal symptoms (1 RCT, n=547, RR 1.67 95% CI 1.19 to 2.36, low quality evidence). However, more people receiving oral olanzapine experienced weight increase (1 RCT, n=547, RR 0.56 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75, low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus atypical depot antipsychotics (specifically paliperidone palmitate)Relapse rates were not reported and rates of response using PANSS, weight increase, prolactin-related adverse events and glucose-related adverse events were similar between groups. Fewer people left the study early due to lack of efficacy from the risperidone depot group (long term: 1 RCT, n=749, RR 0.60 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone required use of EPS-medication (2 RCTs, n=1666, RR 1.46 95% CI 1.18 to 1.8, moderate quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus typical depot antipsychoticsOutcomes of relapse, severe adverse events or movement disorders were not reported. Outcomes relating to improvement in mental state demonstrated no difference between groups (low quality evidence). However, more people receiving depot risperidone compared to other typical depots left the study early (long-term:1 RCT, n=62, RR 3.05 95% CI 1.12 to 8.31, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Depot risperidone may be more acceptable than placebo injection but it is hard to know if it is any more effective in controlling the symptoms of schizophrenia. The active drug, especially higher doses, may be associated with more movement disorders than placebo. People already stabilised on oral risperidone may continue to maintain benefit if treated with depot risperidone and avoid the need to take tablets, at least in the short term. In people who are happy to take oral medication the depot risperidone is approximately equal to oral risperidone. It is possible that the depot formulation, however, can bring a second-generation antipsychotic to people who do not reliably adhere to treatment. People with schizophrenia who have difficulty adhering to treatment, however, are unlikely to volunteer for a clinical trial. Such people may gain benefit from the depot risperidone with no increased risk of extrapyramidal side effects.

Chlorpromazine versus atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine is an aliphatic phenothiazine, which is one of the widely-used typical antipsychotic drugs. Chlorpromazine is reliable for its efficacy and one of the most tested first generation antipsychotic drugs. It has been used as a 'gold standard' to compare the efficacy of older and newer antipsychotic drugs. Expensive new generation drugs are heavily marketed worldwide as a better treatment for schizophrenia, but this may not be the case and an unnecessary drain on very limited resources.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of chlorpromazine with atypical or second generation antipsychotic drugs, for the treatment of people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register up to 23 September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared chlorpromazine with any other atypical antipsychotic drugs for treating people with schizophrenia. Adults (as defined in each trial) diagnosed with schizophrenia, including schizophreniform, schizoaffective and delusional disorders were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened the articles identified in the literature search against the inclusion criteria and extracted data from included trials. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we determined the mean difference (MD) values and 95% CIs. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 71 studies comparing chlorpromazine to olanzapine, risperidone or quetiapine. None of the included trials reported any data on economic costs. 1. Chlorpromazine versus olanzapineIn the short term, there appeared to be a significantly greater clinical response (as defined in each study) in people receiving olanzapine (3 RCTs, N = 204; RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.99, low quality evidence). There was no difference between drugs for relapse (1 RCT, N = 70; RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.86, very low quality evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for mental state (4 RCTs, N = 245; MD 3.21, 95% CI -0.62 to 7.05,very low quality evidence). There were significantly more extrapyramidal symptoms experienced amongst people receiving chlorpromazine (2 RCTs, N = 298; RR 34.47, 95% CI 4.79 to 248.30,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the general quality of life interview (GQOLI) - physical health subscale were more favourable with people receiving olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 61; MD -10.10, 95% CI -13.93 to -6.27, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (3 RCTs, N = 139; RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.40, very low quality evidence). 2. Chlorpromazine versus risperidoneIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or risperidone (7 RCTs, N = 475; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34, low quality of evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state 4 RCTs, N = 247; MD 0.90, 95% CI -3.49 to 5.28, very low quality evidence), or any observed extrapyramidal adverse effects (3 RCTs, N = 235; RR 1.7, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.40,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the QOL scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving risperidone (1 RCT, N = 100; MD -14.2, 95% CI -20.50 to -7.90, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (one RCT, N = 41; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11, very low quality evidence). 3. Chlorpromazine versus quetiapineIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or quetiapine (28 RCTs, N = 3241; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, moderate quality evidence) nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state (6 RCTs, N = 548; MD -0.18, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.88, very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the GQOL1-74 scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving quetiapine (1 RCT, N = 59; MD -6.49, 95% CI -11.30 to -1.68, very low quality evidence). Significantly more people receiving chlorpromazine experienced extrapyramidal adverse effects (8 RCTs, N = 644; RR 8.03, 95% CI 4.78 to 13.51, low quality of evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early in the short term (12 RCTs, N = 1223; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.41,moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most included trials included inpatients from hospitals in China. Therefore the results of this Cochrane review are more applicable to the Chinese population. Mostincluded trials were short term studies, therefore we cannot comment on the medium and long term use of chlorpromazine compared to atypical antipsychotics. Low qualityy evidence suggests chlorpromazine causes more extrapyramidal adverse effects. However, all studiesused varying dose ranges, and higher doses would be expected to be associated with more adverse events.

