Risperidone alone versus risperidone plus valproate in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia and hostility

The specific anti-hostility effect of lurasidone in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: results of pooled post hoc analyses in adolescents and adults

Symptoms of hostility in patients during acute exacerbations of schizophrenia have been associated with aggressive behavior. Data suggest that some second-generation antipsychotics have specific anti-hostility effects, independent of sedation and positive symptom improvement. Two post hoc analyses were performed to examine the efficacy of lurasidone for reducing hostility in patients with schizophrenia. One analysis pooled adults (N = 1168) from 5 placebo-controlled, 6-week trials of lurasidone (40-160 mg). Another analysis pooled younger patients (up to age 25 years, N = 427) from the adult studies and a similarly designed trial of lurasidone (40 or 80 mg) in adolescent patients (13-17 years old). The outcome measure was mean change in the hostility item (P7) of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). To address pseudospecificity, results were adjusted for positive symptom change and sedation. In adults with a baseline PANSS hostility score ≥2, significant improvement in hostility was observed for all doses with a dose-related increase in effect size (Cohen's d): lurasidone 40 mg = 0.18, 80 mg = 0.24, 120 mg = 0.36, and 160 mg = 0.53. The same dose-response pattern was observed for the more severe hostility subgroups (P7: ≥3, ≥4), and in the early-onset population. Results suggest that lurasidone has specific, dose-related anti-hostility effects.

A Large Naturalistic Study on the BRACHA: Confirmation of the Predictive Validity

Aggression is a major challenge on child/adolescent inpatient psychiatric units. A screening instrument to accurately identify risk is urgently needed. To determine the predictive validity of the Brief Rating of Aggression by Children and Adolescents (BRACHA). Prospective cohort study. BRACHA is administered by clinical staff in the emergency department (ED) prior to inpatient psychiatric admission. A consecutive sample of 10,054 admitted patients from 2010-2021. No patients refused screening nor were excluded. BRACHA administered to patients in the ED prior to admission at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC). Patient behavioral outcomes measured by Overt Aggression Scale (OAS), categorizing aggression as verbal or physical, then as towards self, others, or objects. Female patients comprised 53.6% (n = 5,386) of the sample. Most patients were white (n = 6,556, 65.2%). Patients ranged in age from 4 to 18 years, with a mean age of 13.6 ± 3.1 years. A single biological parent (n = 5,317, 52.9%) was the predominant living arrangement among patients. The Area Under the Curve (AUC), as an assessment of predictive validity across all possible cut-offs of BRACHA scores ranged from 0.640 (aggression to self) to 0.758 (physical aggression towards others). Our findings support the BRACHA as a useful predictive instrument for aggression in inpatient psychiatric admissions from ED regardless of length of stay. Treating staff are then able to immediately classify risk level and inform care plans for all lengths of hospitalization. Applies to potential risk for aggression, except for self-aggression. Future data analyses will evaluate demographic factors to determine which improve predictive power of the BRACHA and can be used to create a BRACHA calculator. To our knowledge, this naturalistic outcomes study is one of the largest in psychiatry. The BRACHA will continue to be studied to evaluate risk for aggression on inpatient units and aim to assist in keeping unit staff and patients safe.

Specific Anti-hostility Effects of Atypical Antipsychotics in Persons with Schizophrenia: From Clozapine to Cariprazine

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Evaluate the anti-hostility effects of available atypical antipsychotic agents.

ABSTRACT

In addition to hallucinations and delusions, persons with schizophrenia may exhibit hostility. In clinical trials of antipsychotics, hostility is routinely measured as part of rating scales such as the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. The availability of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in 1989 led to the observation that it is possible to have a treatment effect on hostility that is independent of the treatment effect on hallucinations or delusions, and independent of general sedative effects. The data supporting this notion of a specific anti-hostility effect are the most robust for clozapine as the data include specifically designed randomized, controlled clinical trials. A specific anti-hostility effect is also observable to various degrees with most of the other atypical antipsychotics, as evidenced in post hoc analyses of clinical trials originally conducted for regulatory purposes, supplemented by post hoc analyses of large effectiveness trials. The generalizability of these studies, however, may be limited. Participants in these trials were not selected for aggressive and hostile behavior. Some of the studies also excluded patients with substance use disorders. The latter is particularly important because alcohol and substance use are well known to increase risk for hostility and aggression. Nevertheless, the repeated demonstrations of the specificity of an anti-hostility effect (in terms of statistical independence of effects on other positive symptoms and of sedation) are of potential clinical importance.

