Survey on schizophrenia treatment in Mexico: perception and antipsychotic prescription patterns

What is the current scope of research assessing patients' and clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment? A comprehensive scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Clozapine is continuously underused. The existing systematic reviews addressing barriers to clozapine prescribing primarily focus on clinical staff's attitudes and perceived barriers to prescribing. However, a preliminary literature search revealed additional literature on the subject not previously included in systematic reviews, including literature on patient perspectives. A scoping review is warranted to map the scope of primary studies on patients' and/or clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment and to identify gaps in research.

DESIGN

A scoping review was designed and reported in accordance with established guidelines for scoping reviews.

DATA SOURCES

The electronic databases Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and two grey literature databases were searched. Furthermore, citation tracking of selected studies was undertaken.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary, empirical studies reporting clinicians' and/or patients' perspectives on clozapine treatment. No limitation was set for the year of publication or type of primary study.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two researchers independently screened for studies, extracted the data and coded the content. Findings were summarised visually and narratively.

RESULTS

146 studies were included. Most studies reported on patients' or clinicians' perspectives on active clozapine treatment or on clinicians' perspectives on barriers to clozapine initiation in general. Three gaps in research were identified: (1) clozapine-eligible, yet clozapine-naïve, patients' attitudes towards clozapine commencement, (2) clinicians' reasons for clozapine withholding and perceived facilitators of clozapine treatment in specific patient-cases and (3) patient and clinician perspectives on clozapine discontinuation, continuation and rechallenge in specific patient cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on clozapine perspectives tends to repeat itself. Future studies addressing the identified gaps in evidence could provide the insights needed to optimise clozapine utilisation.

Psychiatrists' views on clozapine prescribing in Ireland

INTRODUCTION

Despite proven effectiveness in refractory schizophrenia, clozapine remains underutilised, and it is important to understand potential reasons for this. This study's aim was to examine in a National sample of Consultant Psychiatrists their knowledge of, attitudes and perceived barriers to clozapine use.

METHODS

A novel questionnaire was designed and distributed by email to 275 Consultant Psychiatrists in Republic of Ireland.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight percent (n = 77) completed the survey, with 55% of respondents practicing for 15 or more years. Clinicians expressed confidence in managing clozapine treatment and side effects and were well aware of clozapine's clinical effectiveness and guideline-based use. A majority indicated insufficient experience managing rechallenge and half expressed insufficient experience managing adverse events. Perceived patient factors were highlighted as barriers with 69% of respondents reporting patients' concern about effectiveness and 50% regarding tolerability. Sixty-four percent (n = 40) indicated that a specialised/tertiary clozapine service would facilitate initiation, with 57% (n = 36) reporting less frequent blood monitoring would aid clozapine prescribing. A majority identified that access to dedicated staff (81%, n = 51) and dedicated day hospital services (84%, n = 53) would facilitate community initiation.

CONCLUSION

Consultants are familiar with clozapine use and related guidelines. Dedicated staff and facilities for clozapine use is one identified structural change to enhance clozapine prescribing in Ireland. Tertiary service or clinical advice service would assist in clozapine rechallenge cases or in managing significant adverse events. More structured patient education regarding clozapine effectiveness and professional development programmes focused on managing side effects and rechallenge may promote clozapine use.

Prescription attitudes and practices regarding clozapine among Serbian psychiatrists: results of a nationwide survey

OBJECTIVE

Despite clozapine being the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), a clear explanation as to why it is underutilized and why its initiation is delayed remains unclear. The first aim of the study was to conduct a nation-wide assessment of both the psychiatrists' attitudes of the obstacles for prescribing clozapine as well as their prescription practices. The second aim was to make recommendations, based on the results obtained, for improving the Serbian clozapine guidelines.

METHODS

A questionnaire was conducted consisting of two parts. One regarded the clinical characteristics of the psychiatrists, while the second contained questions about indications for clozapine initiation, clozapine prescribing tendencies, and barriers to clozapine use. The questionnaire was sent to 302 Serbian psychiatrists.

