Prevalence of treatment resistance and clozapine use in early intervention services

Clozapine use in the first two years after first-episode psychosis in a real-world clinical sample

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20-30% of patients with schizophrenia fail to respond to antipsychotic treatment and are considered treatment resistant (TR). Although clozapine is the treatment of choice in these patients, in real-world clinical settings, clinicians often delay clozapine initiation, especially in first-episode psychosis (FEP).

AIM

The main aim of this study was to describe prescription patterns for clozapine in a sample of patients diagnosed with FEP and receiving specialized treatment at a university hospital. More specifically, we aimed to determine the following: (1) the proportion of patients who received clozapine within two years of disease onset, (2) baseline predictors of clozapine use, (3) time from starting the first antipsychotic to clozapine initiation, (4) concomitant medications, and (5) clozapine-related adverse effects.

METHODS

All patients admitted to a specialized FEP treatment unit at our hospital between April 2013 and July 2020 were included and followed for two years. The following variables were assessed: baseline sociodemographic characteristics; medications prescribed during follow-up; clozapine-related adverse effects; and baseline predictors of clozapine use. We classified the sample into three groups: clozapine users, clozapine-eligible, and non-treatment resistant (TR).

RESULTS

A total of 255 patients were consecutively included. Of these, 20 (7.8%) received clozapine, 57 (22.4%) were clozapine-eligible, and 178 (69.8%) were non-TR. The only significant variable associated with clozapine use at baseline was the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score (R2=0.09, B=-0.07; OR=0.94; 95% CI: 0.88-0.99; p=0.019). The median time to clozapine initiation was 55.0 (93.3) days. The most common side effect was sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion (30.2%) of patients in this cohort were treatment resistant and eligible for clozapine. However, only 7.8% of the sample received clozapine, indicating that this medication was underprescribed. A lower baseline GAF score was associated with clozapine use within two years, suggesting that it could be used to facilitate the early identification of patients who will need treatment with clozapine, which could in turn improve treatment outcomes.

Response rates to sequential trials of antipsychotic medications according to algorithms or treatment guidelines in psychotic disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a relative lack of research evaluating the outcomes when treatment guidelines or algorithms for psychotic disorders are followed. This systematic review and meta-analysis determined the response rates to antipsychotic medications at different stages of these algorithms and whether these response rates differ in first episode cohorts.

METHODS

Data sources: A systematic search strategy was conducted across four databases PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL. Studies that had sequential trials of different antipsychotic medications were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using random effects models and sub-group analysis in first episode psychosis studies.

RESULTS

Of the 4078 unique articles screened, fourteen articles, from nine unique studies, were eligible and included 2522 participants. The proportion who experienced a response to any antipsychotic in the first stage of an algorithm was 0.53 (95 % C.I.:0.38,0.68) and this decreased to 0.26 (95 % C.I.:0.15,0.39) in the second stage. When clozapine was used in the third stage, the proportion that achieved a response was 0.43 (95 % C.I. 0.19, 0.69) compared to 0.26 (95 % C.I.:0.05,0.54) if a different antipsychotic was used. Four studies included 907 participants with a first episode of psychosis and the proportions that achieved a response were: 1st stage: 0.63 (95 % C.I.: 0.45, 0.79); 2nd stage: 0.34 (95 % C.I.:0.16,0.55); clozapine 3rd stage: 0.45 (95 % C.I.:0.0,0.97), different antipsychotic 3rd stage: 0.15 (95 % C.I.,0.01,0.37).

DISCUSSION

These findings support the recommendation to have a trial of clozapine after two other antipsychotic medications have been found to be ineffective.

Implementing and Evaluating a National Integrated Digital Registry and Clinical Decision Support System in Early Intervention in Psychosis Services (Early Psychosis Informatics Into Care): Co-Designed Protocol

BACKGROUND

Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services are nationally mandated in England to provide multidisciplinary care to people experiencing first-episode psychosis, which disproportionately affects deprived and ethnic minority youth. Quality of service provision varies by region, and people from historically underserved populations have unequal access. In other disease areas, including stroke and dementia, national digital registries coupled with clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have revolutionized the delivery of equitable, evidence-based interventions to transform patient outcomes and reduce population-level disparities in care. Given psychosis is ranked the third most burdensome mental health condition by the World Health Organization, it is essential that we achieve the same parity of health improvements.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports the protocol for the program development phase of this study, in which we aimed to co-design and produce an evidence-based, stakeholder-informed framework for the building, implementation, piloting, and evaluation of a national integrated digital registry and CDSS for psychosis, known as EPICare (Early Psychosis Informatics into Care).