Organisational interventions for preventing and minimising aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates

BACKGROUND

Workplace aggression is becoming increasingly prevalent in health care, with serious consequences for both individuals and organisations. Research and development of organisational interventions to prevent and minimise workplace aggression has also increased. However, it is not known if interventions prevent or reduce occupational violence directed towards healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of organisational interventions that aim to prevent and minimise workplace aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases from inception to 25 May 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Wiley Online Library); MEDLINE (PubMed); CINAHL (EBSCO); Embase (embase.com); PsycINFO (ProQuest); NIOSHTIC (OSH-UPDATE); NIOSHTIC-2 (OSH-UPDATE); HSELINE (OSH-UPDATE); and CISDOC (OSH-UPDATE). We also searched the ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portals (www.who.int/ictrp/en).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) of any organisational intervention to prevent and minimise verbal or physical aggression directed towards healthcare workers and their peers in their workplace by patients or their advocates. The primary outcome measure was episodes of aggression resulting in no harm, psychological, or physical harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. This included independent data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment by at least two review authors per included study. We used the Haddon Matrix to categorise interventions aimed at the victim, the vector or the environment of the aggression and whether the intervention was applied before, during or after the event of aggression. We used the random-effects model for the meta-analysis and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies. Four studies were conducted in nursing home settings, two studies were conducted in psychiatric wards and one study was conducted in an emergency department. Interventions in two studies focused on prevention of aggression by the vector in the pre-event phase, being 398 nursing home residents and 597 psychiatric patients. The humour therapy in one study in a nursing home setting did not have clear evidence of a reduction of overall aggression (mean difference (MD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.34; very low-quality evidence). A short-term risk assessment in the other study showed a decreased incidence of aggression (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence) compared to practice as usual. Two studies compared interventions to minimise aggression by the vector in the event phase to practice as usual. In both studies the event was aggression during bathing of nursing home patients. In one study, involving 18 residents, music was played during the bathing period and in the other study, involving 69 residents, either a personalised shower or a towel bath was used. The studies provided low-quality evidence that the interventions may result in a medium-sized reduction of overall aggression (standardised mean difference (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 2 studies), and physical aggression (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.24; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), but not in verbal aggression (SMD -0.31, 95% CI; -0.89 to 0.27; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). One intervention focused on the vector, the pre-event phase and the event phase. The study compared a two-year culture change programme in a nursing home to practice as usual and involved 101 residents. This study provided very low-quality evidence that the intervention may result in a medium-sized reduction of physical aggression (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91), but there was no clear evidence that it reduced verbal aggression (MD 0.76, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54). Two studies evaluated a multicomponent intervention that focused on the vector (psychiatry patients and emergency department patients), the victim (nursing staff), and the environment during the pre-event and the event phase. The studies included 564 psychiatric staff and 209 emergency department staff. Both studies involved a comprehensive package of actions aimed at preventing violence, managing violence and environmental changes. There was no clear evidence that the psychiatry intervention may result in a reduction of overall aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.15; low-quality evidence), compared to the control condition. The emergency department study did not result in a reduction of aggression (MD = 0) but provided insufficient data to test this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low to low-quality evidence that interventions focused on the vector during the pre-event phase, the event phase or both, may result in a reduction of overall aggression, compared to practice as usual, and we found inconsistent low-quality evidence for multi-component interventions. None of the interventions included the post-event stage. To improve the evidence base, we need more RCT studies, that include the workers as participants and that collect information on the impact of violence on the worker in a range of healthcare settings, but especially in emergency care settings. Consensus on standardised outcomes is urgently needed.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: Updated recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

These updated guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology replace the original version published in 2011. They address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting was held in 2017, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment. They were asked to review key areas and consider the strength of the evidence on the risk-benefit balance of pharmacological interventions and the clinical implications, with an emphasis on meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials where available, plus updates on current clinical practice. The guidelines cover the pharmacological management and treatment of schizophrenia across the various stages of the illness, including first-episode, relapse prevention, and illness that has proved refractory to standard treatment. It is hoped that the practice recommendations presented will support clinical decision making for practitioners, serve as a source of information for patients and carers, and inform quality improvement.

Risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interactions of Mood Stabilizers and Risperidone in Patients Under Combined Treatment

BACKGROUND

The combination of anticonvulsant mood stabilizers with antipsychotic drugs may lead to clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. The objective of the study was to identify pharmacokinetic interactions of different mood stabilizers on the metabolism of risperidone (RIS) under natural conditions.

METHODS

A large therapeutic drug monitoring database containing plasma concentrations of RIS and its metabolite 9-hydroxy-RIS (9-OH-RIS) of 1,584 adult patients was analyzed. Four groups (n = 1,072) were compared: a control group without a potentially cytochrome interacting comedication (R0, n = 852), a group comedicated with valproate (VPA) (RVPA, n = 153), a group comedicated with lamotrigine (LMT) (RLMT, n = 46), and a group under concomitant medication with carbamazepine (CBZ) (RCBZ, n = 21). Dose-adjusted plasma concentrations (C/D ratio) for RIS, 9-OH-RIS and active moiety (AM) (RIS + 9-OH-RIS), as well as metabolic ratios (RIS/9-OH-RIS) were computed.

RESULTS

Groups did not differ with regard to the daily dosage (P = 0.46). Differences were detected for the distributions of the C/D ratios for RIS, 9-OH-RIS and AM (P = 0.003, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Differences remained significant after conducting a Bonferroni correction (P = 0.0125). Pairwise comparisons of the concomitant medication groups with the control group revealed significant differences; RIS C/D ratios were significantly higher in the VPA and the LMT group than in the control group (P = 0.013; P = 0.021). However, these differences did not remain significant after Bonferroni correction. In contrast, CBZ-treated patients showed lower dose-adjusted plasma concentrations of 9-OH-RIS (P < 0.001) as well as the AM (P < 0.001) than the control group; this difference survived the Bonferroni correction.

CONCLUSIONS

The data give evidence for pharmacokinetic interactions between RIS and different anticonvulsant mood stabilizers. Carbamazepine decreased serum concentrations of 9-OH-RIS and the AM when compared with the control group. In case of VPA and LMT, findings were less significant; hints for a weak RIS metabolism inhibition by LMT of unclear clinical significance were found.

Valproate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, and valproate is one of these.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether:1. valproate alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. valproate augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (July 2002; February 2007; July 2012; March 04, 2016). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing valproate to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as the sole agent or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers, and re-inspected and quality-assessed these. At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2012 update search identified 19 further relevant studies, most of which were from China. Thus the review currently includes 26 studies with a total of 2184 participants. All trials examined the effectiveness of valproate as an adjunct to antipsychotics. With the exception of two studies, the studies were small, the participants and personnel were not blinded (neither was outcome assessment), and most were short-term and incompletely reported.For this update we prespecified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response (clinically significant response, aggression/agitation), leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment, overall tolerability), adverse events (sedation, weight gain) and quality of life.Adding valproate to antipsychotic treatment resulted in more clinically significant response than adding placebo to antipsychotic drugs (14 RCTs, n = 1049, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, I2 = 12%, low-quality evidence). However, this effect was removed after excluding open RCTs in a sensitivity analysis. In terms of acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason) valproate was just as acceptable as placebo (11 RCTs, n = 951, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.24, I2 = 55%). Also overall tolerability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early for adverse events) between valproate and placebo was similar (6 RCTs, n = 974, RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.97, I2 = 0).Participants in the valproate group were found to be less aggressive than the control group based on the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (3 RCTs, n = 186, MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.19, I2 = 82%, very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving valproate more frequently experienced sedation (8 RCTs, n = 770, RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.79, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence) but were no more likely to gain weight than those receiving placebo (4 RCTs, n = 427, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.82, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence). No study reported on the important outcome of quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence, based on a number of trials, that the augmentation of antipsychotics with valproate may be effective for overall clinical response, and also for specific symptoms, especially in terms of excitement and aggression. However, this evidence was entirely based on open RCTs. Moreover, valproate was associated with a number of adverse events among which sedation and dizziness appeared significantly more frequently than in the control groups. Further randomised studies which are blinded are necessary before any clear recommendation can be made. Ideally these would focus on people with schizophrenia and aggression, on those with treatment-resistant forms of the illness and on those with schizoaffective disorders.