RESULTS

With 161 out of the 302 psychiatrists returning the questionnaires, the response rate was 53.3%. Nearly 60% of the psychiatrists treated 10 or more patients with clozapine, with TRS being the most common indication. Only four psychiatrists (2.5%) had no patients currently on clozapine. Psychiatrists indicated that their fear of agranulocytosis (68%) constituted the greatest obstacle for clozapine prescription, followed closely by weight gain (56%), and sedation (39%). Despite their fear of agranulocytosis, only 83.9% of the psychiatrists monitored leukocytes regularly.

CONCLUSION

In general, psychiatrists in Serbia seem to be confident in prescribing clozapine, even in the absence of clear monitoring guidelines and the possibility of therapeutic drug monitoring. In order to reduce obstacles for clozapine prescription, monitoring laxity, and an overreliance on personal experience, we recommend three modifications of the existing clozapine guideline.

Barriers to using clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: systematic review

Aims and methodTo systematically review the literature on barriers to the use of clozapine and identify any interventions for optimizing clozapine use in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Journal databases were searched from 1972 to March 2018. The following search terms were used: treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine, barriers, use, prescription rates, implementation, clozaril and prescribing practices. Following a review of the literature, 15 papers were included in the review. RESULTS: The major barriers that were identified included mandatory blood testing, fear of serious side-effects and lack of adherence by the patients, difficulty in identifying suitable patients, service fragmentation, and inadequate training in or exposure to using clozapine.Clinical implicationsIn view of consistent evidence across the studies on inadequate knowledge and skills as a significant barrier, we suggest that a certification requiring competence in initiating and managing side-effects of clozapine becomes a mandatory requirement in training programmes.Declarations of interestNone.

Potential diagnostic markers of olanzapine efficiency for acute psychosis: a focus on peripheral biogenic amines

BACKGROUND

Biomarkers are now widely used in many fields of medicine, and the identification of biomarkers that predict antipsychotic efficacy and adverse reactions is a growing area of psychiatric research. Monoamine molecules of the peripheral bloodstream are possible prospective biomarkers based on a growing body of evidence indicating that they may reflect specific changes in neurotransmitters in the brain. The aim of this study was to detect peripheral biogenic amine indicators of patients with acute psychosis and to test the correlations between the biological measures studied and the psychopathological status of the patients.

METHODS

This research included 60 patients with acute psychosis treated with olanzapine (n = 30) or haloperidol (n = 30). Here, we measured biogenic amine indicators, including mRNA levels of dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) and the serotonin 2A receptor (5HTR2A), in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction and serum dopamine concentrations by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Psychopathological status was evaluated using psychometric scales. The assessments were conducted prior to and after 14 and 28 days of treatment.

RESULTS

The administration of haloperidol, but not olanzapine, up-regulated 5HTR2A mRNA in a linear manner, albeit without statistical significance (p = 0.052). Both drugs had non-significant effects on DRD4 mRNA levels. Nevertheless, a positive correlation was found between DRD4 and 5HTR2A mRNA levels over a longitudinal trajectory, suggesting co-expression of the two genes. A significant positive correlation was observed between 5HTR2A mRNA levels and total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores in both groups of patients before treatment. A significant correlation between baseline 5HTR2A mRNA levels and PANSS scores on days 14 and 28 of treatment remained for patients treated with olanzapine only. Moreover, a significant positive correlation was observed between blood serum dopamine levels and scores on extrapyramidal symptom scales in the olanzapine group.

CONCLUSIONS

The DRD4 and 5HTR2A genes are co-expressed in PBMCs during antipsychotic administration. Despite a correlation between the studied biogenic amine indicators and the psychopathological status of patients, reliable biomarkers of treatment response could not be determined.

Psychopharmacologic first-line strategies in the treatment of major depression and psychosis: a survey of advanced practice nurses

BACKGROUND

Developments in psychopharmacology have led to a broad range of medication choices for prescribing clinicians. Although there have been advances in drug development, less is known about the prescribing strategies used by psychiatric-mental health advanced practice nurses or the extent to which these practices reflect existing practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the prescribing practices of advanced practice nurses attending a psychopharmacology continuing education program. Participants were surveyed about (a) first-line strategies for the treatment of major depression and first-episode psychosis and (b) choices for managing insomnia and the side effect of weight gain.

STUDY DESIGN

Participants completed an onsite questionnaire regarding advanced practice characteristics and management of specific clinical situations.