METHODS

We conducted 3 concurrent work packages, with reciprocal knowledge exchange between each. In work package 1, using a participatory co-design framework, key stakeholders (clinicians, academics, policy makers, and patient and public contributors) engaged in 4 workshops to review, refine, and identify a core set of essential and desirable measures and features of the EPICare registry and CDSS. Using a modified Delphi approach, we then developed a consensus of data priorities. In work package 2, we collaborated with National Health Service (NHS) informatics teams to identify relevant data currently captured in electronic health records, understand data retrieval methods, and design the software architecture and data model to inform future implementation. In work package 3, observations of stakeholder workshops and individual interviews with representative stakeholders (n=10) were subject to interpretative qualitative analysis, guided by normalization process theory, to identify factors likely to influence the adoption and implementation of EPICare into routine practice.

RESULTS

Stage 1 of the EPICare study took place between December 2021 and September 2022. The next steps include stage 2 building, piloting, implementation, and evaluation of EPICare in 5 demonstrator NHS Trusts serving underserved and diverse populations with substantial need for EIP care in England. If successful, this will be followed by stage 3, in which we will seek NHS adoption of EPICare for rollout to all EIP services in England.

CONCLUSIONS

By establishing a multistakeholder network and engaging them in an iterative co-design process, we have identified essential and desirable elements of the EPICare registry and CDSS; proactively identified and minimized potential challenges and barriers to uptake and implementation; and addressed key questions related to informatics architecture, infrastructure, governance, and integration in diverse NHS Trusts, enabling us to proceed with the building, piloting, implementation, and evaluation of EPICare.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/50177.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging in schizophrenia: current evidence, methodological advances, limitations and future directions

Functional neuroimaging emerged with great promise and has provided fundamental insights into the neurobiology of schizophrenia. However, it has faced challenges and criticisms, most notably a lack of clinical translation. This paper provides a comprehensive review and critical summary of the literature on functional neuroimaging, in particular functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), in schizophrenia. We begin by reviewing research on fMRI biomarkers in schizophrenia and the clinical high risk phase through a historical lens, moving from case-control regional brain activation to global connectivity and advanced analytical approaches, and more recent machine learning algorithms to identify predictive neuroimaging features. Findings from fMRI studies of negative symptoms as well as of neurocognitive and social cognitive deficits are then reviewed. Functional neural markers of these symptoms and deficits may represent promising treatment targets in schizophrenia. Next, we summarize fMRI research related to antipsychotic medication, psychotherapy and psychosocial interventions, and neurostimulation, including treatment response and resistance, therapeutic mechanisms, and treatment targeting. We also review the utility of fMRI and data-driven approaches to dissect the heterogeneity of schizophrenia, moving beyond case-control comparisons, as well as methodological considerations and advances, including consortia and precision fMRI. Lastly, limitations and future directions of research in the field are discussed. Our comprehensive review suggests that, in order for fMRI to be clinically useful in the care of patients with schizophrenia, research should address potentially actionable clinical decisions that are routine in schizophrenia treatment, such as which antipsychotic should be prescribed or whether a given patient is likely to have persistent functional impairment. The potential clinical utility of fMRI is influenced by and must be weighed against cost and accessibility factors. Future evaluations of the utility of fMRI in prognostic and treatment response studies may consider including a health economics analysis.

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.

Cognitive performance at first episode of psychosis and the relationship with future treatment resistance: Evidence from an international prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic treatment resistance affects up to a third of individuals with schizophrenia, with recent research finding systematic biological differences between antipsychotic resistant and responsive patients. Our aim was to determine whether cognitive impairment at first episode significantly differs between future antipsychotic responders and resistant cases.

METHODS

Analysis of data from seven international cohorts of first-episode psychosis (FEP) with cognitive data at baseline (N = 683) and follow-up data on antipsychotic treatment response: 605 treatment responsive and 78 treatment resistant cases. Cognitive measures were grouped into seven cognitive domains based on the pre-existing literature. We ran multiple imputation for missing data and used logistic regression to test for associations between cognitive performance at FEP and treatment resistant status at follow-up.

