Efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone versus risperidone as augmentation in patients partially responsive to clozapine: a randomised controlled clinical trial

Exploring Hidden Issues in the Use of Antipsychotic Polypharmacy in the Treatment of Schizophrenia

The mainstay of schizophrenia treatment is pharmacological therapy using various antipsychotics including first- and second-generation antipsychotics which have different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic property leading to differential presentation of adverse events (AEs) and treatment effects such as negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms and cormorbid symptoms. Major treatment guidelines suggest the use of antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) as a gold standard in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the effects of APM is inadequate and less potent to achieve symptom remission as well as functional recovery in real practice which has been consistently reported in numerous controlled clinical trials, large practical trials, independent small studies and systematic reviews till today. Therefore anti-psychotic polypharmacy (APP) regardless of the class of antipsychotics has been also commonly utilized for many reasons in real world practice. However, APP has also crucial pitfalls including increase of total psychotics including antipsychotics, high-doses of antipsychotics used, poor compliance, drug-drug interaction and risks for developing AEs, all of which are paradoxically related to poor clinical outcomes, whereas APP has also substantial advantages in reduction of re-hospitalization, severe psychopathology and targeted control of concurrent symptoms. Given currently limited therapeutic options, it is also important to properly utilize APP in order to maximize its clinical utility and minimize its risk for better treatment outcomes for patients with schizophrenia, based on risk/benefit with full understanding of pharmacological and clinical issues on APP. The present paper intends to address intriguing and important issues in the use of APP in real world practice.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in adult patients diagnosed with schizophrenia: A retrospective study

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) is a common practice in the treatment of schizophrenia. In this study, we aimed to identify the prevalence of APP in our department, as well as the trends associated with co-prescribing antipsychotics. We collected data from the medical records of all 193 inpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia who were admitted to Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia Clinical Psychiatry Hospital (Bucharest, Romania), Department 9, during January 2019-December 2019. Demographic characteristics of the patients, clinical diagnosis, psychiatric admission type and duration of hospitalization were examined. Data regarding the antipsychotic regimen at discharge and other psychotropic drugs used were collected. A total of 69 (35.75%) patients received more than 2 antipsychotics upon discharge. Patients treated with APP did not differ in regards to sex, age, education level, employment status, marital status, living situation, type of admission from those receiving antipsychotic monotherapy (APM). Prolonged hospitalization was found to be an independent predictor of APP (P=0.014). Most of the combinations used in our unit included clozapine (47.8%), and the most frequently used treatment in the APP group was the combination of paliperidone and clozapine (14.5%). In the APP group, 30 (43.5%) patients included in their regimen was a long-acting intramuscular antipsychotic. There was no significant difference in terms of the use of mood stabilizers, antiparkinsonian drugs or anxiolytics between the APP and the APM group; yet, a higher prevalence of antidepressant use, although not statistically significant (P=0.067), in the APP group compared to the APM group, was observed. The use of APP as a long-term regimen is a common practice in our department, as it is worldwide. There is a great need for randomized-control trials and evidence-based studies in order to define the safest and most effective combinations of antipsychotics and also the characteristics of patients that may benefit from these combinations.

Characteristics and definitions of ultra-treatment-resistant schizophrenia - A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to characterize ultra-treatment-resistant Schizophrenia also known as clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS) patients across clozapine combination and augmentation trials through demographic and clinical baseline data. Furthermore, we investigated the variability and consistency in CRS definitions between studies.

METHODS

Systematic searches of articles indexed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PsycINFO were conducted in March 2020. 1541 randomized and non-randomized clinical trials investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological clozapine add-on strategies were screened and a total of 71 studies were included. The primary outcome was the overall symptom score at baseline, measured with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total scores.

RESULTS

Data from 2731 patients were extracted. Patients were overall moderately ill with a mean PANSS total score at baseline of 79.16 (±7.52), a mean duration of illness of 14.64 (±4.14) years with a mean clozapine dose of 436.94 (±87.47) mg/day. Illness severity data were relatively homogenous among patients independently of the augmentation strategy involved, although stark geographical differences were found. Overall, studies showed a large heterogeneity of CRS definitions and insufficient guidelines implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This first meta-analysis characterizing CRS patients and comparing CRS definitions revealed a lack of consistent implementation of a CRS definition from guidelines into clinical trials, compromising the replicability of the results and their applicability in clinical practice. We offer a new score modeled on a best practice definition to help future trials increase their reliability.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy in Treatment of Schizophrenia; Should or Should Not?

Antipsychotics have been utilized as the standard treatment for schizophrenia regardless of illness phase where antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) is routinely recommended as the gold standard rather than antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP). However, approximately 20 to 40% of patients with schizophrenia do not respond to APM based on randomized controlled clinical trials and large practical clinical trials indicating that the subgroup of patients with schizophrenia would need differential treatment approaches beyond traditional treatment strategies such as APM. Numerous studies have supported the use of APP in particular for patients with certain clinical situations including: failure to show efficacy or tolerability from treatment with APM, need for different treatment for targeting specific symptom domains, severe illness, failure to treatment with clozapine, skepticism about following treatment guidelines, or cross titration periods. Furthermore, recent large cohort studies and practical clinical trials have proposed more benefits of APP rather than APM in terms of rehospitalization, mortality, and specific symptoms. APP has recently become more widely utilized and recognized as one of the next treatment strategies to clinicians for patients with schizophrenia. Some experts have already proposed the revision of treatment guidelines incorporating APP as evidence-based treatment option for certain patients with schizophrenia. Taken together, APP now deserves an evidence-based and acceptable treatment strategy, not an empirical or preferential treatment approach for treatment of schizophrenia in contemporary clinical practice.

Psychopharmacological Treatment of Schizophrenia Over Time in 30 908 Inpatients: Data From the AMSP Study

BACKGROUND

Psychotropic drugs are the cornerstone of schizophrenia treatment, often requiring lifelong treatment. Data on pharmacotherapy in inpatient settings are lacking.

