Transient insight induction with electroconvulsive therapy in a patient with refractory schizophrenia: a case report and systematic literature review

Improvement of Insight with Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review

Patients with schizophrenia are often unaware of their condition and the consequences of their illness. This lack of insight results in impaired functioning, treatment non-adherence and poor prognosis. Here, we aimed to investigate the effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on two forms of insight, clinical and cognitive, in patients with schizophrenia. We conducted a systematic review of the literature registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020220323) according to PRISMA guidelines. The literature search was conducted in Medline and Web of Science databases based on studies published up until October 2020 that included pre-NIBS and post-NIBS measurements of clinical and/or cognitive insight in adults with schizophrenia. A total of 14 studies were finally included, and their methodological quality was assessed by using the QualSyst tool. Despite the lack of well-conducted large randomized-controlled studies using insight as the primary outcome, the available findings provide preliminary evidence that NIBS can improve clinical insight in patients with schizophrenia, with a majority of studies using transcranial direct current stimulation with a left frontotemporal montage. Further studies should investigate the effect of NIBS on insight as a primary outcome and how these effects on insight could translate into clinical and functional benefits in patients with schizophrenia.

ECT augmentation of clozapine for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) is common and debilitating. A subgroup of patients even has clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) augmentation of clozapine for CRS. Systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on ECT augmentation of clozapine in CRS. Co-primary outcomes included symptomatic improvement at post-ECT assessment and study endpoint. Eighteen RCTs (n = 1769) with 20 active treatment arms were identified and meta-analyzed. Adjunctive ECT was superior to clozapine regarding symptomatic improvement at post-ECT assessment (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = -0.88, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): -1.33 to -0.44; I² = 86%, P = 0.0001) and endpoint assessment (SMD: -1.44, 95%CI: -2.05 to -0.84; I² = 95%, P < 0.00001), separating as early as week 1-2 (SMD = -0.54, 95%CI: -0.88 to -0.20; I² = 77%, P = 0.002). Adjunctive ECT was also superior regarding study-defined response at post-ECT assessment (53.6% vs. 25.4%, Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.94, 95%CI: 1.59-2.36; I² = 0%, P < 0.00001, number-needed-to-treat (NNT) = 3, 95%CI: 3-5) and endpoint assessment (67.7% vs. 41.4%, RR = 1.66, 95%CI: 1.38-1.99; I² = 47%, P < 0.00001, NNT = 4, 95%CI: 3-8), and remission at post-ECT assessment (13.3% vs. 3.7%, RR = 3.28, 95%CI: 1.80-5.99; I² = 0%, P = 0.0001, NNT = 13, 95%CI: 6-100) and endpoint assessment (23.6% vs. 13.3%, RR = 1.80, 95%CI: 1.39 to 2.35; I² = 5%, P < 0.0001, NNT = 14, 95%CI: 6-50). Patient-reported memory impairment (24.2% vs. 0%; RR = 16.10 (95%CI: 4.53-57.26); I² = 0%, P < 0.0001, number-needed-to-harm (NNH) = 4, 95%CI: 2-14) and headache (14.5% vs 1.6%; RR = 4.03 (95%CI: 1.54-10.56); I² = 0%, P = 0.005, NNH = 8, 95%CI: 4-50) occurred more frequently with adjunctive ECT. No significant group differences were found regarding discontinuation and other adverse effects. Despite increased frequency of self-reported memory impairment and headache, ECT augmentation of clozapine is a highly effective and relatively safe treatment for CRS.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018089959.

Augmentation of clozapine with electroconvulsive therapy in treatment resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the proportion of patients with Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia (TRS) that respond to ECT augmentation of clozapine (C+ECT). We searched major electronic databases from 1980 to July 2015. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis reporting the proportion of responders to C+ECT in RCTs and open-label trials. Five clinical trials met our eligibility criteria, allowing us to pool data from 71 people with TRS who underwent C+ ECT across 4 open label trials (n=32) and 1 RCT (n=39). The overall pooled proportion of response to C+ECT was 54%, (95% CI: 21.8-83.6%) with some heterogeneity evident (I(2)=69%). With data from retrospective chart reviews, case series and case reports, 192 people treated with C+ECT were included. All studies together demonstrated an overall response to C+ECT of 66% (95% CI: 57.5-74.3%) (83 out of 126 patients responded to C+ECT). The mean number of ECT treatments used to augment clozapine was 11.3. 32% of cases (20 out of 62 patients) with follow up data (range of follow up: 3-468weeks) relapsed following cessation of ECT. Adverse events were reported in 14% of identified cases (24 out of 166 patients). There is a paucity of controlled studies in the literature, with only one single blinded randomised controlled study located, and the predominance of open label trials used in the meta-analysis is a limitation. The data suggests that ECT may be an effective and safe clozapine augmentation strategy in TRS. A higher number of ECT treatments may be required than is standard for other clinical indications. Further research is needed before ECT can be included in standard TRS treatment algorithms.