RESULTS

On average patients who were future classified as treatment resistant reported poorer performance across most cognitive domains at baseline. Univariate logistic regressions showed that antipsychotic treatment resistance cases had significantly poorer IQ/general cognitive functioning at FEP (OR = 0.70, p = .003). These findings remained significant after adjusting for additional variables in multivariable analyses (OR = 0.76, p = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

Although replication in larger studies is required, it appears that deficits in IQ/general cognitive functioning at first episode are associated with future treatment resistance. Cognitive variables may be able to provide further insight into neurodevelopmental factors associated with treatment resistance or act as early predictors of treatment resistance, which could allow prompt identification of refractory illness and timely interventions.

What are the barriers and facilitators of clozapine use in early psychosis? A survey of UK early intervention clinicians

Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-resistant psychosis, but evidence points to substantial underuse, especially within early intervention psychosis (EIP) services. We explored clinicians' views on perceived barriers and facilitators to offering patients clozapine within EIP services. A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to clinicians practising in EIP services across England. A mixed methods approach was used to assess barriers to clozapine, and attitudes and opinions concerning clozapine underutilisation. Based on the barriers identified in the literature, clinicians were asked to rate each one (scale:1-7) based on importance, with a higher score indicating higher importance. Clinicians were also asked open-ended questions on barriers to clozapine and how access can be improved in EIP services. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed thematically. One hundred and nineteen EIP clinicians from 35 services in England completed the survey. In total, 37% (n = 45) of clinicians perceived that clozapine was under-prescribed in their EIP service. The most important barrier to utilising clozapine were patient concerns with side effects, followed by monitoring requirements and clinician concerns with side effects. Thematic analysis identified 17 perceived barriers, which were grouped into three major themes: administrative (5 subthemes), clinician-related (6 subthemes), and patient-related (6 subthemes). Perceived facilitators to improving clozapine use were greater training, improved resources, and optimised monitoring. The main barriers to clozapine in EIP services, as identified by clinicians, are patient concerns regarding side effects and monitoring requirements. Identified facilitators for improved clozapine use include clinician training, improved resources, guidelines, and point-of-care testing.

Five-year illness trajectories across racial groups in the UK following a first episode psychosis

PURPOSE

Psychosis disproportionally affects ethnic minority groups in high-income countries, yet evidence of disparities in outcomes following intensive early intervention service (EIS) for First Episode Psychosis (FEP) is less conclusive. We investigated 5-year clinical and social outcomes of young people with FEP from different racial groups following EIS care.

METHOD

Data were analysed from the UK-wide NIHR SUPEREDEN study. The sample at baseline (n = 978) included White (n = 750), Black (n = 71), and Asian (n = 157) individuals, assessed during the 3 years of EIS, and up to 2 years post-discharge (n = 296; Black [n = 23]; Asian [n = 52] and White [n = 221]). Outcome trajectories were modelled for psychosis symptoms (positive, negative, and general), functioning, and depression, using linear mixed effect models (with random intercept and slopes), whilst controlling for social deprivation. Discharge service was also explored across racial groups, 2 years following EIS.

RESULTS

Variation in linear growth over time was accounted for by racial group status for psychosis symptoms-positive (95% CI [0.679, 1.235]), negative (95% CI [0.315, 0.783]), and general (95% CI [1.961, 3.428])-as well as for functioning (95% CI [11.212, 17.677]) and depressive symptoms (95% CI [0.261, 0.648]). Social deprivation contributed to this variance. Black individuals experienced greater levels of deprivation (p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.187, 0.624]). Finally, there was a greater likelihood for Asian (OR = 3.04; 95% CI [2.050, 4.498]) and Black individuals (OR = 2.47; 95% CI [1.354, 4.520]) to remain in secondary care by follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest variations in long-term clinical and social outcomes following EIS across racial groups; social deprivation contributed to this variance. Black and Asian individuals appear to make less improvement in long-term recovery and are less likely to be discharged from mental health services. Replication is needed in large, complete data, to fully understand disparities and blind spots to care.

Clinical predictors of antipsychotic treatment resistance: Development and internal validation of a prognostic prediction model by the STRATA-G consortium

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to, firstly, identify characteristics at first-episode of psychosis that are associated with later antipsychotic treatment resistance (TR) and, secondly, to develop a parsimonious prediction model for TR.