Clinical factors related to schizophrenia relapse

OBJECTIVE

Relapses represent one of the main problems of schizophrenia management. This article reviews the clinical factors associated with schizophrenia relapse.

METHODS

A research of the last 22 years of literature data was performed. Two-hundred nineteen studies have been included.

RESULTS

Three main groups of factors are related to relapse: factors associated with pharmacological treatment, add-on psychotherapeutic treatments and general risk factors. Overall, the absence of a maintenance therapy and treatment with first generation antipsychotics has been associated with higher risk of relapse. Further, psychotherapy add-on, particularly with cognitive behaviour therapy and psycho-education for both patients and relatives, has shown a good efficacy for reducing the relapse rate. Among general risk factors, some could be modified, such as the duration of untreated psychosis or the substance misuse, while others could not be modified as male gender or low pre-morbid level of functioning.

CONCLUSION

Several classes of risk factors have been proved to be relevant in the risk of relapse. Thus, a careful assessment of the risk factors here identified should be performed in daily clinical practice in order to individualise the relapse risk for each patient and to provide a targeted treatment in high-risk subjects.

Cannabidiol exhibits anxiolytic but not antipsychotic property evaluated in the social interaction test

Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychotomimetic compound of the Cannabis sativa, has been reported to have central therapeutic actions, such as antipsychotic and anxiolytic effects. We have recently reported that Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats (SHRs) present a deficit in social interaction that is ameliorated by atypical antipsychotics. In addition, SHRs present a hyperlocomotion that is reverted by typical and atypical antipsychotics, suggesting that this strain could be useful to study negative symptoms (modeled by a decrease in social interaction) and positive symptoms (modeled by hyperlocomotion) of schizophrenia as well as the effects of potential antipsychotics drugs. At the same time, an increase in social interaction in control animals similar to that induced by benzodiazepines is used to screen potential anxiolytic drugs. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of CBD on social interaction presented by control animals (Wistar) and SHRs. The lowest dose of CBD (1mg/kg) increased passive and total social interaction of Wistar rats. However, the hyperlocomotion and the deficit in social interaction displayed by SHRs were not altered by any dose of CBD. Our results do not support an antipsychotic property of cannabidiol on symptoms-like behaviors in SHRs but reinforce the anxiolytic profile of this compound in control rats.

Effects of antipsychotics and amphetamine on social behaviors in spontaneously hypertensive rats

We have recently reported that spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) exhibit a deficit in contextual fear conditioning that is specifically reversed by antipsychotic and potentiated by psychostimulants and other manipulations thought to produce schizophrenia-like states in rodents. Based on these findings, we suggested that this deficit in fear conditioning could be used as an experimental model of emotional processing impairments observed in schizophrenia. This strain has also been suggested as a model by which to study attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Considering that schizophrenia and ADHD are both characterized by poor social function, this study aimed to investigate possible behavioral deficits of SHRs in a social context. Furthermore, we sought to examine the effects of typical and atypical antipsychotics (used for the treatment of schizophrenia) and a psychostimulant (used to treat ADHD) on these behaviors. Pairs of unfamiliar rats of the same or different (i.e., Wistar) strains were treated with one of the aforementioned drugs and placed in an open-field for 10min. During this time, social behaviors, locomotion and rearing frequencies were scored. Atypical antipsychotics increased social interaction in Wistar rats (WRs) and improved the deficit in social interaction exhibited by SHRs. In addition, the SHR group displayed hyperlocomotion that was attenuated by all antipsychotics (quetiapine and clozapine also decreased locomotion in WRs) and potentiated by amphetamine (which also increased locomotion in WRs). Our results reveal that the behavioral profile of the SHR group demonstrates that this strain can be a useful animal model to study several aspects of schizophrenia.

