Does a four-week delay in the introduction of medication alter the course of functional psychosis?

Effects of risperidone/paliperidone versus placebo on cognitive functioning over the first 6 months of treatment for psychotic disorder: secondary analysis of a triple-blind randomised clinical trial

The drivers of cognitive change following first-episode psychosis remain poorly understood. Evidence regarding the role of antipsychotic medication is primarily based on naturalistic studies or clinical trials without a placebo arm, making it difficult to disentangle illness from medication effects. A secondary analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial, where antipsychotic-naive patients with first-episode psychotic disorder were allocated to receive risperidone/paliperidone or matched placebo plus intensive psychosocial therapy for 6 months was conducted. A healthy control group was also recruited. A cognitive battery was administered at baseline and 6 months. Intention-to-treat analysis involved 76 patients (antipsychotic medication group: 37; 18.6_Mage [2.9] years; 21 women; placebo group: 39; 18.3_Mage [2.7]; 22 women); and 42 healthy controls (19.2_Mage [3.0] years; 28 women). Cognitive performance predominantly remained stable (working memory, verbal fluency) or improved (attention, processing speed, cognitive control), with no group-by-time interaction evident. However, a significant group-by-time interaction was observed for immediate recall (p = 0.023), verbal learning (p = 0.024) and delayed recall (p = 0.005). The medication group declined whereas the placebo group improved on each measure (immediate recall: p = 0.024; η_p² = 0.062; verbal learning: p = 0.015; η_p² = 0.072 both medium effects; delayed recall: p = 0.001; η_p² = 0.123 large effect). The rate of change for the placebo and healthy control groups was similar. Per protocol analysis (placebo n = 16, medication n = 11) produced similar findings. Risperidone/paliperidone may worsen verbal learning and memory in the early months of psychosis treatment. Replication of this finding and examination of various antipsychotic agents are needed in confirmatory trials. Antipsychotic effects should be considered in longitudinal studies of cognition in psychosis.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.anzctr.org.au/ ; ACTRN12607000608460).

Psychosocial Intervention With or Without Antipsychotic Medication for First-Episode Psychosis: A Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

This triple-blind (participants, clinicians, and researchers) randomized controlled noninferiority trial examined whether intensive psychosocial intervention (cognitive-behavioral case management, CBCM) for first-episode psychosis (FEP) in 15–25 year-olds managed in a specialized early intervention for psychosis service was noninferior to usual treatment of antipsychotic medication plus CBCM delivered during the first 6 months of treatment. To maximize safety, participants were required to have low levels of suicidality and aggression, a duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) of less than 6 months, and be living in stable accommodation with social support. The primary outcome was level of functioning as assessed by the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS) at 6 months. Ninety young people were randomized by computer, 46 to placebo, and 44 antipsychotic medication and 33% of those who commenced trial medication completed the entire 6-month trial period. On the SOFAS, both groups improved, and group differences were small and clinically trivial, indicating that treatment with placebo medication was no less effective than conventional antipsychotic treatment (mean difference = −0.2, 2-sided 95% confidence interval = −7.5 to 7.0, t = 0.060, P = .95). Within the context of a specialized early intervention service, and with a short DUP, the immediate introduction of antipsychotic medication may not be required for all cases of FEP in order to see functional improvement. However, this finding can only be generalized to a very small proportion of FEP cases at this stage, and a larger trial is required to clarify whether antipsychotic-free treatment can be recommended for specific subgroups of those with FEP.

Trial Registration: ACTRN12607000608460 (www.anzctr.org.au).

Staged treatment and acceptability guidelines in early psychosis study (STAGES): A randomized placebo controlled trial of intensive psychosocial treatment plus or minus antipsychotic medication for first-episode psychosis with low-risk of self-harm or aggression. Study protocol and baseline characteristics of participants

AIM

It is now necessary to investigate whether recovery in psychosis is possible without the use of antipsychotic medication. This study will determine (1) whether a first-episode psychosis (FEP) group receiving intensive psychosocial interventions alone can achieve symptomatic remission and functional recovery; (2) whether prolonging the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) in a sub-group according to randomisation will be associated with a poorer outcome and thereby establish whether the relationship between DUP and outcome is causative; and (3) whether neurobiological changes observed in FEP are associated with the psychotic disorder or antipsychotic medication. Baseline characteristics of participants will be presented.