Lithium or Valproate Adjunctive Therapy to Second-generation Antipsychotics and Metabolic Variables in Patients With Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder

OBJECTIVE

People with schizophrenia are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease and their overall mortality rate is elevated compared to the general population. The metabolic side effects of antipsychotic medications have been widely studied; however, the effect of adding conventional mood stabilizers, such as lithium and valproate, to antipsychotic medication has not been assessed in terms of metabolic risk. The primary purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine whether treatment with lithium or valproate in addition to a second-generation antipsychotic is associated with poorer metabolic outcomes than treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic without lithium or depakote.

METHODS

Baseline data from 3 studies, which included measurement of body mass index, waist circumference, fasting glucose, insulin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, insulin sensitivity index, glucose utilization, and acute insulin response to glucose, were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

No differences were found between those taking lithium or valproate and those who were not in terms of fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance. Insulin sensitivity was lower among participants taking lithium or valproate. Participants taking lithium or valproate had a higher body mass index than those not taking conventional mood stabilizers, although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These cross-sectional findings suggest it may be beneficial to monitor insulin sensitivity and body mass index in patients taking lithium or valproate in combination with a second-generation antipsychotic.

Significant Effect of Valproate Augmentation Therapy in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Meta-analysis Study

Valproate is an anticonvulsant, which is also widely used for treating psychiatric disorders. Some clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of valproate augmentation therapy in schizophrenia. Previous meta-analysis showed inconsistent findings because of limited literature at that time. The aim of this study is to update the newer published data by conducting a meta-analysis of clinical efficacy of valproate augmentation therapy in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Data sources include electronic research through platform of PubMed. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions were as follows: the inclusion criteria included articles discussing comparisons of the treatment effect in schizophrenic patients treated with antipsychotic augmented with valproate and antipsychotics with/without placebo; articles on clinical trials in humans. The exclusion criteria were case reports or series and nonclinical trials. We compared the effect between antipsychotic treatment with valproate augmentation and antipsychotic monotherapy. Data from clinical trials were pooled by random-effects model, and possible confounding variables were examined through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Data from 11 articles including 889 patients were included into current meta-analysis. We found patients treated with antipsychotics with valproate augmentation showed significantly more improvement in total psychopathology than those treated with antipsychotics only (P = 0.02). Results from open trials, but not from randomized controlled trials (P = 0.20), showed significant improvement (P = 0.01). In addition, the significance only persisted in the studies conducted with a shorter treatment duration (P < 0.001) rather than longer treatment duration (P = 0.23). There is no difference in the dropout rate between valproate augmentation and antipsychotic treatment only (P = 0.14). We could not perform a detailed meta-analysis for every category of antipsychotics, long-term effect, and safety profiles of valproate augmentation therapy in maintenance treatment, safety in pregnant patients, and subtype of schizophrenia. Our meta-analysis highlights the significantly better treatment effect with valproate augmentation therapy in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, and provides important evidence for supporting the practice of valproate augmentation therapy in these patients.

The psychopharmacology of violence: making sensible decisions

Violent behavior associated with mental disorders is a common reason for admission to a psychiatric inpatient unit. Once hospitalized, patients may continue to be intermittently agitated and have persistent aggressive behaviors, preventing their discharge back into the community. Managing agitation quickly with effective pharmacological agents can avoid further escalation to aggression and violence. In the acute setting, this usually involves the parenteral use of antipsychotics, with or without benzodiazepines. Within the past decade, short-acting intramuscular formulations of second-generation antipsychotics have become available and provide a means to induce calm with a substantially lower risk of acute dystonia or akathisia compared with haloperidol. New alternative formulations that avoid injections include inhalation and sublingual administration. Longer-term management of persistent aggressive behavior by reducing the frequency and intensity of future episodes of agitation is more complex. In contrast to agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar mania, no agents have yet been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of persistent aggressive behavior. The strongest evidence supports the use of clozapine as an antihostility agent, followed by olanzapine. Adjunctive strategies with anticonvulsants and beta-adrenergic agents may also be worthwhile to consider.