A comparison of serum prolactin concentrations after administration of paliperidone extended-release and risperidone tablets in patients with schizophrenia

Increases in serum prolactin concentrations after administration of risperidone have been attributed, by some, to the availability of paliperidone in plasma. This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in patients with schizophrenia compared serum prolactin concentrations following the administration of paliperidone extended-release and risperidone immediate-release tablets. At steady state, the doses administered resulted in a similar exposure to paliperidone and the pharmacologically active fraction of risperidone (i.e. risperidone + paliperidone), respectively. Eligible patients were randomized to either paliperidone extended-release 12 mg on days 1-6 or risperidone immediate-release 2 mg on day 1 and 4 mg on days 2-6. Mean serum prolactin concentrations increased on day 1 (C(max): 71.8 ng/ml and 89.7 ng/ml reached at 6.5 hours and 2.6 hours for paliperidone extended-release and risperidone immediate-release, respectively). On day 6, serum prolactin concentration-time profiles were similar for both treatments, with overall higher serum prolactin concentrations than on day 1 (AUC(0-24 h): 1389 and 842 ng h/ml, and 1306 and 741 ng.h/ml on day 6 and day 1 for paliperidone extended-release and risperidone immediate-release, respectively). These results indicate that paliperidone extended-release 12 mg and risperidone immediate-release 4 mg, administered over a period of 6 days, lead to similar elevations in serum prolactin concentrations.

Risperidone dose for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is a widely used antipsychotic drug for people with schizophrenia. It is important to get a balance between gaining the most positive effects for the least negative outcomes. The optimal dose of risperidone is the focus of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine risperidone dose response relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Groups Trials Register (July 2008) for all relevant references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreement by discussion with a third member of the team. When insufficient data were provided, we contacted the study authors. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (MD).

MAIN RESULTS

A consistent finding when risperidone ultra low doses (<2 mg/day) were compared with other doses (short-term data) was that more people left early because of insufficient response (n=456, 1 RCT, RR when compared with standard-low (>==4-<6 mg/day) 12.48 CI 1.43 to 4.30). The insufficient response for this low dose is reflected in measures of mental state. When low doses (>==2-<4 mg/day) are used and compared with standard-higher doses (>==6-<10 mg/day) and the high dose range (>==10 mg/day), more people left early because of insufficient response (>==4-<6 mg/day: n=173, 2 RCTs, RR 4.05 CI 1.09 to 15.07; >==10 mg/day: n=173, 2 RCTs, RR 1.92 CI 1.36 to 2.70). For the outcome of 'no clinically important improvement' results favour standard-higher doses (n=272, 2 RCTs, RR 2.26 CI 0.81 to 6.34). When low doses are compared with other higher doses, we found no differences in terms of cardiovascular, CNS, endocrine or gastrointestinal adverse effects. Unspecified EPS were more frequent with the higher doses (>==10 mg: n=262, 2 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.24 to 0.84). One trial did find that endpoint scores on PANSS significantly favoured a low dose when compared with >==4-6 mg/day (n=124, 1 RCT, MD -12.40 CI -17.01 to -7.79). When >==4-<6 mg/day is compared with high doses, less people left early (n=677, 1 RCT, RR leaving any reason 0.74 CI 0.54 to 1.00; n=677, 1 RCT, RR due to adverse effects 0.56 CI 0.32 to 0.97). >==4-<6 mg/day was no worse than >==6-<10 mg/day for 'no clinically important improvement' (n=39, 1 RCT, RR on CGI-I 0.79 CI 0.29 to 2.17). People allocated >==4-<6 mg/day had more movement disorders than those on a low dose (n=124 1 RCT, RR 2.28 CI 1.67 to 3.11). When >==6-<10 mg/day is compared with standard-lower doses and a high dose range, there is no significant difference in terms of proportions leaving early. >==6-<10 mg/day is better than a low dose for 'no clinical important improvement' (n=172, 2 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.61 to 0.94). Overall >==6-<10 mg/day caused less problems especially in EPS when compared with >==10mg/day (n=261, 2 RCTs, RR unspecified EPS 0.56 CI 0.31 to 0.99). When a high dose was compared with a low dose less people left early (n=70, 1 RCT, RR 0.43 CI 0.26 to 0.71) but not when compared with a standard-lower dose (n=677, 1 RCT, RR leaving due to adverse event 1.78 CI 1.03 to 3.09). >==10 mg/day was better than a low dose in terms of 'no clinical important improvement' (n=257, 2 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.50 to 0.82), but worse than a standard-higher dose (>==6-<10 mg/day: n=255, 2 RCTs, RR 1.22 CI 1.00 to 1.51). >==10 mg/day caused more unspecified EPS adverse effects and any drug for adverse events when compared with a standard-higher dose and with a low dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is still lack of strong evidence for an optimal dose for clinical practice. The quality of trials suggests that an over estimate of effect is likely and we think this is most probably for the mid-range doses. One such dose (standard-lower dose range, 4-<6 mg/day) does seem optimal for clinical response and adverse effects. Weak evidence suggests that low doses (>==2-<4 mg/day) may be of value for people in their first episode of illness. High doses (>==10 mg/day) did not confer any advantage over any other dose ranges and caused more adverse effects, especially for movement disorders. Ultra low dose (<2 mg/day) seemed useless. We advise the use of dosages from low dose to standard-lower dose for different kinds of individual patients. Future trials should focus on specific populations, e.g. those in their first episode, with acute exacerbation, in relapse or refractory to treatment, and should also test the optimal dose of risperidone over a longer period of time and in the community.