RESULTS

The majority of prescribing advanced practice nurses surveyed were psychiatric-mental health specialists. Approximately two thirds (65.9%) of the advanced practice nurses prescribed psychotropic medications, most often for depression. First-choice agents for depression and first-episode psychosis were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (97.3%) and atypical antipsychotics (93.9%), respectively. Interventions for insomnia and medication-related weight gain were more varied.

CONCLUSIONS

For the advanced practice nurses surveyed, first-line strategies for depression and first-episode psychosis appear consistent with literature and practice guidelines. Future studies and educational offerings would benefit from addressing dosing and switching strategies and optimizing approaches for managing side effects. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc , 2008; 14(2), 144-151. DOI: 10.1177/1078390308316124.

Antipsychotic drug use in 503 Chinese inpatients with schizophrenia

Objective. To determine current patterns of antipsychotic medication use and metabolic complications among hospitalized Chinese patients with schizophrenia. Method. A total of 503 inpatients who met ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia were enrolled. Demographic features and records of current treatment (medication, dose, duration of treatment) were collected through cross-sectional chart review along with biophysical parameters (body mass index and laboratory findings). Results. (1) Most patients (457/503, 90.9%) were found to receive antipsychotic monotherapy; (2) clozapine was the most common medication used (152/507, 30.2%); (3) the subset of patients treated within the course of a first episode psychosis, or with less than 5 years of illness, were more likely to be treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) than with conventional antipsychotic medications or clozapine; (4) patients treated with clozapine or conventional antipsychotics were more likely to manifest metabolism-related physical conditions than those receiving SGAs. Conclusion. Conventional antipsychotics and clozapine constitute the current mainstream of schizophrenia treatment in China where a lower percentage of patients receive SGAs other than clozapine than in developed countries. The high incidence of treatment-related metabolic complications in this population suggests that these issues are under-appreciated based on current patterns of medication use.

Ziprasidone in bipolar disorder

Ziprasidone is a second-generation antipsychotic currently marketed for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar mania. It has a unique receptor profile that includes high-affinity antagonist activity at 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) 2A, D2, 1D and 2C receptors, a potent agonist activity at 5-HT1A receptors and a relatively high affinity for the 5-HT and noradrenaline transporters. The efficacy of ziprasidone in bipolar mania (current episode, manic or mixed) has been well demonstrated in three placebo-controlled trials. In a three-arm controlled study, ziprasidone was shown to be efficacious in dysphoric mania, whereas haloperidol was comparable to placebo. Open-label treatment for up to 52 weeks supported the sustained efficacy of ziprasidone in bipolar disorder. Combined with lithium, ziprasidone has been shown to be efficacious as an augmenting agent in the acute treatment of mania, with sustained efficacy up to 1 year. Ziprasidone was very well tolerated by patients with bipolar disorder and did not cause increased weight, glucose or lipid levels.

Risperidone versus olanzapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medication is a mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia. Risperidone and olanzapine are popular choices among the new generation drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost effectiveness of risperidone compared with olanzapine for treating schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (Sept 2005) which is based on regular searches of, amongst others, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. We also contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all clinical randomised trials comparing risperidone with olanzapine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated random effects, relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We found no difference for the outcome of unchanged or worse in the short term (n=548, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.15). One study favoured olanzapine for the outcome of relapse/rehospitalisation by 12 months (n=279, 1 RCT, RR 2.16 CI 1.31 to 3.54, NNH 7 CI 3 to 25). Most mental state data showed the two drugs to be as effective as each other (n=552, 2 RCTs, RR 'no <20% decrease PANSS by eight weeks' 1.01 CI 0.87 to 1.16). Both drugs commonly cause adverse events: 75% given either drug experience an adverse event; 20% anticholinergic symptoms; both groups experienced insomnia although it was more frequent with risperidone (n=1588, 5 RCTs, RR 1.41 CI 1.15 to 1.72, NNH 15 CI 9 to 41); about 30% experienced sleepiness (n=1713, 6 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.79 to 1.07). People given either drug often experienced some extrapyramidal symptoms (n=893, 3 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.75 to 1.88); 25% of people using risperidone required medication to alleviate these symptoms (n=419, 2 RCTs, RR 1.76 CI 1.25 to 2.48, NNH 8 CI 4 to 25). People allocated to risperidone were less likely to gain weight compared with those given olanzapine and the weight gain was often considerable and of quick onset (n=984, 2 RCTs, RR gain more than 7% of their baseline weight in short term 0.47 CI 0.36 to 0.61, NNH 7 CI 6 to 10). Risperidone participants were less likely to leave the study due to metabolic side effects and weight gain compared with olanzapine (n=667, 1RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.08 to 0.45). Patients on risperidone were more likely to experience abnormal ejaculation (n=370, 2 RCTs, RR 4.36 CI 1.38 to 13.76, NNH 20 CI 6 to 176). Both drugs are associated with high attrition rates; in the long term consistent findings show that 66% of those allocated risperidone left the study early compared with 56% given olanzapine (n=1440, 5 RCTs, RR 1.17 CI 1.08 to 1.27, NNH 11 CI 7 to 23).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We know very little of the effects of these drugs regarding service outcomes, general functioning and behaviours, engagement with services and treatment satisfaction from evaluative studies. There was generally a high rate of attrition in the trials and there appears to be little to differentiate between risperidone and olanzapine except on issues of adverse effects. Both drugs are associated with a reduction in psychotic symptoms but both commonly cause unpleasant adverse effects.

