What Is the Place of Clozapine in the Treatment of Early Psychosis in Canada?

Lost in Translation: Challenges in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Early-Onset Schizophrenia

Early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) is a heterogeneous condition that has a serious, insidious clinical course and poor long-term mental health outcomes. The clinical presentations are highly complex due to the overlapping symptomatology with other illnesses, which contributes to a delay in the diagnosis. The objective of the review is to study if an earlier age of onset (AAO) of EOS has poor clinical outcomes, the diagnostic challenges of EOS, and effective treatment strategies. The review provides a comprehensive literature search of 5966 articles and summarizes 126 selected for empirical evidence to methodically consider challenges in diagnosing and treating EOS for practicing clinicians. The risk factors of EOS are unique but have been shared with many other neuropsychiatric illnesses. Most of the risk factors, including genetics and obstetric complications, are nonmodifiable. The role of early diagnosis in reducing the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) remains critical to reducing overall morbidity. Many specific issues contribute to the risk and clinical outcomes. Therefore, issues around diagnostic ambiguity, treatment resistance, nonadherence, and rehospitalizations further extend the DUP. There is hesitancy to initiate clozapine early, even though the empirical evidence strongly supports its use. There is a growing body of research that suggests the use of long-acting injectables to address nonadherence, and these measures are largely underutilized in acute settings. The clinical presentations of EOS are complex. In addition to the presence of specific risk factors, patients with an early onset of illness are also at a higher risk for treatment resistance. While there is a need to develop tools for early diagnosis, established evidence-based measures to address nonadherence, psychoeducation, and resistance must be incorporated into the treatment planning.

Clozapine rechallenge or continuation despite neutropenia or agranulocytosis using colony-stimulating factor: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Rechallenge/continuation of clozapine in association with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) following neutropenia/agranulocytosis has been reported, but many questions remain unanswered about efficacy and safety. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of rechallenging/continuing clozapine in patients following neutropenia/agranulocytosis using CSFs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception date to July 31, 2022. Articles screening and data extraction were realized independently by two reviewers, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 systematic review guidance. Included articles had to report on at least one case where clozapine was rechallenged/continued using CSFs despite previous neutropenia/agranulocytosis.

RESULTS

Eight hundred forty articles were retrieved; 34 articles met the inclusion criteria, totaling 59 individual cases. Clozapine was successfully rechallenged/continued in 76% of patients for an average follow-up period of 1.9 years. There was a trend toward better efficacy reported in case reports/series, compared with consecutive case series (overall success rates of 84% and 60%, respectively, p-value = 0.065). Two administration strategies were identified, "as-needed" and prophylactic, both yielding similar success rates (81% and 80%, respectively). Only mild and transient adverse events were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited by the relatively small number of published cases, factors such as time of onset to first neutropenia and severity of the episode did not seem to impact the outcome of a subsequent clozapine rechallenge using CSFs. While the efficacy of this strategy remains to be further adequately evaluated in more rigorous study designs, its long-term innocuity warrants considering its use more proactively in the management of clozapine hematological adverse events as to maintain this treatment for as many individuals as possible.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who recommence clozapine following therapy interruptions

OBJECTIVE

The proportion of patients who recommence clozapine after cessation, the time taken to resume clozapine post-cessation, and distinguishing demographic and clinical characteristics of this group have been poorly researched. We evaluated these in the current study.

METHOD

We retrospectively extracted selected demographic and clinical variables and clozapine treatment interruption and recommencement data up to December 2018 of a cohort of 458 patients who first commenced clozapine between 2006 and 2016. The study was conducted at three Australian health services.

RESULTS

Of the 310 (69%) patients who had at least one interruption of clozapine treatment, 170 (54.8%) did not resume clozapine, and 140 (45.2%) recommenced it after the first interruption. More than half of those who recommenced did so within a month and 80% by 12 months. Cox regression analysis revealed that age was significantly associated with recommencement, with a 2% decrease in the likelihood of restarting after an interruption for each year later that clozapine was initially commenced (HR = 0.98 95%CI: 0.97, 0.997, p = 0.02). Those who ceased clozapine due to adverse effects were less likely to restart than those who ceased due to noncompliance (HR = 0.63 95%CI: 0.41, 0.97, p = 0.03). More time on clozapine prior to interruption increased the likelihood of restarting it, with each additional month on clozapine increasing this likelihood by 1% (HR = 1.01 95%CI: 1.01, 1.02, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

If the distinguishing demographic and clinical characteristics of the group identified in this study are corroborated through further research, this could further validate the need to identify treatment resistance and commence clozapine early in people with schizophrenia and provide appropriate interventions to those more at risk of permanent discontinuation of clozapine.

A Chart Audit Study of Clozapine Utilization in Early Psychosis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to document the treatment trajectories and clozapine use in first-episode psychosis patients and to document the underlying reasons for using or not using clozapine in patients not achieving psychosis remission.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart audit of patients aged 18 to 30 years having DSM-5 diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum psychotic disorders treated in 3 Canadian early intervention programs for psychosis. The severity of the patient's illness (using the Clinical Global Impression Severity [CGI-S] scale) and remission of psychosis were rated before and after each antipsychotic trial.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven patients were included in the study. There were 19.7% patients exposed to clozapine after an average of 2.4 antipsychotic trials and a mean delay of 470.8 days. There were 75.9% patients who improved their CGI-S score (mean improvement, 2.5) after the clozapine trial and 62.1% achieved a CGI-S score ≤3. Full remission of psychosis on clozapine was achieved in 69.0% of the patients. Clozapine was successfully used for some patients with a nonadherent profile in our sample (eg, personality disorder, substance use disorder). Although the mean duration of clozapine trials during the observation period was 688.6 days, no patient discontinued clozapine because of adherence issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine use in these early intervention programs were at a rate consistent to what is expected from the literature and allowed a majority of patients to achieve remission of psychosis and to experience a robust improvement of severity of illness.