Improvement of metabolic risk profile under second-generation antipsychotics: a pilot intervention study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a weight management program on metabolic health of second-generation antipsychotic (SGA)-treated patients.

METHODS

A prospective 12-week intervention program including individual exercise training and nutritional group sessions was performed as a pilot study. An intervention group of 6 SGA-treated patients (5 men and 1 woman; mean 15.0, SD 11.8 months) was compared with 10 reference patients under SGAs (8 men and 2 women; mean 14.0, SD 14.2 months), presenting similar age and baseline weekly levels of physical activity. For patients of both groups, anthropometric measurements and basic fasting lipid profile were assessed. For patients in the intervention group, an adapted Rockport Test was performed to evaluate their aerobic fitness and compliance to training sessions, and was recorded.

RESULTS

After the 12-week period, reference patients significantly gained weight (P = 0.001), whereas intervention patients showed significant weight loss and decreased body mass index (P = 0.02); interaction between groups: P < 0.01. This weight loss was accompanied by a decreased cholesterol-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (P = 0.04). Overall, the intervention patients' adherence to exercise prescription was 95.1 %, and this adherence induced a significant improvement of their aerobic fitness (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that patients under SGAs may benefit from a weight management program and improve their metabolic health, as well as their aerobic fitness.

Asenapine monotherapy in the acute treatment of both schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder

Asenapine is a new atypical antipsychotic agent currently under development for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It has high affinity for various receptors including antagonism at 5HT(2A), 5HT(2B), 5HT(2C), 5HT(6) and 5HT(7) serotonergic receptor subtypes, alpha(1A), alpha(2A), alpha(2B) and alpha(2C) adrenergic and D(3) and D(4) dopaminergic receptors. As with other atypicals, asenapine exhibits a high 5HT(2A):D(2) affinity ratio. Although similar to clozapine in its multi-target profile, it shows no appreciable affinity for muscarinic receptors. Asenapine has shown efficacy in alleviating both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo. Although promising, further studies are required in order to determine whether it has advantages over placebo and other antipsychotics in alleviating cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia. It has also shown long-term efficacy comparable with olanzapine in bipolar I disorder. Asenapine is generally well tolerated and appears to be metabolically neutral. It has low propensity to cause weight gain and prolactin elevation. There were no concerns in the studies about its effects on the cardiovascular system and QTc prolongation. The incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms with asenapine however has been found to be higher than that with olanzapine. It may be a useful alternative to aripiprazole in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in patients who are at high risk of metabolic abnormalities.

Adiposity and eating behaviors in patients under second generation antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Second generation antipsychotics (SGA) induce substantial weight gain but the mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon remain speculative.

OBJECTIVE

To explore eating behaviors among SGA-treated patients and compare them with nonschizophrenic healthy sedentary individuals (controls).

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Appetite sensations were recorded before and after a standardized breakfast using visual analog scales. Three hours after breakfast, a buffet-type meal was offered to participants to document spontaneous food intake and food preferences. Satiety quotients (SQs) were calculated to determine the satiation of both meals and the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) was used to document eating behaviors. Body composition and abdominal fat distribution were assessed.

