Cost-effectiveness of first- v. second-generation antipsychotic drugs: results from a randomised controlled trial in schizophrenia responding poorly to previous therapy

Automated virtual reality cognitive therapy versus virtual reality mental relaxation therapy for the treatment of persistent persecutory delusions in patients with psychosis (THRIVE): a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in England with mediation analyses

BACKGROUND

Persecutory delusions are a major psychiatric problem that often do not respond sufficiently to standard pharmacological or psychological treatments. We developed a new brief automated virtual reality (VR) cognitive treatment that has the potential to be used easily in clinical services. We aimed to compare VR cognitive therapy with an alternative VR therapy (mental relaxation), with an emphasis on understanding potential mechanisms of action.

METHODS

THRIVE was a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial across four UK National Health Service trusts in England. Participants were included if they were aged 16 years or older, had a persistent (at least 3 months) persecutory delusion held with at least 50% conviction, reported feeling threatened when outside with other people, and had a primary diagnosis from the referring clinical team of a non-affective psychotic disorder. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to either THRIVE VR cognitive therapy or VR mental relaxation, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by severity of delusion. Usual care continued for all participants. Each VR therapy was provided in four sessions over approximately 4 weeks, supported by an assistant psychologist or clinical psychologist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 2 (therapy mid-point), 4 (primary endpoint, end of treatment), 8, 16, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0-100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed the treatment credibility and expectancy of the interventions and the two mechanisms (defence behaviours and safety beliefs) that the cognitive intervention was designed to target. This trial is prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12497310.

FINDINGS

From Sept 21, 2018, to May 13, 2021 (with a pause due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from March 16, 2020, to Sept 14, 2020), we recruited 80 participants with persistent persecutory delusions (49 [61%] men, 31 [39%] women, with a mean age of 40 years [SD 13, range 18-73], 64 [80%] White, six [8%] Black, one [1%] Indian, three [4%] Pakistani, and six [8%] other race or ethnicity). We randomly assigned 39 (49%) participants assigned to VR cognitive therapy and 41 (51%) participants to VR mental relaxation. 33 (85%) participants who were assigned to VR cognitive therapy attended all four sessions, and 35 (85%) participants assigned to VR mental relaxation attended all four sessions. We found no significant differences between the two VR interventions in participant ratings of treatment credibility (adjusted mean difference -1·55 [95% CI -3·68 to 0·58]; p=0·15) and outcome expectancy (-0·91 [-3·42 to 1·61]; p=0·47). 77 (96%) participants provided follow-up data at the primary timepoint. Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater improvement in persecutory delusions (adjusted mean difference -2·16 [-12·77 to 8·44]; p=0·69). Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater reduction in use of defence behaviours (adjusted mean difference -0·71 [-4·21 to 2·79]; p=0·69) or a greater increase in belief in safety (-5·89 [-16·83 to 5·05]; p=0·29). There were 17 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial (ten events in seven participants in the VR cognitive therapy group and seven events in five participants in the VR mental relaxation group).

INTERPRETATION

The two VR interventions performed similarly, despite the fact that they had been designed to affect different mechanisms. Both interventions had high uptake rates and were associated with large improvements in persecutory delusions but it cannot be determined that the treatments accounted for the change. Immersive technologies hold promise for the treatment of severe mental health problems. However, their use will likely benefit from experimental research on the application of different therapeutic techniques and the effects on a range of potential mechanisms of action.

FUNDING

Medical Research Council Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme and National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy for psychosis (EMDRp): Protocol of a feasibility randomized controlled trial with early intervention service users

AIM

Traumatic events are involved in the development and maintenance of psychotic symptoms. There are few trials exploring trauma-focused treatments as interventions for psychotic symptoms, especially in individuals with early psychosis. This trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a definitive trial of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for psychosis (EMDRp) in people with early psychosis.

METHODS

Sixty participants with first episode psychosis and a history of a traumatic/adverse life event(s)will be recruited from early intervention services in the North West of England and randomized to receive16 sessions of EMDRp + Treatment as Usual (TAU) or TAU alone. Participants will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-randomization using several measures of psychotic symptoms, trauma symptoms, anxiety, depression, functioning, service-user defined recovery, health economics indicators and quality of life. Two nested qualitative studies to assess participant feedback of therapy and views of professional stakeholders on the implementation of EMDRp into services will also be conducted. The feasibility of a future definitive efficacy and cost-effectiveness evaluation of EMDRp will be tested against several outcomes, including ability to recruit and randomize participants, trial retention at 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments, treatment engagement and treatment fidelity.

CONCLUSIONS

If it is feasible to deliver a multi-site trial of this intervention, it will be possible to evaluate whether EMDRp represents a beneficial treatment to augment existing evidence-based care of individuals with early psychosis supported by early intervention services.

Comparison of a theoretically driven cognitive therapy (the Feeling Safe Programme) with befriending for the treatment of persistent persecutory delusions: a parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a large clinical need for improved treatments for patients with persecutory delusions. We aimed to test whether a new theoretically driven cognitive therapy (the Feeling Safe Programme) would lead to large reductions in persecutory delusions, above non-specific effects of therapy. We also aimed to test treatment effect mechanisms.

