A 6-Month Prospective Trial of a Personalized Behavioral Intervention + Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic in Individuals With Schizophrenia at Risk of Treatment Nonadherence and Homelessness

A systematic review of approaches to improve medication adherence in homeless adults with psychiatric disorders

Introduction

Medication non-adherence is a significant problem among homeless individuals with psychiatric disorders in the United States. We conducted a systematic review to identify strategies to improve psychiatric medication adherence among homeless individuals with psychiatric disorders, including substance use disorders.

Methods

We searched seven databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, CDSR, and CENTRAL) and screened 664 studies by title and abstract followed by full-text review. Our inclusion criteria were studies that: involved an intervention for homeless adults with psychiatric disorders, reported a quantitative outcome of medication adherence, and were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal. We rated the relative effectiveness of strategies described in each study using a self-designed scale.

Results

Eleven peer-reviewed studies met criteria for inclusion in this review. Within these studies, there were seven different approaches to improve medication adherence in this population. Three studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the remaining were observational studies. Outpatient interventions included Assertive Community Treatment, Cell Phone-Assisted Monitoring, Customized Adherence Enhancement plus Long-Acting Injectable Medications, and Homeless-Designated Pharmacy Clinics. Residential, shelter-based, and inpatient interventions included use of the Housing First model, Modified Therapeutic Communities, and Homeless-Designated Inpatient Care. The approaches described in four of the eleven studies were rated as scoring a 3 or higher on a 5-point scale of effectiveness in improving medication adherence; none received 5 points.

Discussion

The interventions with the strongest evidence for improving medication adherence in this population were Assertive Community Treatment, Customized Adherence Enhancement plus Long-Acting Injectable Medications, and Housing First. Overall, studies on this topic required more rigor and focus on medication adherence as an outcome in this population. This review highlights several promising strategies and the need for larger RCTs to determine effective and diverse ways to improve medication adherence among homeless adults with psychiatric disorders.

Characterization of an extreme phenotype of schizophrenia among women with homelessness

Background

Studies of schizophrenia and homelessness are often confounded by comorbid substance use. Women with schizophrenia and homelessness in India have very low rates of substance use and provide a unique opportunity to disentangle the effects of illness from that of substance use. We examined the clinical characteristics of women with schizophrenia and homelessness and compared it to an age-matched group of women with schizophrenia living with their family.

Methods

36 women with schizophrenia and homelessness, and 32 women with schizophrenia who were illness living with family were evaluated for psychopathology using Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS)/ Scale for assessment of negative symptoms (SANS) scales, cognitive difficulties using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA)/Rowland Universal Dementia Scale (RUDAS), and Frontal Assessment Battery(FAB), disability using World Health Organization - Disability assessment Scale (WHO-DAS) and psychosocial factors using a semi-structured proforma. The groups were compared using t-tests and chi-square for continuous and categorical variables respectively.

Results

Women with schizophrenia and homelessness were found to have significantly higher scores on measures of psychopathology, significantly lower cognitive functioning, and much higher disability, and were also on higher doses of antipsychotics. The mean scores on measures of psychopathology, cognition and disability for women with schizophrenia and homelessness differed by 2-3 standard deviations with the mean for women living with family (i.e. z scores) suggesting that they represented an extreme phenotype. Rates of past employment were higher among women with schizophrenia and homelessness. Hence these differences were not accounted for by premorbid functioning.

Conclusions

The study raises the possibility of an extreme phenotype of schizophrenia with severe and persistent psychopathology non-responsive to dopamine blocking drugs, cognitive impairment, and disability, which needs further exploration.

Efficacy and Safety of Paliperidone Palmitate 6-Month versus Paliperidone Palmitate 3-Month Long-Acting Injectable in European Patients with Schizophrenia: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Global Phase-3 Double-Blind Randomized Non-Inferiority Study

Purpose

To examine efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate (PP) 6-month (PP6M) vs PP3-month (PP3M) long acting injectable (LAI) in patients with schizophrenia from European sites previously stabilized on PP3M or PP1-month (PP1M).