METHODS

This study is a triple-blind randomized placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial. The primary outcome is the level of functioning measured by the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale at 6 months. This study is being conducted at the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre, Melbourne and includes young people aged 15 to 24 years with a DSM-IV psychotic disorder, a DUP less than 6 months and not high risk for suicide or harm to others. Strict discontinuation criteria are being applied. Participants are also undergoing three 3-Tesla-MRI scans.

RESULTS

Ninety participants have been recruited and baseline characteristics are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Staged treatment and acceptability guidelines in early psychosis will determine whether antipsychotic medications are indicated in all young people with a FEP and whether antipsychotic medication can be safely delayed. Furthermore, the relative contribution of psychotic illness and antipsychotic medication in terms of structural brain changes will also be elucidated. The findings will inform clinical practice guidelines.

Lithium for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary anti-psychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them lithium.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether:1. Lithium alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia, schizophrenia-like psychoses and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. Lithium augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. This search was updated on January 20, 2015. For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies to identify further trials and obtain original participant data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lithium compared with antipsychotics or placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication, in the treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

The update search in 2012 detected two further studies that met our inclusion criteria. We did not find any further studies that met our inclusion criteria in the 2015 search. This review now includes 22 studies, with a total of 763 participants (median mean age: 35 years, range: 26 to 72 years). Most studies were small, of short duration, and incompletely reported. As we detected a high risk of bias in many studies, the overall methodological quality of the included sample was rather low.Three small studies comparing lithium with placebo as the sole treatment showed no difference in any of the outcomes we analysed.In eight studies comparing lithium with antipsychotic drugs as the sole treatment, more participants in the lithium group left the studies early (eight RCTs; n = 270, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.11, low quality evidence).Thirteen studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotic drugs with lithium salts is more effective than antipsychotic drugs alone. More participants who received lithium augmentation had a clinically significant response (10 RCTs; n = 396, RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.97, low quality evidence). However, this effect became non-significant when we excluded participants with schizoaffective disorders in a sensitivity analysis (seven RCTs; n = 272, RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.81), when we excluded non-double-blind studies (seven RCTs; n = 224, RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.96), or when we excluded studies with high attrition (nine RCTs; n = 355, RR 1.67, CI 0.93 to 3.00). The overall acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the studies early) was not significantly different between groups (11 RCTs; n = 320, RR 1.89, CI 0.93 to 3.84, very low quality evidence). Few studies reported on side effects. There were no significant differences, but the database is too limited to make any judgement in this regard. For example, there were no data on thyroid dysfunction and kidney problems - two major and well-known side effects of lithium.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for the use of lithium in schizophrenia is limited to 22 studies of overall low methodological quality. There is no randomised trial-based evidence that lithium on its own is an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. There is some GRADE low quality evidence that augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium is effective, but the effects are not significant when more prone-to-bias open RCTs are excluded. Nevertheless, further large and well-designed trials are justified. These should concentrate on two target groups: (1) people with no affective symptoms, so that trialists can determine whether lithium has an effect on the core symptoms of schizophrenia, and (2) people with schizoaffective disorders for whom lithium is widely used in clinical practice, although there is no evidence to support this use.

Antipsychotic medication for early episode schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications in early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders is common, but both short and long-term effects on the illness are unclear. There have been numerous suggestions that people with early episodes of schizophrenia appear to respond differently than those with multiple prior episodes. The number of episodes may moderate response to drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antipsychotic medication treatment on people with early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register (July 2007) as well as references of included studies. We contacted authors of studies for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies with a majority of first and second episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders comparing initial antipsychotic medication treatment with placebo, milieu, or psychosocial treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we critically appraised records from 681studies, of which five studies met inclusion criteria. John Rathbone from the Schizophrenia Group supported us with the data extraction. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD). We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies with a combined N = 998 met inclusion criteria. Four studies (N = 724) provided leaving the study early data and results suggested that individuals treated with a typical antipsychotic medication are less likely to leave the study early than those treated with placebo (Chlorpromazine: 3 RCTs N = 353, RR 0.4 CI 0.3 to 0.5, NNT 3.2, Fluphenaxine: 1 RCT N = 240, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNT 5; Thioridazine: 1 RCT N = 236, RR 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 4.3, Trifulperazine: 1 RCT N = 94, RR 0.96 CI 0.3 to 3.6). Two studies (Cole 1964; May 1976) contributed data to assessment of side effects and present a general pattern of more frequent side effects among individuals treated with typical antipsychotic medications compared to placebo. Rappaport 1978 suggested a higher rehospitalisation rate for those receiving chlorpromazine compared to placebo (N = 80, RR 2.29 CI 1.3 to 4.0, NNH 2.9). However, a higher attrition in the placebo group is likely to have introduced a survivor bias into this comparison, as this difference becomes non-significant in a sensitivity analysis on intent-to-treat participants (N = 127, RR 1.69 CI 0.9 to 3.0). One study (May 1976) contributes data to a comparison of trifluoperazine to psychotherapy on long-term health in favour of the trifluoperazine group (N = 92, MD 5.8 CI 1.6 to 0.0); however, data from this study are also likely to contain biases due to selection and attrition. One study (Mosher 1995) contributes data to a comparison of typical antipsychotic medication to psychosocial treatment on six-week outcome measures of global psychopathology (N = 89, MD 0.01 CI -0.6 to 0.6) and global improvement (N = 89, MD -0.03 CI -0.5 to 0.4), indicating no between-group differences. On the whole, there is very little useable data in the few studies meeting inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only a few studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited useable data in these studies, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that people with early episode schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotic medications are less likely to leave the study early, but more likely to experience medication-related side effects. Data are too sparse to assess the effects of antipsychotic medication on outcomes in early episode schizophrenia.