RESULTS

Compared with controls (n = 20), SGA-treated patients (n = 18) showed greater adiposity indices (P < or = 0.04). Patients' degree of hunger was also higher following the standardized breakfast (P = 0.03). Moreover, patients had significantly higher cognitive dietary restraint, disinhibition, and susceptibility to hunger scores than the reference group (P < or = 0.05). Disinhibition in the reference group was positively associated with hunger triggered by external cues (r = 0.48, P = 0.03) whereas internal cues seem to mainly regulate emotional susceptibility to disinhibition in patients (r = 0.56, P = 0.02). Higher strategic restraint behavior in patients was associated with decreased satiation right after the buffet-type meal (r = -0.56, P = 0.02).

DISCUSSION

These exploratory findings suggest that patients under SGA seem to develop disordered eating behaviors in response to altered appetite sensations and increased susceptibility to hunger, a factor which may influence the extent of body weight gain triggered by these drugs.

Social functioning as an outcome measure in schizophrenia studies

OBJECTIVE

Deficits in social functioning are a core feature of schizophrenia.

METHOD

A literature search of English language articles published between January 1990 and December 2006 was undertaken to identify: i) scales used most frequently to assess social functioning in schizophrenia; and ii) the most frequently used social functioning scales in randomized, controlled trials of antipsychotics. A further search (without time limits) examined their psychometric properties.

RESULTS

A total of 301 articles employed social functioning scales in the assessment of schizophrenia. These contained 87 potentially relevant measures. Only 14 randomized, controlled studies of antipsychotic agents were identified that examined social functioning. Scales varied greatly in terms of measurement approach, number and types of domains covered and scoring systems. A striking lack of data on psychometric properties was observed.

CONCLUSION

Limited consensus on the definition and measurement of social functioning exists. The Personal and Social Performance Scale is proposed as a useful tool in future research.

Symptom domains of schizophrenia: the role of atypical antipsychotic agents

Given their more obvious presentation, the reduction of positive symptoms and their associated behavioural problems have been considered the most important treatment outcome parameter in patients with schizophrenia. However, the development of the atypical antipsychotic agents in the early 1990s resulted in the adoption of more wide-reaching measures of therapeutic outcome. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of currently available atypical agents across multiple symptom domains of schizophrenia with a specific focus on negative symptoms, neurocognition, social functioning, quality of life and insight. As such, studies published between January 1990 and December 2005 that evaluated the clinical efficacy and tolerability of atypical antipsychotics in different symptom domains of schizophrenia were reviewed as identified from literature researches using MEDLINE and Embase. Abstracts and posters presented at key psychiatry and schizophrenia congresses during this period were also reviewed where available in the public domain. Results from the studies identified have consistently demonstrated that atypical antipsychotics have substantial advantages over conventional antipsychotics with a broader spectrum of efficacy across symptomatic domains of schizophrenia as proven by greater improvements in negative symptoms and cognitive function and a beneficial effect on affective symptoms and quality of life. However, their clinical advantages have often been limited by patients' partial compliance with therapy. As such, the development of a long-acting atypical antipsychotic agent may provide a new and valuable treatment option for patients with schizophrenia.

Clinical experience and management considerations with long-acting risperidone

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first atypical anti-psychotic available in a long-acting injectable formulation.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the initial clinical experience gained with long-acting risperidone during clinical trials and in general treatment, including specific case studies, as well as providing practical advice on how to initiate treatment with this new drug.

METHODS

Studies published between January 2002 and June 2005 that evaluated the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of long-acting risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed, as identified from literature searches using Medline and EMBASE. Although not peer-reviewed, abstracts and posters on long-acting risperidone presented at key psychiatry and schizophrenia congresses during this period were also reviewed where available in the public domain.

RESULTS

Clinical studies have consistently demonstrated that long-acting risperidone, available in dosage strengths of 25, 37.5 or 50 mg, given once every 2 weeks, is both effective and well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia. Furthermore, significant and sustained clinical improvement has been reported in patients switched to long-acting risperidone from other oral and long-acting antipsychotic agents. Several patients groups, including the young, the elderly and patients with schizoaffective disorder, have also been shown to derive significant benefit from long-acting risperidone.

CONCLUSION

A wide variety of patient groups may benefit from treatment with long-acting risperidone, including patients with suboptimal efficacy, particularly as a result of partial compliance, patients experiencing side-effects with another antipsychotic agent or those with a first episode of schizophrenia. Furthermore, long-acting risperidone, with its assured medication delivery, should improve patient compliance and assist patients in achieving remission, an important step towards functional recovery.