An open-label, randomized, controlled trial of zotepine and risperidone for acutely ill, hospitalized, schizophrenic patients with symptoms of agitation

Acutely ill, schizophrenic patients frequently require management of agitation. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of oral zotepine and risperidone in hospitalized, acutely ill schizophrenic patients with symptoms of agitation.This was a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, flexible dosing study. Thirty-nine patients with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) who met the criteria of a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of greater than or equal to 60 points, PANSS-excitement component (EC) score of greater than or equal to 14 points, and at least 1 PANSS-EC score of greater than or equal to 4 were randomly assigned to either the zotepine or risperidone group. The primary outcome was a comparison of the change in the PANSS-EC total score from baseline to the end of the study between groups.There was no significant between-group difference in dropout rates (zotepine, 15.8% [3/19]; risperidone, 20.0% [4/20]). The mean (SD) daily dose of zotepine from baseline to study end point ranged from 127.6 (62.3) to 236.8 (74.2) mg/d; the corresponding values for risperidone ranged from 3.3 (1.6) to 4.8 (1.7) mg/d. There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, PANSS total score, and PANSS-EC total score between the zotepine and risperidone groups at baseline. Both groups showed significant reductions in the PANSS-EC total scores (zotepine, -10.1 [4.7], P < 0.001; risperidone, -8.0 [5.3], P < 0.001) and PANSS total scores (zotepine, -34.7 [15.8], P < 0.001; risperidone, -28.6 [14.3], P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in PANSS-EC total score (P = 0.265) and PANSS total score (P = 0.125) changes from baseline to study end point between the 2 treatment groups. Serum uric acid and prolactin decreased more in the zotepine group than the risperidone group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively).Zotepine seemed to be as effective as risperidone in treating hospitalized, acutely ill, schizophrenic patients with agitation, and had the advantages of lowering hyperuricemia and hyperprolactinemia. Double-blind, fixed dose studies with a larger sample size of acutely ill, schizophrenic patients with agitation are needed to confirm the study results.

External validity of studies on aggressive behavior in patients with schizophrenia: systematic review

STUDIES ON VIOLENCE IN SCHIZOPHRENIA USE TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES: use of epidemiological data, and clinical studies recording direct patient data after gaining informed consent. With regard to informed consent requiring agreement and cooperation, the question arises as to what extent participants represent patients with schizophrenia and violent behaviour (external validity). We conducted a systematic literature research. In most of the studies, aggression or violence, respectively, were poorly defined. Only 5 (15.2%) studies used a cut-off score on an aggression scale. Only 6 studies (18.2%) reported the number of patients who refused to participate, and 16 (48.5%) reported the number of drop-outs. Only 3 studies (9.1%) reported a systematic comparison of participants and non-participants. We found that data which allow for the assessment of representativeness of the investigated samples are poorly reported. For most studies, doubts regarding external validity seem justified and generalisability is questionable due to possible selection bias.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, part 1: update 2012 on the acute treatment of schizophrenia and the management of treatment resistance

These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia published in 2005. For this 2012 revision, all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed systematically to allow for an evidence-based update. These guidelines provide evidence-based practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful and these guidelines are intended to be used by all physicians diagnosing and treating people suffering from schizophrenia. Based on the first version of these guidelines, a systematic review of the MEDLINE/PUBMED database and the Cochrane Library, in addition to data extraction from national treatment guidelines, has been performed for this update. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F; Bandelow et al. 2008b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242). This first part of the updated guidelines covers the general descriptions of antipsychotics and their side effects, the biological treatment of acute schizophrenia and the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

The psychopharmacology of aggressive behavior: a translational approach: part 2: clinical studies using atypical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and lithium

Patients experiencing mental disorders are at an elevated risk for developing aggressive behavior. In the past 10 years, the psychopharmacological treatment of aggression has changed dramatically owing to the introduction of atypical antipsychotics on the market and the increased use of anticonvulsants and lithium in the treatment of aggressive patients.This review (second of 2 parts) uses a translational medicine approach to examine the neurobiology of aggression, discussing the major neurotransmitter systems implicated in its pathogenesis (serotonin, glutamate, norepinephrine, dopamine, and γ-aminobutyric acid) and the neuropharmacological rationale for using atypical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and lithium in the therapeutics of aggressive behavior. A critical review of all clinical trials using atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole, clozapine, loxapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, and amisulpride), anticonvulsants (topiramate, valproate, lamotrigine, and gabapentin), and lithium are presented. Given the complex, multifaceted nature of aggression, a multifunctional combined therapy, targeting different receptors, seems to be the best strategy for treating aggressive behavior. This therapeutic strategy is supported by translational studies and a few human studies, even if additional randomized, double-blind, clinical trials are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy of this framework.