Who needs antipsychotic medication in the earliest stages of psychosis? A reconsideration of benefits, risks, neurobiology and ethics in the era of early intervention

In recent years, early intervention services have attempted to identify people with a first episode of psychosis as early as possible, reducing the duration of untreated psychosis and changing the timing of delivery of interventions. The logic of early intervention is based partly on accessing people in a more treatment responsive stage of illness in which psychosocial damage is less extensive, and partly on remediating a putatively active process of neuroprogression that leads to pathophysiological, symptomatic and structural changes, hence improving symptomatic and functional outcomes. However, as in other areas of health care, earlier identification of new patients may mean that different treatment approaches are indicated. The corollary of early detection is that the sequence and complexion of treatment strategies for first episode psychosis has been revaluated. Examples include the minimal effective dosage of antipsychotic medication and the content of psychosocial interventions. With the substantial reductions of DUP now seen in many early psychosis services, based on clinical staging and stepped care principles, it is even possible that the immediate introduction of antipsychotic medication may not be necessary for all first episode psychosis cases, but that potentially safer interventions, which may be more acceptable to many patients, such as comprehensive psychosocial intervention, may constitute effective treatment at least for a subgroup of patients. In this paper, we review this theoretical background and describe a randomised controlled trial currently underway at the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) in Melbourne designed to test outcomes for first episode psychosis patients in response to two different treatments: intensive psychosocial intervention plus antipsychotic medication versus intensive psychosocial intervention plus placebo. This is a theoretically and pragmatically novel study in that it will provide evidence as to whether intensive psychosocial intervention alone is sufficient for a subgroup of first episode psychosis patients in a specialised early intervention service, and provide a test of the heuristic clinical staging model. By experimentally manipulating duration of untreated psychosis, the study will also provide a methodologically strong test of the effect of delaying the introduction of antipsychotic medication, as well as helping to disentangle the effects of antipsychotic medications and the putative neurobiological processes associated with brain changes and symptom profiles in the early phase of psychotic disorders. The study has been carefully crafted to satisfy critical ethical demands in this challenging research domain.

Medication-free research in early episode schizophrenia: evidence of long-term harm?

This study investigates the question of whether short periods of medication-free research in early episode schizophrenia result in demonstrable long-term harm to human subjects. A meta-analysis of published quasi-experimental and random assignment studies that had a majority of first- or second-episode schizophrenia spectrum subjects, at least 1 initially unmedicated group, and a minimum of 1-year results was conducted. Only 6 studies, with 623 subjects, met inclusion criteria. The initially unmedicated groups showed a small, statistically nonsignificant long-term advantage (r = -0.09). Incorporating only random assignment studies into a composite effect size produced a similar near-zero result (r = 0.01). Good-quality evidence is inadequate to support a conclusion of long-term harm resulting from short-term postponement of medication in early episode schizophrenia research. A categorical prohibition against such research should be reconsidered.

A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics

Today's researchers are obligated to conduct their studies ethically. However, it often seems a daunting task to become familiar with the important ethical codes required to do so. The purpose of this article is to examine the content of those ethical documents most relevant to the biomedical researcher. Documents examined include the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, Henry Beecher's landmark paper, the Belmont Report, the U.S. Common Rule, the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report on research protections for the mentally ill.