Estimating transitions between symptom severity states over time in schizophrenia: a Bayesian meta-analytic approach

We obtain the posterior predictive distribution of transition probabilities between symptom severity states over time for patients with schizophrenia by (i) employing a Bayesian meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies to estimate the posterior distribution of parameters that guide changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores over time and under the influence of various drugs and (ii) by propagating the variability from the posterior distributions of the parameters through a micro-simulation model that is formulated based on schizophrenia progression. Results show detailed differences among haloperidol, risperidone and olanzapine in controlling various levels of severities of positive, negative and joint symptoms over time. For example, risperidone seems best in controlling severe positive symptoms while olanzapine is the worst in that during the first quarter of drug treatment; however, olanzapine seems to be best in controlling severe negative symptoms across all four quarters of treatment while haloperidol is the worst in this regard. These details may further serve to better estimate quality of life of patients and aid in resource utilization decisions in treating schizophrenic patients. In addition, consistent estimation of uncertainty in the time-profile parameters also has important implications for the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and for future resource allocation policies in schizophrenia treatment.

Effect of switching antipsychotics on antiparkinsonian medication use in schizophrenia: population-based study

BACKGROUND

The extent to which atypical antipsychotics have a lower incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms than typical antipsychotics has not been well-evaluated in community practice.

AIMS

To examine the effects of switching antipsychotics on antiparkinsonian medication use among individuals with schizophrenia in UK general practices.

METHOD

We included those switched from typical to atypical antipsychotics (n=209) or from one typical antipsychotic to another (n=261) from 1994 to 1998.

RESULTS

Antiparkinsonian drug prescribing dropped by 9.2% after switching to atypical antipsychotics (P<0.0001). Switching to olanzapine decreased the rate by 19.2% (P<0.0001), but switching to risperidone had no impact. After switching from one typical antipsychotic to another, antiparkinsonian drug prescribing increased by 12.9% (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction in antiparkinsonian medication use after switching to atypical antipsychotics was substantial in community practice but not as large as in randomised controlled trials. The rate of reduction varied according to the type of medication.

Long-acting risperidone compared with oral olanzapine and haloperidol depot in schizophrenia: a Belgian cost-effectiveness analysis

Patients with schizophrenia suffer numerous relapses and rehospitalizations that are associated with high direct and indirect medical expense. Suboptimal therapeutic efficacy and, in particular, problems with compliance are major factors leading to relapse. Atypical antipsychotic agents offer improved efficacy and a lower rate of extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with conventional antipsychotic drugs. Long-acting intramuscular risperidone combines these benefits with improvements in compliance associated with depot injections. To assist decision making regarding the place of long-acting risperidone in therapy, a cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies involving first-line treatment with long-acting risperidone, oral olanzapine or depot haloperidol was performed from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare system. A decision tree model was created to compare the cost effectiveness of three first-line treatment strategies in a sample of young schizophrenic patients who had been treated for 1 year and whose disease had not been diagnosed for longer than 5 years. The model used a time horizon of 2 years, with health state transition probabilities, resource use and cost estimates derived from clinical trials, expert opinion and published prices. The four health states in the model were derived from an analysis of the literature. The principal efficacy measure was the proportion of patients successfully treated, defined as those who responded to initial treatment and who had none to two episodes of clinical deterioration without needing a change of treatment over the 2-year period. Comprehensive sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the robustness of the model. A greater proportion of patients were successfully treated with long-acting risperidone (82.7%) for 2 years, compared with those treated with olanzapine (74.8%) or haloperidol (57.3%). Total mean costs per patient over 2 years were 16,406 Euro with long-acting risperidone, 17,074 Euro with olanzapine and 21,779 Euro with haloperidol (year of costing 2003). The mean cost-effectiveness ratios were 19,839 Euro, 22,826 Euro and 38,008 Euro per successfully treated patient for long-acting risperidone, olanzapine and haloperidol, respectively. Results of the sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results were robust to a wide variation of different input variables (effectiveness, dosing distribution, patient status according to healthcare system). Long-acting risperidone was the dominant strategy, being both more effective and less costly than either oral olanzapine or depot haloperidol. Long-acting risperidone appears to represent a favourable first-line strategy for patients with schizophrenia requiring long-term maintenance treatment.