METHODS

Prescription data of schizophrenic inpatients within the time period 2000-2015 were obtained from the database of the Drug Safety Program in Psychiatry (AMSP). Data were collected at 2 index dates per year; the prescription patterns and changes over time were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 30 908 inpatients (mean age 41.6 years, 57.8% males), the drug classes administered most often were antipsychotics (94.8%), tranquilizers (32%), antidepressants (16.5%), antiparkinsonians (16%), anticonvulsants (14.1%), hypnotics (8.1%), and lithium (2.1%). The use of second-generation antipsychotics significantly increased from 62.8% in 2000 to 88.9% in 2015 (P < .001), whereas the prescription of first-generation antipsychotics decreased from 46.6% in 2000 to 24.7% in 2015 (P < .001). The administration of long-acting injectable antipsychotics decreased from 15.2% in 2000 to 11.7% in 2015 (P = .006). Clopazine was the most often used antipsychotic, having been used for 21.3% of all patients. Polypharmacy rates (≥5 drugs) increased from 19% in 2000 to 26.5% in 2015. Psychiatric polypharmacy (≥3 psychotropic drugs) was present in 44.7% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Combinations of antipsychotics and augmentation therapies with other drug classes are frequently prescribed for schizophrenic patients. Though treatment resistance and unsatisfactory functional outcomes reflect clinical necessity, further prospective studies are needed on real-world prescription patterns in schizophrenia to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this common practice.

Adjunctive second-generation antipsychotics for specific symptom domains of schizophrenia resistant to clozapine: A meta-analysis

A fair amount of subjects with schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine and are defined 'ultra-resistant'. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we tested the efficacy of adjunctive second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for main symptom domains (positive, negative, and depressive symptoms) in individuals with clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. We searched main electronic databases till December 2017. We included twelve double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the efficacy of SGAs for clozapine non/partial responders. We did not find any difference between SGAs and placebo (standardized mean difference, SMD = -0.21; p = 0.170; I² = 68.0%) in improving positive symptoms. The effect size varied according to RCT duration (p = 0.025) and assessment methods (p = 0.016). Low-moderate effects of SGAs on both negative (SMD = -0.38; p = 0.005; I² = 62.7%) and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.35; p = 0.003; I² = 4.9%), were estimated. In sum, our meta-analysis highlights the lack of efficacy of SGAs as add-on treatment for positive symptoms in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. A small benefit of SGAs was estimated for both negative and depressive symptoms. Further RCTs are needed to establish efficacy and tolerability of SGAs or other augmentation strategies for different symptoms of clozapine-resistant schizophrenia.

Augmentation strategies for clozapine refractory schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment refractory schizophrenia, only 40% of people will meet response criteria. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of global literature on clozapine augmentation strategies.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database for randomised control trials of augmentation strategies for clozapine resistant schizophrenia. We undertook pairwise meta-analyses of within-class interventions and, where possible, frequentist mixed treatment comparisons to differentiate treatment effectiveness Results: We identified 46 studies of 25 interventions. On pairwise meta-analyses, the most effective augmentation agents for total psychosis symptoms were aripiprazole (standardised mean difference: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: -0.89 to -0.07) fluoxetine (standardised mean difference: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: -0.97 to -0.50) and, sodium valproate (standardised mean difference: 2.36 95% confidence interval: -3.96 to -0.75). Memantine was effective for negative symptoms (standardised mean difference: -0.56 95% confidence interval: -0.93 to -0.20). However, many of these results included poor-quality studies. Single studies of certain antipsychotics (penfluridol), antidepressants (paroxetine, duloxetine), lithium and Ginkgo biloba showed potential, while electroconvulsive therapy was highly promising. Mixed treatment comparisons were only possible for antipsychotics, and these gave similar results to the pairwise meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the limited data available, the best evidence is for the use of aripiprazole, fluoxetine and sodium valproate as augmentation agents for total psychosis symptoms and memantine for negative symptoms. However, these conclusions are tempered by generally short follow-up periods and poor study quality.

Effects of atypical antipsychotic drugs on QT interval in patients with mental disorders

Background

Drug-induced QT prolongation is associated with higher risk of cardiac arrhythmias and cardiovascular mortality. We investigated the effects of atypical antipsychotic drugs on QT interval in children and adults with mental disorders.

Methods

We conducted random-effects direct frequentist meta-analyses of aggregate data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) and appraised the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and PharmaPendium up to October 2017 identified studies that examined aripiprazole, quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, ziprasidone and brexpiprazole.

Results

Low quality evidence suggests that aripiprazole (four meta-analyses and twelve RCTs), brexpiprazole (one systematic review and four RCTs) or olanzapine (five meta-analyses and twenty RCTs) do not increase QT interval. Low quality evidence suggests that ziprasidone (five meta-analyses and 11 RCTs) increases QT interval and the rates of QT prolongation while risperidone (four meta-analyses, 70 RCTs) and quetiapine (two meta-analyses and seven RCTs) are associated with QT prolongation and greater odds of torsades de pointes ventricular tachycardia especially in cases of drug overdose.

Conclusions

The main conclusion of our study is that in people with mental disorders and under treatment with atypical antipsychotic drugs, in order to avoid QT prolongation and reduce the risk of ventricular tachycardia clinicians may recommend aripiprazole, brexpiprazole or olanzapine in licensed doses. Long-term comparative safety needs to be established.

Antipsychotic combinations for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with their initial antipsychotic drug treatment. Sometimes a second antipsychotic, in combination with the first, is used in these situations.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether:1. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is effective for schizophrenia; and2. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is safe for the same illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We ran searches in September 2010, August 2012 and January 2016. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic combinations with antipsychotic monotherapy for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CIs. For the meta-analysis we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-two studies are included in the review, 31 of these compared clozapine monotherapy with clozapine combination. We considered the risk of bias in the included studies to be moderate to high. The majority of trials had unclear allocation concealment, method of randomisation and blinding, and were not free of selective reporting.There is some limited evidence that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in improving clinical response (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; participants = 2364; studies = 29, very low-quality evidence), although subgroup analyses show that the positive result was due to the studies with clozapine in both the monotherapy and combination groups (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83; participants = 1127; studies = 17). Few studies reported on rate of relapse, most likely due to the short length of the studies. Overall, a combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in preventing relapse (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; participants = 512; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence), but the pooled data showed high heterogeneity (I² = 82%). A combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in reducing the number of participants discontinuing treatment early (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 3103; studies = 43, low-quality evidence). No difference was found between treatment groups in the number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.55; participants = 202; studies = 3, low-quality evidence) . We did not find evidence of a difference between treatment groups in serious adverse events or those requiring discontinuation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.69; participants = 2398; studies = 30, very low-quality evidence). There is as lack of evidence on clinically important change in quality of life, with only four studies reporting average endpoint or change data for this outcome on three different scales, none of which showed a difference between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, most evidence regarding the use of antipsychotic combinations comes from short-term trials, limiting the assessment of long-term efficacy and safety. We found very low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics may improve the clinical response. We also found low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics is may make no difference at preventing participants from leaving the study early, preventing relapse and/or causing more serious adverse events than monotherapy.