The impact of the duration of untreated psychosis prior to first psychiatric admission on the 15-year outcome in schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

There is a large amount of evidence to support the hypothesis that the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) prior to first psychiatric admission adversely affects acute treatment response and short-term outcome in schizophrenia. However, only few prospective studies have attempted to address a possible association between DUP and long-term outcome.

METHOD

Fifty-eight DSM-III-R schizophrenic patients were assessed at their first psychiatric admission and after a 15-year course of the illness. The 15-year outcome in different domains was compared between patients with different DUPs prior to the first psychiatric admission.

RESULTS

A longer DUP was associated with more pronounced negative, positive and general psychopathological symptoms as well as a lower global functioning 15 years after the first psychiatric admission, even after effects of other factors, possibly related to the long-term outcome, were controlled for.

CONCLUSIONS

The DUP prior to first psychiatric admission adversely affects the long-term outcome in schizophrenia. The findings underline the importance of establishing health service programs for early detection and treatment of schizophrenic patients with the aim to shorten the DUP and to consequently improve the course and outcome of schizophrenic patients.

Rationale for the study of early intervention

Consistent but relatively weak evidence exists that treating patients with schizophrenia early in the course of their illness can decrease long-term morbidity. Relatedly, it is possible that treating individuals even earlier might produce better results. The findings presented set the stage for early and even earlier formal intervention studies, where the potential benefits are thought to outweigh the potential risks.

Long-term outcome of patients who receive ketamine during research

BACKGROUND

To comprehend the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and to facilitate drug discovery, animal and human models of schizophrenia are necessary. Ketamine, a noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, has been used to probe glutamatergic function in normal and schizophrenic volunteers. These studies and others have provided data consistent with a putative involvement of a glutamatergic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia; however, these studies have also raised concerns about the distress inflicted on patients, the potential for adverse events, and the serious long-term effects that could possibly be induced by symptom-simulating action.

METHODS

For all patient volunteers (n = 30) who participated in these studies, we reviewed the acute safety during and in the immediate postketamine administration. Patients available for long-term follow-up (n = 25) were matched to a group of patients (n = 25) who participated in research but did not receive ketamine. We compared their long-term outcome in terms of psychopathology, the need for psychiatric care, and the amount of antipsychotic medication required for optimal therapeutic response.

RESULTS

There were no serious adverse events in more than 90 ketamine interviews. Distress to patients was minimal, which is shown by the lack of anxiety ratings. Over a mean follow-up period of 8 months, we found no differences between patients who did and did not receive ketamine on any measures of psychopathology, psychiatric care, or the amount of antipsychotic medication.

CONCLUSIONS

In a controlled environment and paying close attention to subject safety features, administering subanesthetic doses of ketamine causes no adverse events and little distress to schizophrenic volunteers. This study strongly indicates that administering ketamine does not change any aspect of the course of schizophrenic illness.

The schizophrenia ketamine challenge study debate

Protection of subjects in psychiatric research is an issue of considerable public and professional interest. Perhaps the most hotly debated issue concerns challenge study protocols where symptoms of illness are increased in a bioassay designed to gain knowledge of pathophysiology. Although widely used in biomedical research, the ethics of this application in mental illness research are contested. At issue is whether acute distress and lasting harm are caused without direct benefit in vulnerable subjects without valid informed consent. The ketamine challenge study in schizophrenia subjects is at the vortex of the current debate. This report presents background data on ketamine safety and a qualitative and quantitative analysis of data from all schizophrenia subjects in North American ketamine studies. Duration and severity of change in psychosis and anxiety, "worst case" experiences, and information on prolonged adverse effects are detailed. The vulnerable population and informed consent issue is discussed. Group results show that psychosis increase is mild to moderate and brief, anxiety is mild and brief, and no evidence of prolonged adverse effects is found. Few "worst case" incidents were identified, and these were clinically managed successfully in a short time period. Although more difficult to evaluate, informed consent procedures seem adequate, and consent was voluntary in subjects judged to have decisional capacity for this purpose and in circumstances where alternative clinical care could be freely chosen. The author concludes that ketamine challenge studies meet ethical standards, have been conducted without lasting adverse effects, that discomfort is modest and brief, and important new knowledge has been gained of potential benefit to the class from which subjects were drawn.