Comparison of risperidone and olanzapine as used under "real-world" conditions in a state psychiatric hospital

As a follow-up to our previous study of clozapine, medical records of a state psychiatric hospital were reviewed for patients who were prescribed an atypical antipsychotic. From that sample, demographic and clinical data were obtained for individuals with an initial score of 35 or greater on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and at least two additional successive monthly BPRS ratings. A total of 100 patients met the criteria. Most received either olanzapine (46%) or risperidone (36%), with few administered quetiapine (11%) or clozapine (7%). Most also received adjunctive medications, including conventional antipsychotics, anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers, antidepressants, and antiparkinsonian agents. The number of patients whose BPRS total scores decreased by 20% or more from baseline was significantly greater for those who received olanzapine than those who received risperidone. However, there was no difference between the two antipsychotics in the number of patients who maintained that degree of improvement, in the average latency to achieve that decrease (1.67 and 1.47 months, respectively), or the average length of stay (LOS; 332 and 376 days, respectively). These results indicate a modest therapeutic advantage of olanzapine compared to risperidone, and a substantial degree of polypharmacy in the use of atypical antipsychotics. This uncontrolled "real-world" evaluation supports data from controlled clinical trials, showing that either risperidone or olanzapine would be a reasonable first choice in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with the decision based on the least adverse side effect profile and economic constraints. When compared to our previous clozapine study, we confirm a slight advantage for the effectiveness of clozapine in the treatment of this refractory population.

Switching therapy in health economics trials: confronting the confusion

Should patients in a randomized, pragmatic health economics trial be allowed to switch therapy in mid-trial to that provided in the other arm? Specifically, should patients in the treatment arm (T) be allowed to switch to the therapy of the comparator arm (C) if they need a change of therapy--that is, should TC switches be allowed? Also, should patients in the comparator arm be allowed to switch to the therapy of the treatment arm if they need changes of therapy--should CT switches be allowed? This is a nontrivial issue in study design that has been debated in the clinical trials literature and is currently being handled inconsistently in the health economics literature. In this article, the authors argue that TC switches should always be allowed and that CT switches should be allowed or not depending on the economic question. They further argue that the most common economic question is one that would lead to CT switches not being allowed.

A case series of eight aggressive young children treated with risperidone

The aim of this study was to examine the use of risperidone in routine clinical care for very aggressive young children. This is a retrospective medical chart review of patients age less than 6 years 11 months who were treated with risperidone for 1 to 10 months during the 1-year study period. Treatment response, side effects, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores were identified. One hundred and five such young children were identified; 8 had been treated with risperidone (6 boys, 2 girls: mean age 4.9 +/- 0.8 years). Risperidone was used in combination with other psychotropic medications in 7 of the 8 children. The mean daily dose of risperidone was 1.25 +/- 0.27 mg. Seventy-five percent of the children were on concomitant lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine; 63% were on stimulants or alpha adrenergics. This was a highly comorbid group, with 7 children presenting with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 5 children with bipolar disorder not otherwise specified. The average baseline CGI severity was 5.5 (SD = 0.5), and at last visit it was 3.5 (SD = 0.5), p < 0.0001. Mean CGI improvement score was 1.9 (SD = 0.6). Adverse effects included significant weight gain (mean 5.5 +/- 4.9 kg, p < 0.05) in 6 patients. One child had hyperprolactinemia. Given the potential development of atherosclerosis in obesity and endocrine response in hyperprolactinemia, risperidone should be reserved for those children with severe aggressive behavior who failed multiple trials with other agents. Further controlled trials are needed.

Depot risperidone for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long acting injection.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects of depot risperidone for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2002), references of all included studies, and contacted industry and authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing depot risperidone with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently inspected citations and/or abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed the results, and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

One study (n=400) compared depot risperidone with placebo but 56% of people did not complete the three-month study rendering most global and mental state data unusable. Risperidone depot compared with placebo did not affect levels of anxiety (n=400, RR 0.58 CI 0.32 to 1.05) but may decrease agitation (n=400, RR 0.60 CI 0.39 to 0.92). Risperidone depot did not substantially influence hallucinations (n=400, RR 1.23 CI 0.47 to 3.22) but 'psychosis' was reduced (n=400, RR 0.52 CI 0.33 to 0.83, NNT 9 CI 7 to 26). Attrition was higher for the placebo group compared with people allocated risperidone depot (n=400, RR 0.74 CI 0.63 to 0.88, NNT 6 CI 4 to 12). Severe adverse events were common (13% to 23%) but significantly more so in the placebo group (n=400, RR 0.59 CI 0.38 to 0.93, NNT 11 CI 7 to 70). Poor reporting, however, makes these difficult to interpret. Movement disorders were equally common in both groups (n=400, RR 2.38 CI 0.73 to 7.78) although it looks as if there is a trend for the higher depot doses to encourage movement disorders. One study (n=640) compared depot risperidone against oral risperidone for stable people with relatively mild illness. For global outcomes there was no clear difference between the depot group and oral group (n=640, RR 'no global improvement' 1.06 CI 0.92 to 1.22). Mental state measures were also similar across groups. Overall, in this study compliance was good (n=640, RR <4 injections or "major protocol violation" 1.16 CI 0.81 to 1.67). Adverse effects were poorly reported but over half of both groups reported some adverse effect (n=640, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.18).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no reliable data to support the claim that depot risperidone is beneficial for people with schizophrenia. For reasonably well, stable people it may mean that the need for regular oral doses can be avoided, but adverse affects are not well reported. For more severely ill people, few benefits are evident although it may increase compliance with injections in comparison with placebo. Use of depot risperidone, especially at the higher doses, is weakly associated with movement disorders. Well designed and reported, randomised studies, firmly grounded in real world clinical practice are needed to fully assess the effects of this new preparation.