METHODS

We combined data from ten prospective, first-episode psychosis cohorts from across Europe and categorised patients as TR or non-treatment resistant (NTR) after a mean follow up of 4.18 years (s.d. = 3.20) for secondary data analysis. We identified a list of potential predictors from clinical and demographic data recorded at first-episode. These potential predictors were entered in two models: a multivariable logistic regression to identify which were independently associated with TR and a penalised logistic regression, which performed variable selection, to produce a parsimonious prediction model. This model was internally validated using a 5-fold, 50-repeat cross-validation optimism-correction.

RESULTS

Our sample consisted of N = 2216 participants of which 385 (17 %) developed TR. Younger age of psychosis onset and fewer years in education were independently associated with increased odds of developing TR. The prediction model selected 7 out of 17 variables that, when combined, could quantify the risk of being TR better than chance. These included age of onset, years in education, gender, BMI, relationship status, alcohol use, and positive symptoms. The optimism-corrected area under the curve was 0.59 (accuracy = 64 %, sensitivity = 48 %, and specificity = 76 %).

IMPLICATIONS

Our findings show that treatment resistance can be predicted, at first-episode of psychosis. Pending a model update and external validation, we demonstrate the potential value of prediction models for TR.

Heterogeneity in treatment outcomes and incomplete recovery in first episode psychosis: does one size fit all?

The heterogeneity in recovery outcomes for individuals with First Episode Psychosis (FEP) calls for a strong evidence base to inform practice at an individual level. Between 19-89% of young people with FEP have an incomplete recovery despite gold-standard evidence-based treatments, suggesting current service models, which adopt a 'one-size fits all' approach, may not be addressing the needs of many young people with psychosis. The lack of consistent terminology to define key concepts such as recovery and treatment resistance, the multidimensional nature of these concepts, and common comorbid symptoms are some of the challenges faced by the field in delineating heterogeneity in recovery outcomes. The lack of robust markers for incomplete recovery also results in potential delay in delivering prompt, and effective treatments to individuals at greatest risk. There is a clear need to adopt a stratified approach to care where interventions are targeted at subgroups of patients, and ultimately at the individual level. Novel machine learning, using large, representative data from a range of modalities, may aid in the parsing of heterogeneity, and provide greater precision and sophistication in identifying those on a pathway to incomplete recovery.

Prescribing clozapine in the UK: Quality improvement issues identified by clinical audit

INTRODUCTION

The Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health initiated a quality improvement (QI) programme on clozapine use in UK mental health services.

METHODS

Clinical audits conducted in 2019 and 2021.

RESULTS

Sixty-three participating NHS Trusts/healthcare organisations in 2019, and 61 in 2021, submitted treatment data for 6948 and 8155 patients, respectively. In both audits, high-dose and/or combined antipsychotic medications had been prescribed immediately before initiating clozapine in over a quarter of patients recently started on clozapine. In patients who were tobacco smokers and recently discharged from a smoke-free ward, the impact of the potential change in smoking status had been considered in the care plans of just under one-third in 2019 and just over a half in 2021. For community patients, their Summary Care Records (SCRs) included their clozapine prescriptions in 58% of cases in 2019 and 72% in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Three QI issues were identified. (1) Antipsychotic regimens with limited evidence for efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia were prescribed for over a quarter of cases before starting clozapine. Use of such strategies may delay clozapine treatment, potentially reducing the likelihood of a therapeutic response. (2) While anticipation of the consequences of a change in smoking status on plasma clozapine concentration following discharge from hospital showed improvement over time, even in 2021 it was not evident for nearly a half of relevant cases. (3) While inclusion of clozapine in the SCR also improved over time, even in 2021 it was missing for more than a quarter of community patients.

Ethnic disparities in clozapine prescription for service-users with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a systematic review

Clozapine is the only licenced medication for treating treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Previous studies have suggested unequal rates of clozapine treatment by ethnicity among individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. One previous review has investigated this topic but was restricted to studies from the USA. This current review aims to synthesise the international literature regarding ethnic disparities in clozapine prescription amongst individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. We searched CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO and Open Grey and reviewed studies reporting on the proportion of service-users prescribed clozapine separately for different ethnic groups, in individuals with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or any schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. A narrative synthesis was conducted to integrate information from included studies. The review was registered in PROSPERO (Number: CRD42020221731). From 24 studies, there is strong, consistent evidence that Black and Hispanic service-users in the UK and the USA are significantly less likely to receive clozapine than White/Caucasian service-users after controlling for multiple demographic and clinical potential confounders. In New Zealand, Māori service-users were reported to be more likely to receive clozapine than those of White/European ethnicity. There is mixed evidence regarding Asian service-users in the UK. The mentioned disparities were observed in studies with TRS and non-TRS cohorts. The results imply that access to clozapine treatment varies among ethnic groups. These findings raise an ethical concern as they suggest a compromise of the standards of care in schizophrenia treatment practices. Interventions are needed to reduce clozapine prescribing disparities among ethnic communities.