Clozapine combined with different antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Between 40% and 70% of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine, despite adequate blood levels. For these people, a number of treatment strategies have emerged, including the prescription of a second anti-psychotic drug in combination with clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotic drugs in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia both in terms of efficacy and tolerability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (to 28 August 2015) and MEDLINE (November 2008). We checked the reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials (RCT). For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects meta-analysis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two further studies with 169 participants that met our inclusion criteria. This review now includes five studies with 309 participants. The quality of evidence was low, and, due to the high degree of heterogeneity between studies, we were unable to undertake a formal meta-analysis to increase the statistical power.For this update, we specified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response in mental state (clinically significant response, mean score/change in mental state), clinical response in global state (mean score/change in global state), weight gain, leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment), service utilisation outcomes (hospital days or admissions to hospital) and quality of life.We found some significant differences between clozapine combination strategies for global and mental state (clinically significant response and change), and there were data for leaving the study early and weight gain. We found no data for service utilisation and quality of life. Clozapine plus aripiprazole versus clozapine plus haloperidolThere was no long-term significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol combination strategies in change of mental state (1 RCT, n = 105, MD 0.90, 95% CI -4.38 to 6.18, low quality evidence). There were no adverse effect data for weight gain but there was a benefit of aripiprazole for adverse effects measured by the LUNSERS at 12 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.48 to -1.32) and 24 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.25 to -1.55), but not 52 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.80, 95% CI -9.79 to 0.19). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 106, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.22, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus amisulpride versus clozapine plus quetiapine One study showed a significant benefit of amisulpride over quetiapine in the short term, for both change in global state (Clinical Global Impression (CGI): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.42, very low quality evidence) and mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.86 to -2.14, low quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 56, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, very low quality evidence) Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus sulpirideThere was no difference between risperidone and sulpiride for clinically significant response, defined by the study as 20% to 50% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.68, very low quality evidence). There were similar equivocal results for weight gain (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.90, very low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -2.28, 95% CI -7.41 to 2.85, very low quality evidence). No-one left the study early. Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus ziprasidoneThere was no difference between risperidone and ziprasidone for clinically significant response (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.27, very low quality evidence), change in global state CGI-II score (1 RCT, n = 22, MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.22, very low quality evidence), change in PANSS total score (1 RCT, n = 16, MD 1.00, 95% CI -7.91 to 9.91, very low quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.49, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus ziprasidone versus clozapine plus quetiapineOne study found, in the medium term, a superior effect for ziprasidone combination compared with quetiapine combination for clinically significant response in mental state (> 50% reduction PANSS: 1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81, low quality evidence), global state (CGI - Severity score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.22, low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -12.30, 95% CI -22.43 to -2.17, low quality evidence). There was no effect for leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.52, CI 0.05 to 5.41, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The reliability of results from this review is limited, evidence is of low or very low quality. Furthermore, due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to undertake formal meta-analyses. As a consequence, any conclusions drawn from these findings are based on single, small-sized RCTs with high risk of type II error. Properly conducted and adequately powered RCTs are required. Future trialists should seek to measure patient-important outcomes such as quality of life, as well as clinical response and adverse effects.

Prevalence of and factors associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy in patients with serious mental illness: Findings from a cross-sectional study in an upper-middle-income country

Objective:

The aim of our study was to examine the prevalence of and factors associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) among patients with serious mental illness in the current South African health care context.

Methods:

We collected data on patient, illness, and treatment characteristics of patients discharged on one or more antipsychotic agents from January to June 2014. We analyzed the associations of APP with demographic and clinical variables using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression, and examined prescription patterns.

Results:

The prevalence of APP in our study population of 577 patients was 28.4%. Demographic and clinical characteristics significantly associated with APP included age > 29, male sex, diagnosis of schizophrenia, comorbid intellectual disability, comorbid substance use, greater number of hospital admissions, and high-dose prescribing. First-generation antipsychotics and long-acting injectable preparations were prominent in APP combinations. Co-prescription of anticholinergic agents and sodium valproate demonstrated a significant association with APP.

Conclusion:

APP appears common in our population, despite lack of evidence for the practice and possible risk of harm. Our findings suggest a complex interplay among patient, illness, and treatment factors relevant to APP in our setting that could be targeted for intervention.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Corrected QT Interval: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

It remains unclear whether antipsychotic polypharmacy, a common clinical practice, is related to an increased risk of corrected time between start of Q wave and end of T wave (QTc) interval prolongation. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to address this important issue.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted in October 2014, using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Studies and case reports were included if they reported QTc intervals or QTc interval changes before and after antipsychotic polypharmacy or QTc intervals in both antipsychotic polypharmacy and monotherapy groups.

RESULTS

A total of 21 articles (10 clinical trials, 4 observational studies, and 7 case reports) met inclusion criteria. The clinical trials have shown that a combination treatment with risperidone or pimozide is not obviously related to an increase in QTc interval, whereas ziprasidone or sertindole combined with clozapine may prolong QTc interval. Among the 4 observational studies, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not clearly associated with QTc prolongation in 3 studies, each cross-sectional. In contrast, one prospective study showed a significant increase in QTc interval following antipsychotic coadministration. The case reports indicated an increased risk of QTc prolongation in at least some patients receiving antipsychotic polypharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence fails to confirm that antipsychotic polypharmacy worsens QTc prolongation in general, although the evidence is scarce and inconsistent. Clinicians are advised to remain conservative in resorting to antipsychotic polypharmacy, as a combination of some QTc-prolongation liable antipsychotics may further prolong QTc interval, and efficacy supporting the clinical benefits of antipsychotic polypharmacy is equivocal, at best.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics, safety and clinical efficacy of ziprasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

INTRODUCTION

Multiple strategies exist for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. In the last 20 years, several 'new' compounds have been introduced, called 'atypical antipsychotics', which have higher efficacy and better tolerability than first-generation neuroleptics. Among them, ziprasidone (ZPR) is currently finding widespread use, and it has also been shown to be active as an augmenter in bipolar disorder therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide the latest information on ZPR, an 'atypical' agent for the pharmacological therapy of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A literature search has been carried out with the keywords 'ziprasidone', 'schizophrenia', 'psychosis', 'bipolar', 'pharmacokinetics' and 'clinical trials'. In this process, particular attention has been paid to the drug pharmacokinetic characteristics and its safety in clinical use.