Pharmacological management of acute and persistent aggression in forensic psychiatry settings

Aggressive behaviour is common in forensic psychiatric settings. The aetiology of aggressive behaviour is multifactorial and can be driven by psychosis, impulsivity, psychopathy, intoxication, cognitive impairment, or a combination of all of these. Recognition of the different factors behind the aggression can inform medication selection and the relative need for specific environmental and behavioural interventions in a forensic psychiatric setting. Acute agitation needs to be managed quickly and effectively before further escalation of the behavioural dyscontrol occurs. Benzodiazepines and/or antipsychotic medications are often used and can be given intramuscularly to achieve a rapid onset of action. Available are intramuscular preparations of second-generation antipsychotics that have similar efficacy to lorazepam and haloperidol in reducing agitation, but are well tolerated and not associated with the extrapyramidal adverse effects, including akathisia, that can plague the older first-generation antipsychotics. The longer-term management of persistent aggressive behaviour can be quite complex. A major obstacle is that the causality of aggressive events can differ from patient to patient, and also from event to event in the same patient. For patients with schizophrenia and persistent aggressive behaviour, clozapine is recommended both for its superior antipsychotic effect and its specific anti-hostility effect. Mood stabilizers such as valproate may be helpful in instances of poor impulsivity and personality disorders. Other agents that have been successfully used include β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) and antidepressants.

Representation of people with intellectual disabilities in randomised controlled trials on antipsychotic treatment for behavioural problems

BACKGROUND

Behavioural problems are common in people with intellectual disability (ID) and are often treated with antipsychotics.

AIM

To establish the frequency and characteristics of people with ID included in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on antipsychotic treatment for behavioural problems, and to investigate the quality of these RCTs.

METHODS

A literature search in EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane was performed and reviewed.

RESULTS

People with ID participated in 27 of the 100 included RCTs. The RCTs were of good quality but smaller compared with trials in patients with dementia or schizophrenia (average sample sizes = 55, 124 and 374). In 13/27 trials no clear definition of ID was given. Over 25 different outcome measures were used to assess behavioural problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies in which people with ID are included are of a sufficient quality, but of a small size. The heterogeneity in the characteristics of the ID population included as well as in the applied assessment instruments makes performing meta-analyses unfeasible.

The pharmacological management of violence in schizophrenia: a structured review

Although the increased risk of violent behavior in individuals with schizophrenia is now well-established, there is considerable uncertainty in pharmacological strategies to reduce this risk. In this review, we performed a systematic search of three electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2010 of treatment research on the management of violence in schizophrenia. We identified eight randomized controlled trials. The main findings included the association of nonadherence to antipsychotic medication to violent outcomes, a specific anti-aggressive effect of clozapine and short-term benefits of adjunctive β-blockers. There was little evidence on the efficacy of adjunctive mood stabilizers, depot medication or electroconvulsive therapy. Future research should use validated outcomes, longer follow-up periods and investigate patients with comorbid substance misuse.

Antiepileptic drugs in the treatment of psychiatric disorders

The clinical interface between psychiatry and neurology is epilepsy; the pharmacological expression of this interface is antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as they are used to treat both epilepsy and psychiatric disorders, especially bipolar disorders. The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity and the risk of suicidal behavior/ideation/suicide are markedly increased in patients with epilepsy (PWE). Though AEDs receive initial indications for the treatment of epilepsy, currently the majority of AEDs are used to treat pain and psychiatric disorders. Thus in selecting the appropriate AEDs for treatment of PWE, consideration should be given to which AEDs best treat the epileptic disorder and the psychiatric comorbidity. This review is an overview of 21 AEDs in which negative psychotropic properties, approved indications in psychiatry, off-label studied uses in psychiatry, and principal uses in psychiatry are presented with literature review. A total of 40 psychiatric uses have been identified. Of the 21 AEDs reviewed, only 5 have U.S. Food and Drug Administration and/or European Medicines Agency psychiatric approval for limited uses; the majority of AEDs are used off-label. Many of these off-label uses are based on case reports, open-label studies, and poorly controlled or small-sample-size studies. In some instances, off-label use persists in the face of negative pivotal trials. Further placebo-controlled (augmentation and monotherapy) parallel-arm research with active comparators is required in the complex field of AED treatment of psychiatric disorders to minimize the treatment gap not only for PWE with psychiatric disorders, but also for psychiatric patients who would benefit from properly studied AEDs while minimizing adverse effects.