A Guideline and Checklist for Initiating and Managing Clozapine Treatment in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) will affect about one in three patients with schizophrenia. Clozapine is the only treatment approved for TRS, and patients should be treated as soon as possible to improve their chances of achieving remission. Despite its effectiveness, concern over side effects, monitoring requirements, and inexperience with prescribing often result in long delays that can expose patients to unnecessary risks and compromise their chances of achieving favorable long-term outcomes. We critically reviewed the literature on clozapine use in TRS, focusing on guidelines, systematic reviews, and algorithms to identify strategies for improving clozapine safety and tolerability. Based on this, we have provided an overview of strategies to support early initiation of clozapine in patients with TRS based on the latest evidence and our clinical experience, and have summarized the key elements in a practical, evidence-based checklist for identifying and managing patients with TRS, with the aim of increasing confidence in prescribing and monitoring clozapine therapy.

Clozapine Treatment Is Associated With Higher Prescription Rate of Antipsychotic Monotherapy and Lower Prescription Rate of Other Concomitant Psychotropics: A Real-World Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Although clozapine is effective for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), the rate of clozapine prescription is still low. Whereas antipsychotic monotherapy is recommended in clinical practice guidelines, the rate of antipsychotic polypharmacy is still high. There is little evidence on whether a clozapine prescription influences changes in the rate of monotherapy and polypharmacy, including antipsychotics and other psychotropics. We therefore hypothesized that the rate of antipsychotic monotherapy in patients with TRS who were prescribed clozapine would be higher than that in patients with schizophrenia who were not prescribed clozapine.

METHODS

We assessed 8306 patients with schizophrenia nationwide from 178 institutions in Japan from 2016 to 2019. We analyzed the psychotropic prescription data at discharge in patients diagnosed with TRS and with no description of TRS (ND-TRS) based on the diagnosis listed in the discharge summary.

RESULTS

The rate of antipsychotic monotherapy in the TRS with clozapine group (91.3%) was significantly higher than that in the TRS without clozapine group (45.9%; P &lt; 2.0 × 10-16) and the ND-TRS without clozapine group (54.7%; P &lt; 2.0 × 10-16). The rate of antipsychotic monotherapy without any other concomitant psychotropics in the TRS with clozapine group (26.5%) was significantly higher than that in the TRS without clozapine group (12.6%; P = 1.1 × 10-6) and the ND-TRS without clozapine group (17.0%; P = 5.9 × 10-6).

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine prescription could be associated with a high rate of antipsychotic monotherapy. Patients will benefit from the correct diagnosis of TRS and thus from proper clozapine prescription.

Quality prescribing in early psychosis: key pharmacotherapy principles

OBJECTIVE

To present a practical, easy-to-implement clinical framework designed to support evidence-based quality prescribing for people with early psychosis.

METHOD

Identification and explanation of key principles relating to evidence-based pharmacotherapy for people with early psychosis. These were derived from the literature, practice guidelines and clinical experience.

RESULTS

Key principles include (1) medication choice informed by adverse effects; (2) metabolic monitoring at baseline and at regular intervals; (3) comprehensive and regular medication risk-benefit assessment and psychoeducation; (4) early consideration of long-acting injectable formulations (preferably driven by informed patient choice); (5) identification and treatment of comorbid mood disorders and (6) early consideration of clozapine when treatment refractory criteria are met.

CONCLUSIONS

Current prescribing practices do not align with the well-established evidence for quality pharmacotherapy in early psychosis. Adopting evidence-based prescribing practices for people with early psychosis will improve outcomes.