EXPERT OPINION

ZPR shares most advantages and disadvantages with other atypical antipsychotics. However, it can be useful for its low tendency to cause metabolic syndrome and hyperprolactinaemia, especially in patients suffering from excess weight, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes or who have suffered from hyperprolactinaemia when using other antipsychotics. However, there are serious doubts as to whether ZPR should be administered to patients suffering from arrhythmias or QTc prolongation, and even more for administration to bipolar patients undergoing polypharmacy with antidepressants.

Augmentation strategies in partial responder and/or treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients treated with clozapine

INTRODUCTION

Although clozapine (CLZ) is considered the best evidence-based therapeutic option for treatment of resistant schizophrenia patients, a significant proportion of CLZ-treated patients show a partial or inadequate response to treatment, leading to increased healthcare cost and poor quality of life for affected individuals.

AREAS COVERED

This paper comprises a review of main research in CLZ augmentation strategies for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, with a focus on research conducted between 1990 and 2014. Databases that were searched include: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE PsychINFO, AgeLine and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Primary search terms were 'clozapine augmentation', 'clozapine and add-on' and 'treatment-resistant schizophrenia', with cross reference to specific agents covered in this article. We reviewed the available evidence on CLZ augmentation with antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers and other agents.

EXPERT OPINION

Many drugs have been evaluated as CLZ add-on therapies without demonstrating convincing efficacy in treating refractory schizophrenia symptoms. More research is needed to better define outcomes in schizophrenia, the topic of treatment-resistance and more well-designed trials are required to establish true efficacy and safety of CLZ augmentation strategies.

Augmentation of clozapine with amisulpride: an effective therapeutic strategy for violent treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients in a UK high-security hospital

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine is used in the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is effective in reducing aggression; however a subgroup of patients is poorly responsive. For violent patients in this group, there is limited literature on the use of strategies to augment clozapine with other agents. Here we present a case series of 6 schizophrenia patients, within a high-security hospital, who have a history of serious violence and who were treated with clozapine augmented with amisulpride.

METHODS

We reviewed case notes and health records for evidence of violence/aggression and positive factors such as engagement in activities, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores were formulated. We also examined metabolic parameters before and after augmentation.

RESULTS

All 6 of the patients showed clinical improvement in symptoms and a reduction in their risk of violence to others. Five patients had a reduction in number of violent/aggressive incidents, and all patients showed improvement in engagement in occupational, vocational, and/or psychological work. Metabolic parameters were largely unchanged except for 1 patient whose Body Mass Index (BMI) increased. Five patients reported side effects as unchanged or improved.

CONCLUSION

These schizophrenia patients with a history of violence showed clinical improvement and reduced aggression and violence with amisulpride augmentation of clozapine. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an antiaggressive benefit of this combination in forensic psychiatric patients. Further studies are warranted to establish the efficacy and anti-aggressive effects of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine.

QTc interval prolongation and torsade de pointes associated with second-generation antipsychotics and antidepressants: a comprehensive review

We comprehensively reviewed published literature to determine whether it supported the link between corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation and torsade de pointes (TdP) for the 11 second-generation antipsychotics and seven second-generation antidepressants commonly implicated in these complications. Using PubMed and EMBASE, we identified four thorough QT studies (one each for iloperidone, ziprasidone, citalopram, and escitalopram), 40 studies specifically designed to assess QTc interval prolongation or TdP, 58 publications based on data from efficacy and safety trials, 18 toxicology studies, and 102 case reports. Thorough QT studies, QTc prolongation-specific studies, and studies based on efficacy and safety trials did not link drug-associated QTc interval prolongation with TdP. They only showed that the drugs reviewed caused varying degrees of QTc interval prolongation, and even that information was not clear and consistent enough to stratify individual drugs for this risk. The few toxicology studies provided valuable information but their findings are pertinent only to situations of drug overdose. Case reports were most informative about the drug-QTc interval prolongation-TdP link. At least one additional well established risk factor for QTc prolongation was present in 92.2 % of case reports. Of the 28 cases of TdP, six (21.4 %) experienced it with QTc interval <500 ms; 75 % of TdP cases occurred at therapeutic doses. There is little evidence that drug-associated QTc interval prolongation by itself is sufficient to predict TdP. Future research needs to improve its precision and broaden its scope to better understand the factors that facilitate or attenuate progression of drug-associated QTc interval prolongation to TdP.

Critical review of antipsychotic polypharmacy in the treatment of schizophrenia

Antipsychotic polypharmacy remains prevalent; it has probably increased for the treatment of schizophrenia in real-world clinical settings. The current evidence suggests some clinical benefits of antipsychotic polypharmacy, such as better symptom control with clozapine plus another antipsychotic, and a reversal of metabolic side-effects with a concomitant use of aripiprazole. On the other hand, the interpretation of findings in the literature should be made conservatively in light of the paucity of good studies and potentially serious side-effects. Also, although the available data are still limited, two smaller-scale clinical trials provide preliminary evidence that converting antipsychotic polypharmacy to monotherapy could be a valid and reasonable treatment option. Several studies have explored strategies to change physicians' antipsychotic polypharmacy prescribing behaviours. These have revealed that, while the impact of purely educational interventions may be limited, more aggressive procedures such as directly notifying physicians by letters or phone calls can be more effective in reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy. In conclusion, antipsychotic polypharmacy can work for some clinically difficult conditions; however, it should be the exception rather than the rule and may be avoidable in many patients. More importantly, the paucity of the data clearly emphasizes the need for further investigations on not only advantages and disadvantages of antipsychotic polypharmacy, but also regarding effective interventions in already prescribed polypharmacy regimens.