Methods

This post-hoc subgroup analysis used data from a global phase-3 double-blind (DB) randomized non-inferiority study (NCT03345342). Patients were randomized (2:1, respectively) to receive dorsogluteal injections of PP6M (700 mg eq. or 1000 mg eq.) or PP3M (350 mg eq. or 525 mg eq.) in the 12-month DB phase. Primary endpoint was time-to-relapse during the DB phase, using a Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival estimate (non-inferiority margin 95% CI lower bound larger than prespecified as -10%). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), physical examinations, and laboratory tests were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 384 patients who entered the DB phase were included in European sites (PP6M, n = 260; PP3M, n = 124) with a mean age similar in both groups (mean age [SD] years: PP6M, 40.0 [11.39]; PP3M, 38.8 [10.41]). Baseline characteristics were similar across both groups. The number of patients who experienced a relapse during DB phase were PP6M: 18 (6.9%) vs PP3M: 3 (2.4%) with percentage relapse-free difference of -4.9% (95% CI: -9.2%, -0.5%), thus achieving non-inferiority criteria. Secondary efficacy endpoints indicated comparable improvements. Incidence of TEAEs was similar between PP6M (58.8%) and PP3M (54.8%) groups. Nasopharyngitis, headache, increased weight, and injection-site pain were the most common TEAEs.

Conclusion

The efficacy of PP6M was non-inferior to that of PP3M in preventing relapse in the European subgroup previously treated with PP1M or PP3M, which was consistent with the global study. No new safety signals were identified.

A Rapid Review of "Low-Threshold" Psychiatric Medication Prescribing: Considerations for Street Medicine and Beyond

OBJECTIVE

No widely accepted clinical guidelines, and scant directly applicable pragmatic research, are available to guide the prescription of psychiatric medications in "low-threshold" outpatient settings, such as street outreach, urgent care, and crisis care, as well as walk-in, shelter, and bridge and transition clinics. Providers frequently prescribe medications in these settings without patients' having firm psychiatric diagnoses and without medical records to guide clinical decision making. Persons who receive medications in these settings often seek help voluntarily and intermittently for mental illness symptoms. However, because of structural and individual factors, such patients may not engage in longitudinal outpatient psychiatric care. The authors reviewed the literature on psychiatric medication prescribing in low-threshold settings and offer clinical considerations for such prescribing.

METHODS

The authors conducted a rapid literature review (N=2,215 abstracts), which was augmented with up-to-date clinical prescribing literature, the authors' collective clinical experience, and DSM-5 section II diagnostic criteria to provide considerations for prescribing medications in low-threshold settings.

RESULTS

For individuals for whom diagnostic uncertainty is prominent, a symptom-based diagnostic and treatment approach may be best suited to weigh the risks and benefits of medication use in low-threshold settings. Practical considerations for treating patients with clinical presentations of psychosis and trauma, as well as mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders, in low-threshold settings are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

An urgent need exists to invest in pragmatic research and guideline development to delineate best-practice prescribing in low-threshold settings.

The Effect of Longer Dosing Intervals for Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics on Outcomes in Schizophrenia

Medication nonadherence in schizophrenia can have serious implications including relapses and hospitalization. Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics require fewer administrations, while ensuring sustained medication coverage. In this review, we summarize the expected real-world benefits of longer dosing intervals in the management of schizophrenia. LAIs are associated with improved clinical outcomes of less frequent relapses and reduced functional impairment, encouraging patients to regain control of their lives. Aripiprazole lauroxil and paliperidone palmitate three-monthly (PP3M) LAIs have longer dosing intervals of 2-3 months and provide improved outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. Paliperidone palmitate six-monthly (PP6M) LAI provides the longest dosing interval, twice-yearly dosing, among existing LAIs. Decreasing the frequency of LAI administrations has the potential to reduce occurrence of serious outcomes associated with poor medication adherence. By eliminating the need for daily oral antipsychotic dosing, LAIs could increase the likelihood of patient acceptance, decrease stigma, and promote self-esteem. Longer intervals of medication coverage may be desirable for patients with higher risk of relapse including adults with recent-onset schizophrenia, those living in circumstances that may deprive them of regular access (eg, homeless), those that are in transitions between care settings or to reduce interpersonal contact during public health emergencies (eg, COVID-19 pandemic).

Combining Medication Adherence Support Plus Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Medication: A Post-Hoc Analysis of 3 Pilot Studies

Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) who do not adhere to treatment have a lower quality of life, with more hospitalizations, interpersonal relationship conflict, homelessness, substance use problems, and incarceration compared to patients who adhere to treatment. Nonadherence to psychiatric medications has been studied for over a decade in patients diagnosed with bipolar, schizoaffective, and schizophrenia disorders with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAI) becoming a mainstay of adherence-focused treatment. Previous studies have shown that LAI treatment can be further optimized with the inclusion of the behavioral intervention, Customized Adherence Enhancement (CAE). It was unclear if outcomes improved similarly across the studies that varied by demographics, diagnoses, and CAE + LAI protocols. We aimed to evaluate CAE + LAI adherence outcomes in SMI by pooling three studies to better understand response to treatment in the setting of varied circumstances. Our findings show that adherence improved similarly across studies despite these differences. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that CAE + LAI improved adherence to a similar degree when primary mood and psychotic disorder cohorts were compared. As the use of LAI expands, our findings show the versatility and effectiveness of including CAE to further optimize adherence and improve other outcomes.