Mechanistic/mammalian target of rapamycin and side effects of antipsychotics: insights into mechanisms and implications for therapy

Antipsychotic pharmacotherapy has been widely recommended as the standard of care for the treatment of acute schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms of other psychiatric disorders. However, there are growing concerns regarding antipsychotic-induced side effects, including weight gain, metabolic syndrome (MetS), and extrapyramidal motor disorders, which not only decrease patient compliance, but also predispose to diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. To date, most studies and reviews on the mechanisms of antipsychotic-induced metabolic side effects have focused on central nervous system mediation of appetite and food intake. However, disturbance in glucose and lipid metabolism, and hepatic steatosis induced by antipsychotic drugs might precede weight gain and MetS. Recent studies have demonstrated that the mechanistic/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway plays a critical regulatory role in the pathophysiology of antipsychotic drug-induced disorders of hepatic glucose and lipid metabolism. Furthermore, antipsychotic drugs promote striatal mTOR pathway activation that contributes to extrapyramidal motor side effects. Although recent findings have advanced the understanding of the role of the mTOR pathway in antipsychotic-induced side effects, few reviews have been conducted on this emerging topic. In this review, we synthesize key findings by focusing on the roles of the hepatic and striatal mTOR pathways in the pathogenesis of metabolic and extrapyramidal side effects, respectively. We further discuss the potential therapeutic benefits of normalizing excessive mTOR pathway activation with mTOR specific inhibitors. A deeper understanding of pathogenesis may inform future intervention strategies using the pharmacological or genetic inhibitors of mTOR to prevent and manage antipsychotic-induced side effects.

A predictor model of treatment resistance in schizophrenia using data from electronic health records

OBJECTIVES

To develop a prognostic tool of treatment resistant schizophrenia (TRS) in a large and diverse clinical cohort, with comprehensive coverage of patients using mental health services in four London boroughs.

METHODS

We used the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) for time-to-event data, to develop a risk prediction model from the first antipsychotic prescription to the development of TRS, using data from electronic health records.

RESULTS

We reviewed the clinical records of 1,515 patients with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder and observed that 253 (17%) developed TRS. The Cox LASSO survival model produced an internally validated Harrel's C index of 0.60. A Kaplan-Meier curve indicated that the hazard of developing TRS remained constant over the observation period. Predictors of TRS were: having more inpatient days in the three months before and after the first antipsychotic, more community face-to-face clinical contact in the three months before the first antipsychotic, minor cognitive problems, and younger age at the time of the first antipsychotic.

CONCLUSIONS

Routinely collected information, readily available at the start of treatment, gives some indication of TRS but is unlikely to be adequate alone. These results provide further evidence that earlier onset is a risk factor for TRS.

Neuropsychological differences between treatment-resistant and treatment-responsive schizophrenia: a meta-analysis

Antipsychotic treatment resistance affects up to a third of individuals with schizophrenia. Of those affected, 70-84% are reported to be treatment resistant from the outset. This raises the possibility that the neurobiological mechanisms of treatment resistance emerge before the onset of psychosis and have a neurodevelopmental origin. Neuropsychological investigations can offer important insights into the nature, origin and pathophysiology of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), but methodological limitations in a still emergent field of research have obscured the neuropsychological discriminability of TRS. We report on the first systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate neuropsychological differences between TRS patients and treatment-responsive controls across 17 published studies (1864 participants). Five meta-analyses were performed in relation to (1) executive function, (2) general cognitive function, (3) attention, working memory and processing speed, (4) verbal memory and learning, and (5) visual-spatial memory and learning. Small-to-moderate effect sizes emerged for all domains. Similarly to previous comparisons between unselected, drug-naïve and first-episode schizophrenia samples v. healthy controls in the literature, the largest effect size was observed in verbal memory and learning [dl = -0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.76; z = 4.42; p < 0.001]. A sub-analysis of language-related functions, extracted from across the primary domains, yielded a comparable effect size (dl = -0.53, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.23; z = 3.45; p < 0.001). Manipulating our sampling strategy to include or exclude samples selected for clozapine response did not affect the pattern of findings. Our findings are discussed in relation to possible aetiological contributions to TRS.

Clozapine for treatment resistance in early psychosis: a survey of UK clinicians' training, knowledge and confidence

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is the only medication licenced for patients with psychosis that is resistant to conventional antipsychotic treatment. However, despite its effectiveness, it remains widely underutilised. One contributory factor for this may be clinicians' lack of confidence around the management of clozapine.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a survey of clinicians working in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services to determine their training needs for clozapine management in EIP services.