The effects of novel and newly approved antipsychotics on serum prolactin levels: a comprehensive review

Since the 1970s, clinicians have increasingly become more familiar with hyperprolactinemia (HPRL) as a common adverse effect of antipsychotic medication, which remains the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment for patients with schizophrenia. Although treatment with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a group is, compared with use of the first-generation antipsychotics, associated with lower prolactin (PRL) plasma levels, the detailed effects on plasma PRL levels for each of these compounds in reports often remain incomplete or inaccurate. Moreover, at this moment, no review has been published about the effect of the newly approved antipsychotics asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone on PRL levels. The objective of this review is to describe PRL physiology; PRL measurement; diagnosis, causes, consequences and mechanisms of HPRL; incidence figures of (new-onset) HPRL with SGAs and newly approved antipsychotics in adolescent and adult patients; and revisit lingering questions regarding this hormone. A literature search, using the MEDLINE database (1966-December 2013), was conducted to identify relevant publications to report on the state of the art of HPRL and to summarize the available evidence with respect to the propensity of the SGAs and the newly approved antipsychotics to elevate PRL levels. Our review shows that although HPRL usually is defined as a sustained level of PRL above the laboratory upper limit of normal, limit values show some degree of variability in clinical reports, making the interpretation and comparison of data across studies difficult. Moreover, many reports do not provide much or any data detailing the measurement of PRL. Although the highest rates of HPRL are consistently reported in association with amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone, while aripiprazole and quetiapine have the most favorable profile with respect to this outcome, all SGAs can induce PRL elevations, especially at the beginning of treatment, and have the potential to cause new-onset HPRL. Considering the PRL-elevating propensity of the newly approved antipsychotics, evidence seems to indicate these agents have a PRL profile comparable to that of clozapine (asenapine and iloperidone), ziprasidone and olanzapine (lurasidone). PRL elevations with antipsychotic medication generally are dose dependant. However, antipsychotics having a high potential for PRL elevation (amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone) can have a profound impact on PRL levels even at relatively low doses, while PRL levels with antipsychotics having a minimal effect on PRL, in most cases, can remain unchanged (quetiapine) or reduce (aripiprazole) over all dosages. Although tolerance and decreases in PRL values after long-term administration of PRL-elevating antipsychotics can occur, the elevations, in most cases, remain above the upper limit of normal. PRL profiles of antipsychotics in children and adolescents seem to be the same as in adults. The hyperprolactinemic effects of antipsychotic medication are mostly correlated with their affinity for dopamine D2 receptors at the level of the anterior pituitary lactotrophs (and probably other neurotransmitter mechanisms) and their blood-brain barrier penetrating capability. Even though antipsychotics are the most common cause of pharmacologically induced HPRL, recent research has shown that HPRL can be pre-existing in a substantial portion of antipsychotic-naïve patients with first-episode psychosis or at-risk mental state.

Ziprasidone as Adjunctive Therapy in Severe Bipolar Patients Treated with Clozapine

Aim. To confirm the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone as adjunctive therapy in bipolar patients partially responding to clozapine or with persisting negative symptoms, overweight, or with metabolic syndrome. Methods. Eight patients with psychotic bipolar disorder were tested with the BPRS, the HAM-D, and the CGI at T0 and retested after 2 weeks (T1). Plasma clozapine and norclozapine levels and BMI were tested at T0 and T1. Results. Ziprasidone was well tolerated by all the patients. BPRS and HAM-D scores were reduced in all patients. BMI was reduced in patients with a BMI at T0 higher than 25. Plasma levels of clozapine and norclozapine showed an irregular course.

Augmentation of clozapine with ziprasidone in refractory schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The present 16-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was aimed to explore the efficacy of ziprasidone add-on pharmacotherapy on clinical symptoms and cognitive functioning in 40 schizophrenic patients (active group, n = 20; placebo group, n = 20) with residual symptoms (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale mean [SD] baseline total score in active group vs placebo, 40.4 [5.9] vs 37.9 [6.8]) despite receiving clozapine monotherapy at the highest tolerated dosage. The results obtained evidenced that ziprasidone augmentation of clozapine significantly reduced Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale "Negative" (P = 0.006, mean change [SD] in active group vs placebo, -2.7 [2.3] vs 1.1 [2.1], Cohen d = 1.7) and "General Psychopathology" (P = 0.009, mean change [SD] in active group vs placebo, -5.3 [3.8] vs -0.7 [2.0], Cohen d = 1.5). Regarding cognitive domains, ziprasidone was more effective than placebo in improving semantic fluency (P < 0.0001, mean change [SD] in active group vs placebo, 4.4 [3.5] vs -0.1 [4.1], Cohen d = 1.2). Ziprasidone had only a small effect on prolongation of heart-rate corrected QT interval (QTc) of the electrocardiogram, not significantly different from placebo (QTc milliseconds, mean [SD], week 16 in active group vs placebo, 408.17 [20.85] vs 405.45 [17.11], P = 0.321); within-group comparison revealed that QTc prolongation induced by ziprasidone was statistically significant (baseline vs week 16, P = 0.002). Ziprasidone added to clozapine was effective on negative and cognitive symptoms, although it may be proposed as a helpful treatment in schizophrenia, mainly for those patients who partially respond to clozapine monotherapy.

Intracellular pathways of antipsychotic combined therapies: implication for psychiatric disorders treatment

Dysfunctions in the interplay among multiple neurotransmitter systems have been implicated in the wide range of behavioral, emotional and cognitive symptoms displayed by major psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression. The complex clinical presentation of these pathologies often needs the use of multiple pharmacological treatments, in particular (1) when monotherapy provides insufficient improvement of the core symptoms; (2) when there are concurrent additional symptoms requiring more than one class of medication and (3) in order to improve tolerability, by using two compounds below their individual dose thresholds to limit side effects. To date, the choice of drug combinations is based on empirical paradigm guided by clinical response. Nonetheless, several preclinical studies have demonstrated that drugs commonly used to treat psychiatric disorders may impact common intracellular target molecules (e.g. Akt/GSK-3 pathway, MAP kinases pathway, postsynaptic density proteins). These findings support the hypothesis that convergence at crucial steps of transductional pathways could be responsible for synergistic effects obtained in clinical practice by the co-administration of those apparently heterogeneous pharmacological compounds. Here we review the most recent evidence on the molecular crossroads in antipsychotic combined therapies with antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines, as well as with antipsychotics. We first discuss clinical clues and efficacy of such combinations. Then we focus on the pharmacodynamics and on the intracellular pathways underpinning the synergistic, or concurrent, effects of each therapeutic add-on strategy, as well as we also critically appraise how pharmacological research may provide new insights on the putative molecular mechanisms underlying major psychiatric disorders.