Molecular and therapeutic potential and toxicity of valproic acid

Valproic acid (VPA), a branched short-chain fatty acid, is widely used as an antiepileptic drug and a mood stabilizer. Antiepileptic properties have been attributed to inhibition of Gamma Amino Butyrate (GABA) transaminobutyrate and of ion channels. VPA was recently classified among the Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors, acting directly at the level of gene transcription by inhibiting histone deacetylation and making transcription sites more accessible. VPA is a widely used drug, particularly for children suffering from epilepsy. Due to the increasing number of clinical trials involving VPA, and interesting results obtained, this molecule will be implicated in an increasing number of therapies. However side effects of VPA are substantially described in the literature whereas they are poorly discussed in articles focusing on its therapeutic use. This paper aims to give an overview of the different clinical-trials involving VPA and its side effects encountered during treatment as well as its molecular properties.

Augmentation of atypical antipsychotics with valproic acid. An open-label study for most difficult patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Most difficult inpatients with schizophrenia are in serious needs but obviously underrepresented in clinical trials.

METHODS

Very challenging patients received open-label treatment with atypical antipsychotics concurrently augmented with valproic acid. The primary outcome was the newly developed Functional Assessment for Comprehensive Treatment of Schizophrenia (FACT-Sz). Patients improving more than 20 points were classified as responders.

RESULTS

Mean age and illness duration of 28 participants (22 male) were 42 y.o. and 20 years, respectively. They had spent a half of their life admitted after the onset. The average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) were very severe at 79 and 6.1, respectively, with the baseline Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of as low as 21. As a result of augmentation, there were nine responders, 12 partial responders, and seven non-responders including only two patients who got worse. The main antipsychotics were mostly either risperidone or olanzapine. Mean maximum oral dose and blood level of valproic acid were 1907 mg and 91.7 microg/ml, respectively. Overall significant improvements whilst to an inadequate degree were noted in clinical parameters. Valproate augmentation was generally well tolerated but serious adverse effects included thrombocytopenia, anaemia and sedation/falls.

CONCLUSIONS

While these preliminary results need to be tested against tenacious monotherapy or polypharmacy involving clozapine, augmenting atypical antipsychotics with valproic acid can be useful for very severe schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia with impulsive and aggressive behaviors

Impulsive and aggressive behaviors are important clinical challenges in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. They occur both in the acute phase as well as in the chronic phase of the disorder and call for differentiated treatment interventions. It is important to always first consider behavioral and nonpharmacological interventions. High levels of structure and organization together with a nonconfrontational approach may be very successful interventions. In terms of acute pharmacological interventions, clinicians now have a broad spectrum of intramuscular antipsychotic compounds available with rapid onset of action and relatively little sedation. There is a need for new compounds with a more acceptable tolerability profile for the long-term treatment of these important syndromes.

Staff and patient views of the reasons for aggressive incidents: a prospective, incident-based study

Aggression is a serious problem in psychiatric hospitals. It is not clear whether reasons for aggression guide which therapeutic interventions are selected. Aggression was monitored in participants in a randomized clinical trial of the antiaggressive efficacy of adjunctive valproate in patients with schizophrenia. The Overt Aggression Scale was used to record aggression type and severity, reasons given by patients and staff, and interventions delivered. Forty two patients caused 317 aggressive incidents. Patients reported more often than staff that aggression was provoked by external factors (e.g., interpersonal conflict, limit-setting). Staff cited internal factors (e.g., psychotic symptoms, tension) more often than patients. Interventions administered were related to type and severity of aggression but not to either staff or patients' reasons. Responses to aggressive events do not take causes into account. It is possible that consideration of the reasons for the aggressive behavior might yield more targeted interventions.