Amoxapine as an atypical antipsychotic: a comparative study vs risperidone

Amoxapine is marketed as an antidepressant. However, its in-vitro profile, receptor occupancy and preclinical effects are very similar to atypical antipsychotics. Amoxapine has also shown efficacy as an atypical antipsychotic in open trials. The objective of this study was to compare the antipsychotic and side effect profile of amoxapine and risperidone in a randomised assignment, standardized dosing, double-blind trial of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. A total of 48 schizophrenic patients were enrolled and randomized in a double-blind 6-week trial to receive either risperidone (up to 5 mg/day) or amoxapine (up to 250 mg/day). Positive, negative, affective symptoms and motor side effects were measured using standardized weekly assessments. Prolactin levels were also determined at baseline and at the end of the study. A total of 39 patients (amoxapine, n=22; risperidone, n=21) completed the trial. Both pharmacological treatments, amoxapine 228.0 mg/day (SD=34.6) and risperidone 4.5 mg/day (SD=0.7), showed equivalent improvement in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms. Amoxapine was associated with less EPS and less prolactin elevation than risperidone. These data support previous reports about the efficacy of amoxapine as an atypical antipsychotic. Since amoxapine is off-patent, it may be a valuable low-cost alternative to new atypical antipsychotics, particularly in low-income countries where the majority of the patients are still treated with typical antipsychotics.

Schizophrenia practice guidelines: international survey and comparison

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia guidelines differ considerably in methodology and content.

AIMS

To systematically compare national schizophrenia guidelines from different countries.

METHOD

An international survey was conducted on guideline development and a methodological comparison was made using a validated guideline appraisal instrument (the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation Europe).

RESULTS

The methodological quality of many schizophrenia guidelines was at best moderate. Few guidelines had included key stakeholders in their development process. Although pharmacotherapy recommendations were similar, there were strong variations in the type of psychosocial interventions recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of guidelines has a strong influence on their applicability. However, the lack of financial means to develop and implement guidelines is a serious problem. Independent international organisations could contribute to defining a core set of unbiased schizophrenia treatment recommendations. In countries with a shortage of resources, this could be a basis for adaptation to different cultural and economic backgrounds in collaboration with stakeholders.

Antipsychotic drug-induced acute laryngeal dystonia: two case reports and a mini review

Antipsychotic-induced laryngeal dystonia is a life-threatening side-effect of both high- and low-potency classical antipsychotics, and its diagnosis often remains elusive. We review all cases of acute laryngeal dystonia due to antipsychotics available in the literature, including controversial ones, and add two new cases. There are no reports of acute laryngeal dystonia due to atypical antipsychotics. Antipsychotic-induced laryngeal dystonia has been reported predominantly in young males, but does not correlate to the dosage or the category of the drug. There have been reports of acute laryngeal dystonia due to metoclopramide. Differential diagnosis includes other extrapyramidal side-effects and allergic reactions. Treatment consists of the administration of anticholinergic agents.