Comparative effectiveness of switching antipsychotic drug treatment to aripiprazole or ziprasidone for improving metabolic profile and atherogenic dyslipidemia: a 12-month, prospective, open-label study

We studied the effects of switching antipsychotic drug-treated patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder who evidenced adverse metabolic side effects as indicated by a triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein ratio (TG/HDL) ≥ 3.5 to aripiprazole (ARIP; 5-30 mg/day, n = 24) or ziprasidone (ZIP; 40-160 mg/day, n = 28). Anthropometric and metabolic measures, psychopathology, quality of life and motor adverse effects were assessed over a 52-week period with evaluations at baseline, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. There were statistically significant improvements in body weight, body mass index (BMI), TG, HDL and TG/HDL which did not differ between treatments. However, numerous secondary measures including weight and BMI, and the proportion of patients who lost ≥ 7% or who no longer met criteria for obesity, favored ZIP over ARIP. Decreases in total cholesterol and increases in HDL-cholesterol also favored ZIP. On the other hand, decreases in TG/HDL ratio and reduction in HgbA1c favored ARIP. There were no significant time or group × time interaction effects for most psychopathology measures; however, Global Assessment of Functioning Scores favored ARIP at 6 and 12 months. We conclude that switching patients with evidence of metabolic side effects to either ARIP or ZIP may be beneficial for some, but not all metabolic measures, with minimal risk of worsening of psychopathology and possibly some benefit in that regard as well.

Safety and tolerability of antipsychotic polypharmacy

INTRODUCTION

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP), the concomitant use of ≥ 2 antipsychotics, is common in clinical practice. Prior reviews have focused on the efficacy of APP, but no systematic review exists regarding the safety and tolerability of this practice.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review of adverse effects associated with APP was conducted to prepare this review; case series with ≥ 2 patients, chart reviews, naturalistic, database, cohort and randomized studies that reported on the association between APP in general or specific APP combinations and global or specific adverse effect were included. Methodological limitations of available studies are discussed and recommendations for clinicians and future research are provided.

EXPERT OPINION

Across mostly small and uncontrolled studies, APP has been associated with increased global side effect burden, rates of Parkinsonian side effects, anticholinergic use, hyperprolactinemia, sexual dysfunction, hypersalivation, sedation/somnolence, cognitive impairment and diabetes. Effects on akathisia and mortality were inconclusive. Although some combinations, particularly aripiprazole augmentation of an agent with greater side effect burden, may reduce weight gain, dyslipidemia, hyperprolactinemia and sexual dysfunction, APP should remain a last-resort treatment option after monotherapy, switching and non-antipsychotic combinations have failed. More data are needed to further inform the individualized risk-benefit evaluation of APP.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy: a needle in a haystack?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to assess the antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) prevalence in a psychiatric hospital and to find the supporting evidence for the 10 most prescribed two-drug combinations. Secondarily, how many included clozapine, prevalence in the elderly, high dosage and clinically relevant interactions were also assessed.

METHOD

Clinicodemographic and computerized prescription data on 29th March 2011 were collected. High dosage was defined as more than 1000 mg of chlorpromazine equivalents (CPZeqs). A t test for unpaired measures was applied to compare means of dosage (CPZeq) and age among patients on APP vs. monotherapy. The χ(2) test was applied to compare proportions of patients on a high dose on APP vs. monotherapy. GraphPad Prism 5 software was used to perform statistical analysis.

RESULTS

From 201 patients admitted on 29th March, 172 had any antipsychotic prescription. APP prevalence was 47.1%, corresponding almost to 24% of elderly patients. Quetiapine was the drug most prescribed in combination, achieving a prevalence rate of 56.8%. Clozapine was not included in 67% of all combinations. Supporting evidence for two-drug combinations was only found for 6 of the 10 most prescribed. Relevant interactions were found in 12 patients on APP. The mean CPZeq dose and percentage of patients on high dosage were significantly higher in the APP than in the monotherapy group (1162±776.1 mg vs. 455.4±369.3 mg; 54% vs. 9%, respectively; P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that APP was being considered earlier in the management plan than what guidelines recommend. This practice was associated with higher total antipsychotic doses. Until further clinical trials are available, a wise APP practice will require a thoughtful choice of products guided by patient's prior history and interaction liability, a proper consent by the patients or their representatives and a careful monitoring of clinical outcomes and emerging side effects in order to avoid indefinite administration of ineffective and potentially harmful combinations.

Is rational antipsychotic polytherapy feasible? A selective review

Antipsychotic polytherapy (APT) has evolved as a common treatment strategy at odds with recommendations from schizophrenia treatment guidelines. The literature on combinations with clozapine as a means to enhance efficacy and with aripiprazole to reduce side effects was reviewed. No solid evidence supporting antipsychotic combinations with clozapine for treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia was identified. The reason for this may be that most combinations with clozapine increase the D(2)-receptor blockade, and this strategy is probably not efficient for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Some basic and clinical evidence for the addition of aripiprazole to lower prolactin levels was identified. In conclusion, there is very limited support in the evidence for the feasibility of rational APT.

Clozapine resistance: augmentation strategies

BACKGROUND

Clozapine (CLZ) is not effective in more than 50% of treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients. In these cases, several pharmacological strategies are used in clinical practice, with different levels of evidence for both safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

In the present paper we critically reviewed literature data regarding the efficacy and safety of adjunctive agents in CLZ-resistant schizophrenics. The following classes of agents were considered: 1) antipsychotics, 2) antidepressants, 3) mood stabilizers, 4) other agents (e.g. fatty acid supplement and glutamatergic agents), 5) electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). For lamotrigine and risperidone sufficient data were available to perform a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A Medline literature search covering a 20-year period was performed. For the meta-analysis, data were entered and analyzed with the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager Software (RevMan version 5).

RESULTS

62 pertinent studies were identified, including 1556 schizophrenic or schizoaffective patients. Among treatments investigated, there is evidence for CLZ augmentation with 1) amisulpride and aripiprazole, 2) mirtazapine and 3) ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid (E-EPA). Although promising, ECT augmentation needs further validation. The meta-analyses did not support either the use of risperidone or lamotrigine as CLZ adjunct.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there is scarce evidence of efficacy and safety as regards adjunctive strategies for CLZ-resistant patients. However, several limitations do not allow to draw any definitive conclusion; among these we underline the small sample size of clinical trials, the variable definitions of CLZ resistance, the heterogeneity of outcome measures and methodological designs.