Epigenetics, DNA methylation, and chromatin modifying drugs

Evidence is emerging that several diseases and behavioral pathologies result from defects in gene function. The best-studied example is cancer, but other diseases such as autoimmune disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders, and autism display aberrant gene expression. Gene function may be altered by either a change in the sequence of the DNA or a change in epigenetic programming of a gene in the absence of a sequence change. With epigenetic drugs, it is possible to reverse aberrant gene expression profiles associated with different disease states. Several epigenetic drugs targeting DNA methylation and histone deacetylation enzymes have been tested in clinical trials. Understanding the epigenetic machinery and the differential roles of its components in specific disease states is essential for developing targeted epigenetic therapy.

Heterogeneity of violence in schizophrenia and implications for long-term treatment

AIMS

Most patients with schizophrenia are not violent. However, persistent violent behaviour in a minority of patients presents a therapeutic challenge. Published treatment guidelines and most pharmacological and epidemiological literature on violence in schizophrenia treat overt physical aggression as a homogeneous phenomenon. The aim of this review is to address the subtyping of violent behaviour in schizophrenia, and to relate the subtypes to treatment.

METHOD

Literature describing subtypes of violence in schizophrenia and the treatment of this problem was reviewed. 'Schizophrenia', 'violence', 'aggression', 'hostility' and 'personality disorders' were the principal search terms describing behaviours. Generic names of individual atypical antipsychotics and mood stabilisers were used in treatment searches.

RESULTS

There are at least three aetiological subtypes of violence in schizophrenia (i) that related directly to positive psychotic symptoms, (ii) impulsive violence and (iii) violence stemming from comorbidity with personality disorders, particularly psychopathy. Current treatment of violence in schizophrenia relies on antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. The evidence of effectiveness is relatively strong for clozapine, but inconsistent for other treatments. No systematic recommendations relating the treatment to aetiological subtypes of violence were found.

DISCUSSION

The inconsistent effectiveness of the current treatments of violent behaviour in schizophrenia is due, at least in part, to the aetiological heterogeneity of that behaviour. We should not expect that any given pharmacological treatment will be equally effective in reducing violent behaviour caused by psychosis, impaired impulse control or personality disorder.

CONCLUSION

Violence in schizophrenia is aetiologically heterogeneous. This heterogeneity has therapeutic implications that impact clinical practice today and should be further explored in future studies.

Diet and the epigenetic (re)programming of phenotypic differences in behavior

Phenotypic diversity is shaped by both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that program tissue specific patterns of gene expression. Cells, including neurons, undergo massive epigenetic reprogramming during development through modifications to chromatin structure, and by covalent modifications of the DNA through methylation. There is evidence that these changes are sensitive to environmental influences such as maternal behavior and diet, leading to sustained differences in phenotype. For example, natural variations in maternal behavior in the rat that influence stress reactivity in offspring induce long-term changes in gene expression, including in the glucocorticoid receptor, that are associated with altered histone acetylation, DNA methylation, and NGFI-A transcription factor binding. These effects can be reversed by early postnatal cross-fostering, and by pharmacological manipulations in adulthood, including Trichostatin A (TSA) and L-methionine administration, that influence the epigenetic status of critical loci in the brain. Because levels of methionine are influenced by diet, these effects suggest that diet could contribute significantly to this behavioral plasticity. Recent data suggest that similar mechanisms could influence human behavior and mental health. Epidemiological data suggest indeed that dietary changes in methyl contents could affect DNA methylation and gene expression programming. Nutritional restriction during gestation could affect epigenetic programming in the brain. These findings provide evidence for a stable yet dynamic epigenome capable of regulating phenotypic plasticity through epigenetic programming.

Reducing inpatient aggression: does paying attention pay off?

OBJECTIVE

Inpatient aggression is poorly documented in official records. Video technology can improve detection, but is labor-intensive and costly. We examined the effectiveness of interventions to improve reporting on a secure inpatient research unit equipped with audio/video surveillance.

METHOD

Systematic review of all video recorded during a six-week period in 2000 revealed that official documentation omitted 16/71 aggressive incidents (23%). Subsequent interventions to improve reporting involved therapy aides, whose jobs entail continuous direct contact with patients. We reviewed the corresponding period in 2005 to investigate changes in aggression and reporting.

RESULTS

Although the number of aggressive incidents did not change significantly, reporting improved: 59/62 (95%) events detected in 2005 had been reported. Physical aggression decreased and verbal aggression increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved reporting may have the unanticipated benefit of reducing physical aggression, perhaps by fostering recognition of and intervention in events that might otherwise escalate into more serious aggression.