Risperidone versus olanzapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medication is a mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia and risperidone and olanzapine are the most popular treatment choice of the new generation drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost effectiveness of risperidone compared with olanzapine for treating schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 2004) which is based on regular searches of, amongst others, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. We also contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all clinical randomised trials comparing risperidone with olanzapine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated random effects, relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We found no difference for the outcome of unchanged or worse in the short term (n=548, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.15). One study, sponsored by the manufactures of olanzapine, favoured this drug for the outcome of relapse/rehospitalisation by 12 months (n=279, RR 2.16 CI 1.31 to 3.54, NNT 7 CI 4 to 25). Most mental state data showed the two drugs to as effective as each other (n=552, 2 RCTs, RR 'no <20% decrease PANSS by eight weeks' 1.01 CI 0.87 to 1.16). At least two thirds of people given risperidone or olanzapine experienced an adverse event (n=300, 2 RCTs, RR 1.16 CI 0.70 to 1.94). About 20% had anticholinergic symptoms (n=719, 3 RCTs, RR 1.12 CI 0.77 to 1.63) and 20% of both groups experienced insomnia (n=594, 3 RCTs, RR 1.33 CI 0.95 to 1.85) and approximately 33% sleepiness (n=719, 4 RCTs, 0.99 CI 0.79 to 1.23). One third of people given either drug experienced some extrapyramidal symptoms (n=893, 3 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.75 to 1.88) but 25% of people using risperidone require medication to alleviate extrapyramidal adverse effects (n=419, 2 RCTs, RR 1.76 CI 1.25 to 2.48, NNH 8 CI 4 to 25). People allocated to risperidone were less likely to gain weight compared with those given olanzapine and the weight gain resulting from olanzapine can be considerable and of rapid onset (n=377, 1 RCT, RR gain more than 7% of their baseline weight 0.40 CI 0.23 to 0.70, NNT 8 CI 6 to 17). Risperidone may cause more sexual dysfunction than olanzapine (n=370, 2 RCTs, RR abnormal ejaculation 4.36 CI 1.38 to 13.76, NNH 20 CI 6 to 176; n=31, 1 RCT, RR impotence 2.43 CI 0.24 to 24.07). Within trials both drugs are associated with equal attrition (n=1217, 7 RCTs, RR leaving the study early 1.17 CI 0.92 to 1.49).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data regarding quality of life and economic outcomes are difficult to interpret, and for both these highly marketed new drugs we know very little from evaluative studies regarding service outcomes, general functioning and behaviour, engagement with services and treatment satisfaction. There is little to differentiate between risperidone and olanzapine except on the issue of adverse effects and both these drugs have unpleasant adverse effects. Risperidone is particularly associated with movement disorders and sexual dysfunction. Olanzapine can cause considerable rapid weight gain.This review highlights the need for large, independent, well designed, conducted and reported pragmatic randomised studies.

Antipsychotic prescribing pattern among Italian general practitioners: a population-based study during the years 1999?2002

OBJECTIVES

To assess the antipsychotic use and the prevalence/incidence of antipsychotic drug users in Italy during the years 1999-2002. To estimate the persistence with antipsychotic medications, and to measure their off-label use.

METHODS

We selected 465,061 individuals registered by June 2002 in the lists of 320 general practitioners, homogeneously distributed throughout Italy, from the Health Search Database. We measured the antipsychotic drug consumption, calculated as defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day. We also calculated the number of individuals receiving at least one antipsychotic prescription, to estimate the annual prevalence and incidence of antipsychotic users. Among incident users, we evaluated the percentage of patients adherent to drug label indications and the average duration of treatment, estimated as medical possession ratio (MPR).

RESULTS

Atypical antipsychotic use has continuously increased from 1999 to 2002. Women, older people and patients affected by psychotic disorders other than schizophrenia were seen to be more likely to receive antipsychotic prescriptions. Persistence with atypical drug treatment (MPR=0.213 in 2002) appeared longer than that of typical drugs (0.169). The percentage of patients adherent to drug label indications was significantly higher among typical antipsychotic users (P<0.001). The most common off-label use for atypical drug was senile dementia.

CONCLUSION

Atypical drug use has been continuously expanding over the years 1999-2002, particularly in older people with dementia. The rapidly increasing use of this new class of antipsychotics highlights the need for a better evaluation regarding their safety profile and a better definition of their role in psychiatric treatments.