Treatment-resistant Schizophrenia: Evidence-based Strategies

Treatment-resistant symptoms complicate the clinical course of schizophrenia, and a large proportion of patients do not reach functional recovery. In consequence, polypharmacy is frequently used in treatment-refractory cases, addressing psychotic positive, negative and cognitive symptoms, treatment-emergent side effects caused by antipsychotics and comorbid depressive or obsessive-compulsive symptoms. To a large extent, such strategies are not covered by pharmacological guidelines which strongly suggest antipsychotic monotherapy. Add-on strategies comprise combinations of several antipsychotic agents and augmentations with mood stabilizers; moreover, antidepressants and experimental substances are applied. Based on the accumulated evidence of clinical trials and meta-analyses, combinations of clozapine with certain second-generation antipsychotic agents and the augmentation of antipsychotics with antidepressants seem recommendable, while the augmentation with mood stabilizers cannot be considered superior to placebo. Forthcoming investigations will have to focus on innovative pharmacological agents, the clinical spectrum of cognitive deficits and the implementation of cognitive behavioral therapy.

Pharmacotherapy for treatment-refractory schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

despite advances in pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, a large percentage of persons with schizophrenia remain at least partially nonresponsive to treatment, leading to increased morbidity/mortality, increased healthcare cost, and poor quality of life for affected individuals.

AREAS COVERED

this paper comprises a review of recent research in drug therapy for schizophrenia, particularly treatment-refractory schizophrenia, with a focus on research conducted between 2005 and June 2010. Databases that were searched include: Pubmed, CINAHL, Science Direct, Medline and Clinical Trials.gov. Primary search terms were 'treatment-refractory schizophrenia' and 'treatment-resistant schizophrenia', with cross reference to specific agents covered in this article. An objective perspective on current trends in pharmacotherapy for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. We review the available evidence and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of published data in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

although there have been many advances in pharmacotherapy for schizophrenia, more well-designed trials are required to establish true efficacy and safety of current prescribing trends in clinical practice.

Effect of aripiprazole augmentation of clozapine in schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The simultaneous prescription of two or more antipsychotic drugs in combination is a common treatment strategy for those patients who have demonstrated a suboptimal response to clozapine; nevertheless, evidence suggesting potential advantages of combination treatment with clozapine plus one antipsychotic in terms of efficacy and tolerability are still sparse. The present 24-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive aripiprazole to clozapine therapy in schizophrenia was aimed to explore the efficacy of aripiprazole add-on pharmacotherapy on clinical symptomatology and cognitive functioning in a sample of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia receiving clozapine. After clinical and neurocognitive assessments patients were randomly allocated to receive, in a double-blind design, either up to 15 mg/day of aripiprazole or a placebo. A final sample of thirty-one patients completed the study. The results obtained indicate that aripiprazole added to stable clozapine treatment showed a beneficial effect on the positive and general psychopathological symptomatology in a sample of treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients. Regarding executive cognitive functions, aripiprazole augmentation of clozapine had no significant effects. The findings provide evidence that aripiprazole augmentation of clozapine treatment is well-tolerated and may be of benefit for patients who are partially responsive to clozapine monotherapy; further double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in a larger number of patients are required to evaluate the therapeutic potential of aripiprazole augmentation of clozapine.

Ziprasidone hydrocloride: what role in the management of schizophrenia?

Background

Since schizophrenia is considered one of the top ten causes of disease-related disability in the world, the development of second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics (SGAs) has increased the hopes of psychiatrists. SGAs, however, cannot be considered a unique pharmacological class since each SGA has many complex pharmacologic actions, only some of which are shared with other SGAs. Even though manyantipsychotics have similar efficacy on average, prescribers may be able to achieve better than average results by considering differences in selecting a specific drug for a specific patient. Clinicians know that each patient is unique. In order to achieve best outcomes for the individual patient, the better therapy is the therapy tailored for the single patient.

Objectives

With this article, we provide information on a relatively new antipsychotic ziprasidone released in 2001 by Pfizer for the treatment of schizophrenia. Compared with other first line atypical antipsychotics ziprasidone has a unique profile due to potent interaction with serotonergic receptors and lesser action upon α1 adrenergic, H1 and M1 antagonist activities. This paper describes the development of ziprasidone, its unique properties and its metabolically-friendly profile including its receptor binding affinities, pharmacokinetics, CNS activity results of clinical efficacy and relevant clinical trials. Safety, efficacy and patient preference are also examined. The available literature on ziprasidone of the last five years is reviewed.

Double-blind comparison of ziprasidone and risperidone in the treatment of Chinese patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ziprasidone versus risperidone in Chinese subjects with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

METHODS

In patients meeting the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders criteria for schizophrenia and with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score ≥60 were randomly assigned to six weeks of double-blind treatment with ziprasidone 40-80 mg twice daily or risperidone 1-3 mg bid, flexibly dosed. Noninferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in PANSS total score improvement from baseline in the evaluable population was smaller than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 units.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population comprised 118 ziprasidone-treated and 121 risperidone-treated subjects. Improvement (reduction) from baseline to week 6 in PANSS total score was (-35.6 [95% CI: -38.6, -32.6]) for ziprasidone and (-37.1 [95% CI: -39.9, -34.4]) for risperidone. Noninferiority was demonstrated in the evaluable population with a difference score of 1.5 [95% CI: -2.5, 5.5]. Mean prolactin levels decreased at week 6 compared with baseline for ziprasidone (-3.5 ng/mL), but significantly increased for risperidone (61.1 ng/mL; P < 0.001). More risperidone-treated subjects (14.9%) than ziprasidone-treated subjects (4.2%) reported weight gain ≥7%. Akathisia and somnolence in the ziprasidone group and akathisia and insomnia in the risperidone group were the most common side effects. Treatment-related/treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 79.7% and 71.1% of ziprasidone-treated and risperidone-treated subjects, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In Chinese subjects, ziprasidone was as effective as risperidone, with less weight gain and less prolactin elevation.

[Polypharmacy in schizophrenia]

BACKGROUND

While most guidelines recommend monotherapy with second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) in schizophrenia, the combined application of multiple psychotropic agents is very common, especially in treatment-refractory cases.

METHODS

This review summarizes the evidence of combined antipsychotic treatment strategies and the augmentation of antipsychotics with mood stabilizers, antidepressants and experimental substances, based on publications accessible in public databases (Medline/Ovid, Google, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) up to October 2009.

RESULTS

Polypharmacy aims to address several aspects of treatment resistance and side effects of antipsychotics. Some evidence supports the augmentation of antipsychotics with antidepressants for negative symptoms and comorbid major depressive episodes. The add-on of lithium and mood stabilizers lacks compelling evidence but might be beneficial for specific subgroups. For treatment-resistant cognitive symptoms, cognitive re-mediation seems most promising as no pharmacological add-on strategy has gained convincing evidence so far. Acute dystonic movements should be treated with anticholinergic agents while agitation and anxiety might respond to short-term application of benzodiazepines. Treatment-resistant positive and/or negative symptoms should primarily lead to clozapine monotherapy; the add-on of a second SGA may be considered in single cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, rigorous data on combination therapy in schizophrenia are rare, and further randomized controlled trials (RCT), naturalistic and head-to-head-studies are necessary.