Comparison of bias adjustment methods in meta-analysis suggests that quality effects modeling may have less limitations than other approaches

BACKGROUND

The quality of primary research is commonly assessed before inclusion in meta-analyses. Findings are discussed in the context of the quality appraisal by categorizing studies according to risk of bias. The impact of appraised risk of bias on study outcomes is typically judged by the reader; however, several methods have been developed to quantify this risk of bias assessment and incorporate it into the pooled results of meta-analysis, a process known as bias adjustment. The advantages, potential limitations, and applicability of these methods are not well defined.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Comparative evaluation of the applicability of the various methods and their limitations are discussed using two examples from the literature. These methods include weighting, stratification, regression, use of empirically based prior distributions, and elicitation by experts.

RESULTS

Use of the two examples from the literature suggest that all methods provide similar adjustment. Methods differed mainly in applicability and limitations.

CONCLUSION

Bias adjustment is a feasible process in meta-analysis with several strategies currently available. Quality effects modelling was found to be easily implementable with fewer limitations in comparison to other methods.

Confused Connections? Targeting White Matter to Address Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia

Despite development of comprehensive approaches to treat schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders and improve outcomes, there remains a proportion (approximately one-third) of patients who are treatment resistant and will not have remission of psychotic symptoms despite adequate trials of pharmacotherapy. This level of treatment response is stable across all stages of the spectrum of psychotic disorders, including early phase psychosis and chronic schizophrenia. Our current pharmacotherapies are beneficial in decreasing positive symptomology in most cases, however, with little to no impact on negative or cognitive symptoms. Not all individuals with treatment resistant psychosis unfortunately, even benefit from the potential pharmacological reductions in positive symptoms. The existing pharmacotherapy for psychosis is targeted at neurotransmitter receptors. The current first and second generation antipsychotic medications all act on dopamine type 2 receptors with the second generation drugs also interacting significantly with serotonin type 1 and 2 receptors, and with varying pharmacodynamic profiles overall. This focus on developing dopaminergic/serotonergic antipsychotics, while beneficial, has not reduced the proportion of patients experiencing treatment resistance to date. Another pharmacological approach is imperative to address treatment resistance both for response overall and for negative symptoms in particular. There is research suggesting that changes in white matter integrity occur in schizophrenia and these may be more associated with cognition and even negative symptomology. Here we review the evidence that white matter abnormalities in the brain may be contributing to the symptomology of psychotic disorders. Additionally, we propose that white matter may be a viable pharmacological target for pharmacoresistant schizophrenia and discuss current treatments in development for schizophrenia that target white matter.

Early treatment resistance in a Latin-American cohort of patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Failure to respond to antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia is a common clinical scenario with significant morbidity. Recent studies have highlighted that many patients present treatment-resistance from disease onset. We here present an analysis of clozapine prescription patterns, used as a real-world proxy marker for treatment-resistance, in a cohort of 1195 patients with schizophrenia from a Latin-American cohort, to explore the timing of emergence of treatment resistance and possible subgroup differences.

METHODS

Survival analysis from national databases of clozapine monitoring system, national disease notification registers, and discharges from an early intervention ward.

RESULTS

Echoing previous studies, we found that around 1 in 5 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia were eventually prescribed clozapine, with an over-representation of males and those with a younger onset of psychosis. The annual probability of being prescribed clozapine was highest within the first year (probability of 0.11, 95% confidence interval of 0.093-0.13), compared to 0.018 (0.012-0.024) between years 1 and 5, and 0.006 (0-0.019) after 5years. Age at psychosis onset, gender, dose of clozapine used, and compliance with hematological monitoring at 12months, was not related to the onset of treatment resistance. A similar pattern was observed in a subgroup of 230 patients discharged from an early intervention ward with a diagnosis of non-affective first episode of psychosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight that treatment resistance is frequently present from the onset of psychosis. Future studies will shed light on the possible different clinical and neurobiological characteristics of this subtype of psychosis.

Improving outcomes of first-episode psychosis: an overview

Outcomes of psychotic disorders are associated with high personal, familiar, societal and clinical burden. There is thus an urgent clinical and societal need for improving those outcomes. Recent advances in research knowledge have opened new opportunities for ameliorating outcomes of psychosis during its early clinical stages. This paper critically reviews these opportunities, summarizing the state-of-the-art knowledge and focusing on recent discoveries and future avenues for first episode research and clinical interventions. Candidate targets for primary universal prevention of psychosis at the population level are discussed. Potentials offered by primary selective prevention in asymptomatic subgroups (stage 0) are presented. Achievements of primary selected prevention in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (stage 1) are summarized, along with challenges and limitations of its implementation in clinical practice. Early intervention and secondary prevention strategies at the time of a first episode of psychosis (stage 2) are critically discussed, with a particular focus on minimizing the duration of untreated psychosis, improving treatment response, increasing patients' satisfaction with treatment, reducing illicit substance abuse and preventing relapses. Early intervention and tertiary prevention strategies at the time of an incomplete recovery (stage 3) are further discussed, in particular with respect to addressing treatment resistance, improving well-being and social skills with reduction of burden on the family, treatment of comorbid substance use, and prevention of multiple relapses and disease progression. In conclusion, to improve outcomes of a complex, heterogeneous syndrome such as psychosis, it is necessary to globally adopt complex models integrating a clinical staging framework and coordinated specialty care programmes that offer pre-emptive interventions to high-risk groups identified across the early stages of the disorder. Only a systematic implementation of these models of care in the national health care systems will render these strategies accessible to the 23 million people worldwide suffering from the most severe psychiatric disorders.