Influences of patient-related variables on risperidone efficacy for acutely exacerbated schizophrenia: analyses with rigorous statistics

Response predictors of risperidone or other newer atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia treatment remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the influence of patient demographics on risperidone efficacy for schizophrenia. One hundred twenty-one newly hospitalized patients who had schizophrenia with acute exacerbation entered this prospective, 6-week risperidone trial. The target dose was 6 mg/day, or lower in case of side effects. Consequently, the mean +/- SD dose remained quite stable after week 2 and reached 4.4 +/- 1.3 mg/day at week 6. Efficacy and side effect assessments were conducted biweekly. The mean total score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) declined during the trial, particularly within the first 4 weeks. Further, of the various efficacy scores (and their natural logarithm values) collected, only the logarithm of the PANSS total score was selected to serve as the response value, because it was normally distributed and thus suitable for regression analyses. After adjusting the effects of treatment duration (weeks 0-6) and other patient-related variables with the generalized estimating equation method, each 1-week increase in duration of prior hospitalizations raised the PANSS total by 0.04% (p = 0.002) and each 1-year increment in the education duration decreased the PANSS by 0.94% (p = 0.04). Gender, age, age at illness onset, duration of illness, diagnosis subtype, or number of prior hospitalizations, however, did not significantly impact the response value. These preliminary results suggest that longer hospitalization duration and shorter education predict higher symptomatology. Further studies with longer observation and larger samples in not only acutely ill patients but also other populations (e.g., first-episode patients) are warranted.

Shifting from haloperidol to risperidone for behavioral disturbances in dementia: safety, response predictors, and mood effects

For agitated dementia showing insufficient response to conventional antipsychotics, the feasibility of transition to atypical agents remains unknown. Sixty-two Chinese inpatients with dementia and disruptive behaviors were recruited into an 8-week screening trial of haloperidol. Thirty-five (56%) of them responded insufficiently. They then entered a prospective, 16-week, open-labeled study. Haloperidol was abruptly shifted to risperidone 0.5 mg/day at weeks 1 to 4 and then 1 mg/day at weeks 5 to 12. At weeks 13 to 16, the regimen was shifted back to haloperidol at previous doses, mostly 1 mg/day. Safety, efficacy, cognition, and moods were evaluated at least every 4 weeks. Generalized estimating equation methods were used for determining the effects of the prognostic variables on the outcome values. Risperidone, particularly at 0.5 mg/day, was generally tolerable. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score decreased progressively under risperidone treatment; at week 12, 16 (46%) patients showed response (>or=25% reduction in the BPRS). Patients with vascular dementia were more likely to respond than those with Alzheimer's disease ( p = 0.02). Haloperidol reinstitution resulted in no further improvement, except trend increments in motor symptoms. Risperidone also tended to benefit the performance on the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale. Six (17%) patients improved on moods and self-care with risperidone. These preliminary results suggest that crossover from haloperidol to risperidone is generally safe and effective and may produce favorable moods in agitated dementia patients. Vascular dementia is a predictor of treatment response. In contrast to the dose (1 mg/day) recommended for most white individuals, 0.5 mg/day could be tried at first in Chinese patients. Because of the design's limitations, further controlled studies are warranted.

Treatment-refractory schizophrenia

Treatment-refractory schizophrenia is common. Refinements in pharmacologic and psychosocial treatments of schizophrenia offer the expectation of superior outcomes for this disadvantaged patient group. This article critically reviews those articles that were published during the year 2000 that address this treatment-refractory population.