Polypharmacy in schizophrenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although most guidelines recommend monotherapy in schizophrenia, the combined application of multiple psychotropic agents is very common, especially in treatment-refractory cases. We review the empirical basis supporting these attempts and their relevance for clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Polypharmacy intends to address different aspects of treatment resistance, most importantly insufficient response of psychotic positive and negative symptoms, but also cognitive disturbances, affective comorbidity, obsessive-compulsive syndromes and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs. This review summarizes the current state of evidence of combined antipsychotic treatment strategies and the augmentation of antipsychotics with mood stabilizers, antidepressants and experimental substances.

SUMMARY

In general, rigorous data on combination therapy in schizophrenia are rare and further randomized controlled trials, naturalistic trials and head-to-head-trials are necessary. Some evidence supports a combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants for negative symptoms and comorbid major depressive episodes. The add-on of lithium and mood stabilizers lacks compelling evidence, but might be beneficial for specific subgroups. For treatment-resistant cognitive symptoms, antipsychotic medication should be combined with cognitive remediation, as no pharmacological add-on strategy has gained convincing evidence so far. Treatment-emergent positive and/or negative symptoms under clozapine monotherapy might benefit from adding a second atypical substance.

Ziprasidone versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second generation ('atypical') antipsychotics have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether, and if so how much, the effects of the various new generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of ziprasidone compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialised Register (April 2007) and references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised, at least single-blind, controlled trials comparing oral ziprasidone with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (MD) for dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 3361 participants. The overall rate of premature study discontinuation was very high (59.1%). Data for the comparisons of ziprasidone with amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone were available. Ziprasidone was a less acceptable treatment than olanzapine (leaving the studies early for any reason: 5 RCTs, n=1937, RR 1.26 CI 1.18 to 1.35, NNH 7 CI 5 to 10) and risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1029, RR 1.11 CI 1.02 to 1.20, NNH 14 CI 8 to 50), but not than the other second generation antipsychotic drugs. Ziprasidone was less efficacious than amisulpride (leaving the study early due to inefficacy: 1 RCT, n=123, RR 4.72 CI 1.06 to 20.98, NNH 8 CI 5 to 50) olanzapine (PANSS total score: 4 RCTs, n=1291, MD 8.32 CI 5.64 to 10.99) and risperidone (PANSS total score: 3 RCTs, n=1016, MD 3.91 CI 0.27 to 7.55). Based on limited data there were no significant differences in tolerability between ziprasidone and amisulpride or clozapine. Ziprasidone produced less weight gain than olanzapine (5 RCTs, n=1659, MD -3.82 CI -4.69 to -2.96), quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, RR 0.45 CI 0.28 to 0.74) or risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1063, RR 0.49 CI 0.33 to 0.74). It was associated with less cholesterol increase than olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone. Conversely ziprasidone produced slightly more extrapyramidal side-effects than olanzapine (4 RCTs, n=1732, RR 1.43 CI 1.03 to 1.99, NNH not estimable) and more prolactin increase than quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, MD 4.77 CI 1.37 to 8.16), but less movement disorders (2 RCTs, n=822, RR 0.70 CI 0.51 to 0.97, NNT not estimable) and less prolactin increase (2 RCTs, n=767, MD -21.97 CI -27.34 to -16.60) than risperidone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ziprasidone may be a slightly less efficacious antipsychotic drug than amisulpride, olanzapine and risperidone. Its main advantage is the low propensity to induce weight gain and associated adverse effects. However, the high overall rate of participants leaving the studies early limits the validity of any findings.

Clozapine combined with different antipsychotic drugs for treatment resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Although clozapine has been shown to be the treatment of choice in people with schizophrenia that are resistant to treatment, one third to two thirds of people still have persistent positive symptoms despite clozapine monotherapy of adequate dosage and duration. The need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine is the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination with clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotics in people with treatment resistant schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2008) and MEDLINE (up to November 2008). We checked reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials and requested pharmaceutical companies marketing investigational products to provide relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreement by discussion with third member of the team. When insufficient data were provided, we contacted the study authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Three small (range of number of participants 28 to 60) randomised controlled trials were included in the review. Even though results from individual studies did not find that one combination strategy is better than the others, the methodological quality of included studies was too low to allow authors to use the collected data to answer the research question correctly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review we considered the risk of bias too high because of the poor quality of the retrieved information (small sample size, heterogeneity of comparisons, flaws in the design, conduct and analysis). Although clinical guidelines recommend a second antipsychotic in addition to clozapine in partially responsive patients with schizophrenia, the present systematic review was not able to show if any particular combination strategy was superior to the others. New, properly conducted, randomised controlled trials independent from the pharmaceutical industry need to recruit many more patients to give a reliable estimate of effect or of no effect of antipsychotics as combination treatment with clozapine in patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine monotherapy.

Rationale and design of an independent randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of aripiprazole or haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

One third to two thirds of people with schizophrenia have persistent psychotic symptoms despite clozapine treatment. Under real-world circumstances, the need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine has been cited as the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination treatment strategies. In a clinical area where the pressing need of providing therapeutic answers has progressively increased the occurrence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, despite the lack of robust evidence of its efficacy, we sought to implement a pre-planned protocol where two alternative therapeutic answers are systematically provided and evaluated within the context of a pragmatic, multicentre, independent randomised study.

METHODS/DESIGN

The principal clinical question to be answered by the present project is the relative efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole compared with combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with an incomplete response to treatment with clozapine over an appropriate period of time. This project is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial that follow patients over a period of 12 months. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months is the primary outcome.

DISCUSSION

The implementation of the protocol presented here shows that it is possible to create a network of community psychiatric services that accept the idea of using their everyday clinical practice to produce randomised knowledge. The employed pragmatic attitude allowed to randomly allocate more than 100 individuals, which means that this study is the largest antipsychotic combination trial conducted so far in Western countries. We expect that the current project, by generating evidence on whether it is clinically useful to combine clozapine with aripiprazole rather than with haloperidol, provides physicians with a solid evidence base to be directly applied in the routine care of patients with schizophrenia.