METHODS

An electronic survey was made available to all clinicians working in EIP services in England. The survey assessed confidence and training needs regarding managing clozapine in patients with treatment-resistant psychosis. Quantitative data were analysed using total mean scores and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

In all, 192 (27%) of approximately 700 clinicians from 35 EIP services completed the survey. Approximately half (54%) had not received training on treatment with clozapine. Experience of training was higher in prescribers than non-prescribers, and among medical than non-medical clinicians. Previous training was associated with significantly higher confidence in offering clozapine and managing treatment-resistant psychosis (p < 0.001). Confidence levels with managing treatment-resistant psychosis and clozapine were relatively high (mean = 4 out of 5, SD = 1). Respondents were most confident about monitoring mental health response to treatment (mean = 5, SD = 1). Participants were least confident about how to discontinue clozapine treatment safely (mean = 3, SD = 1).

CONCLUSION

Most clinicians working in EIP have not received training on the use of clozapine. This may account, in part, for the underutilisation of clozapine in EIP services. The provision of training in the identification of treatment-resistant psychosis and the use of clozapine will likely improve the detection and management of treatment resistance in the early phase of psychosis.

Clozapine induces metformin-resistant prediabetes/diabetes that is associated with poor clinical efficacy in patients with early treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Two distinct subtypes of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) have been recently reported, including early-treatment resistance (E-TR) and late-treatment resistance (L-TR). This study was to assess clozapine-induced metformin-resistant prediabetes/diabetes and its correlation with clinical efficacy in schizophrenia E-TR subtype.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study enrolled 230 patients with schizophrenia E-TR subtype and they were treated with adequate doses of clozapine for 16 weeks, during which patients with prediabetes/diabetes were assigned to receive add-on metformin. The main outcomes and measures included incidence of clozapine-induced prediabetes/diabetes and metformin-resistant prediabetes/diabetes, and the efficacy of clozapine as assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score.

RESULTS

Clozapine-induced prediabetes/diabetes occurred in 76.52% of patients (170 prediabetes and 6 diabetes), of which the blood sugar of 43 (24.43%) patients was controlled with metformin. Despite add-on metformin, 47.06% (74/170) of prediabetes patients progressed to diabetes. In total, the incidence of clozapine-induced metformin-resistant prediabetes/diabetes was 75.57% (133/176). On completion of 16-week clozapine treatment, 16.52% (38/230) patients showed clinical improvement with PANSS scores of ≥50% declining. Furthermore, clozapine-induced prediabetes/diabetes was significantly correlated with the poor clinical efficacy of clozapine for schizophrenia E-TR subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of clozapine-induced metformin-resistant prediabetes/diabetes was considerably high in the schizophrenia E-TR subtype. Clozapine-induced metformin-resistant prediabetes/diabetes represents an independent risk factor that adversely affects the clinical efficacy of clozapine for the schizophrenia E-TR subtype. This study provided new evidence for re-evaluating the use of clozapine for TRS, especially E-TR subtype, and the use of metformin for the glycemic control of clozapine-induced prediabetes/diabetes.

A Synthetic Literature Review on the Management of Emerging Treatment Resistance in First Episode Psychosis: Can We Move towards Precision Intervention and Individualised Care?

Treatment resistance is prevalent in early intervention in psychosis services, and causes a significant burden for the individual. A wide range of variables are shown to contribute to treatment resistance in first episode psychosis (FEP). Heterogeneity in illness course and the complex, multidimensional nature of the concept of recovery calls for an evidence base to better inform practice at an individual level. Current gold standard treatments, adopting a ‘one-size fits all’ approach, may not be addressing the needs of many individuals. This following review will provide an update and critical appraisal of current clinical practices and methodological approaches for understanding, identifying, and managing early treatment resistance in early psychosis. Potential new treatments along with new avenues for research will be discussed. Finally, we will discuss and critique the application and translation of machine learning approaches to aid progression in this area. The move towards ‘big data’ and machine learning holds some prospect for stratifying intervention-based subgroups of individuals. Moving forward, better recognition of early treatment resistance is needed, along with greater sophistication and precision in predicting outcomes, so that effective evidence-based treatments can be appropriately tailored to the individual. Understanding the antecedents and the early trajectory of one’s illness may also be key to understanding the factors that drive illness course.