Impact of integrated behavioral health services on adherence to long-acting injectable antipsychotics

Purpose

Integrated health care occurs when specialty and general care providers work together to address both the physical and mental health needs of their patients. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration model of integration is broken into six levels of coordinated, co-located and integrated care. Our institution offers both co-located and integrated care among eight clinic sites. The care team is typically composed of the primary care provider, nurse and medical assistant, but other professionals may be introduced based on the patient’s medical and psychiatric conditions. The purpose of this prospective, quality improvement study was to compare the rates of adherence to long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) between both types of integrated primary care settings at our institution. The comparison of the two settings sought to determine which environment provides improved outcomes for patients with serious psychiatric illnesses. Additionally, we aimed to assess the quality of medication-related monitoring and care team composition between care settings, and the ability of pharmacists to deliver interprofessional care team training and education on LAI use in clinical practice.

Design/methodology/approach

Subjects were identified and included in the study if they had received primary care services from our institution within the previous 12 months. Patient demographic and laboratory variables were collected at baseline and when clinically indicated. The rates of adherence between care settings were assessed at intervals that align with the medication’s administration schedule (e.g. every four weeks). Medication-related monitoring parameters were collected at baseline and when clinically indicated. The interprofessional care team completed Likert scale surveys to evaluate the pharmacist’s LAIA education and training.

Findings

There was not a statistically significant difference detected between integrated primary care settings on the rates of adherence to LAIAs. Additionally, there was not a statistically significant difference between rates of adherence to medication-related monitoring parameters or the effect of the patient treatment team composition. There was a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-session survey scores following interprofessional education and training provided by a pharmacist.

Originality/value

Because overall rates of adherence were low, both primary care settings were found to be equivalent. Our study may have been underpowered to detect a difference in the primary endpoint because of the small sample size. However, our study demonstrates that interprofessional education and training may lend itself to changes in practice, which is evident by the clinically significant relative increase in adherence. The Henry J. Austin Health Center network will be implementing a standard operating procedure regarding LAIA management within the primary care setting. Further studies are needed to assess a larger number of patients between both types of primary care settings, as well as the impact of the clinical psychiatric pharmacist as a member of the treatment team.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness

Background

Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model.

Main Results

The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services.

Authors' Conclusions

PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

Pharmacological treatment of violence in schizophrenia

Chronic aggression and violence in schizophrenia are rare, but receive disproportionate negative media coverage. This contributes to the stigma of mental illness and reduces accessibility to mental health services. Substance Use Disorders (SUD), antisocial behavior, non-adherence and recidivism are known risk factors for violence. Treatment with antipsychotic medication can reduce violence. Aside from clozapine, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAI) appear to be superior to oral antipsychotics for preventing violence, addressing adherence and recidivism. LAI also facilitate the implementation of functional skills training. For the high-risk recidivist target population with schizophrenia, better life skills have the potential to also reduce the risk for contact with the legal system, including an improved ability to live independently in supported environments and interact appropriately with others. High-risk patients who are resistant to treatment with other antipsychotics should receive treatment with clozapine due to its direct positive effects on impulsive violence, along with a reduction in comorbid risk factors such as SUDs.

Recovery-Oriented Outcomes Associated with Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics in an Urban Safety-Net Population

This study examined whether transitioning patients from oral antipsychotics (POs) to long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) helps patients achieve recovery-oriented goals. Data was extracted from San Francisco County's electronic medical record system for this retrospective pre-post observational study. Patients reflect a safety-net population treated in community-based mental health settings during 2015. The San Francisco Adult Strengths and Needs Assessment (SF ANSA), a measure of psychosocial functioning, was used to assess within-subject change when treated with POs versus LAIs. In our study sample (N = 77), LAI SF ANSA scores showed significant improvements in criminal behaviors (p = .017), medication adherence (p = .008), and spirituality (p = .028), and a non-significant trend for residential stability (p = .073). This is the first study to evaluate improvements in key psychosocial areas after treatment with LAIs. This work suggests that LAIs can be another tool for providers to help patients work towards their recovery-oriented goals.