METHODS

We did a parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial to test the Feeling Safe Programme against befriending with the same therapists for patients with persistent persecutory delusions in the context of non-affective psychosis diagnoses. Usual care continued throughout the duration of the trial. The trial took place in community mental health services in three UK National Health Service trusts. Participants were included if they were 16 years or older, had persecutory delusions (as defined by Freeman and Garety) for at least 3 months and held with at least 60% conviction, and had a primary diagnosis of non-affective psychosis from the referring clinical team. Patients were randomly assigned to either the Feeling Safe Programme or the befriending programme, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by therapist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. If an allocation was unmasked then the unmasked assessor was replaced with a new masked assessor. Outcomes were assessed at 0 months, 6 months (primary endpoint), and 12 months. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed within the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0-100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Each intervention was provided individually over 6 months. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18705064.

FINDINGS

From Feb 8, 2016, to July 26, 2019, 130 patients with persecutory delusions (78 [60%] men; 52 [40%] women, mean age 42 years [SD 12·1, range 17-71]; 86% White, 9% Black, 2% Indian; 2·3% Pakistani; 2% other) were recruited. 64 patients were randomly allocated to the Feeling Safe Programme and 66 patients to befriending. Compared with befriending, the Feeling Safe Programme led to significant end of treatment reductions in delusional conviction (-10·69 [95% CI -19·75 to -1·63], p=0·021, Cohen's d=-0·86) and delusion severity (PSYRATS, -2·94 [-4·58 to -1·31], p<0·0001, Cohen's d=-1·20). More adverse events occurred in the befriending group (68 unrelated adverse events reported in 20 [30%] participants) compared with the Feeling Safe group (53 unrelated adverse events reported in 16 [25%] participants).

INTERPRETATION

The Feeling Safe Programme led to a significant reduction in persistent persecutory delusions compared with befriending. To our knowledge, these are the largest treatment effects seen for patients with persistent delusions. The principal limitation of our trial was the relatively small sample size when comparing two active treatments, meaning less precision in effect size estimates and lower power to detect moderate treatment differences in secondary outcomes. Further research could be done to determine whether greater effects could be possible by reducing the hypothesised delusion maintenance mechanisms further. The Feeling Safe Programme could become the recommended psychological treatment in clinical services for persecutory delusions.

FUNDING

NIHR Research Professorship and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Worldwide antipsychotic drug search intensities: pharmacoepidemological estimations based on Google Trends data

Prescription patterns of antipsychotic drugs (APDs) are typically sourced from country-specific data. In this study, a digital pharmacoepidemiological approach was used to investigate APD preferences globally. Publicly available data on worldwide web search intensities in Google for 19 typical and 22 atypical APDs were temporally and spatially normalized and correlated with reported prescription data. The results demonstrated an increasing global preference for atypical over typical APDs since 2007, with quetiapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and aripiprazole showing the largest search intensities in 2020. Cross-sectional analysis of 122 countries in 2020 showed pronounced differences in atypical/typical APD preferences that correlated with gross domestic product per capita. In conclusion, the investigation provides temporal and spatial assessments of global APD preferences and shows a trend towards atypical APDs, although with a relative preference for typical APDs in low-income countries. Similar data-sourcing methodologies allow for prospective studies of other prescription drugs.

Health State Utility Values in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patient preferences are increasingly important in informing clinical and policy decisions. Health-state utility values (HSUVs) are quantitative measures of people's preferences over different health states. In schizophrenia, there is no clarity about HSUVs across the symptoms' severity spectrum. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize the literature on HSUVs in people with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We searched Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, EconLit, The Cochrane Library, and specialized databases. The studies reporting HSUVs in people with schizophrenia were selected and pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the mean HSUV obtained from participants.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies involving 87 335 participants were included. The pooled estimate using direct elicitation was a mean HSUV of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88) for mild symptomatic states, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54-0.85) in moderate states, and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.13-0.56) in severe states. Studies using indirect techniques resulted in a pooled mean HSUV of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) applying the EuroQol 5-dimension, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71) in the Short-Form 6-dimension, and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.57-0.61) using the Quality of Well-Being scale. All the estimates resulted in considerable heterogeneity, partially reduced by meta-regression.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the severity of psychotic symptoms has an important effect on HSUVs in schizophrenia, with values mirroring patients with disabling physical conditions such as cancer and stroke. Decision makers should be aware of these results when including people's preferences in trials, models, and policy decisions.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: the FOCUS RCT

BACKGROUND

Clozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people with schizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome.

DESIGN

The Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks of random size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU).

SETTING

Secondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

People with CRS aged ≥ 16 years, with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms.

INTERVENTIONS

Individual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs.

RESULTS

Participants were allocated to CBT (n = 242) or TAU (n = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.32 to 1.55 points; p = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (-2.40 points, 95% CI -4.79 to -0.02 points; p = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378 (95% CI -£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefit and how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Changing prescribing patterns in an Irish community mental health service

OBJECTIVES

Medication is an important component of the treatment of many mental illnesses. Very little information is available about the particular medications that are being prescribed by community mental health services and how this has changed over time. We set out to obtain details of psychiatric medications being prescribed by one Irish community mental health service.

METHOD

All prescribing by the Cluain Mhuire Community Mental Health Service became electronic during 2004. Using Business Intelligence software, we obtained details of all psychiatric medications prescribed from 2005 to 2016. We compared numbers of prescriptions written in the first 6 years (2005-2010) with the following 6 (2011-2016).

RESULTS

Olanzapine was the most commonly prescribed medication throughout but its use declined by one-quarter over the study period. Clozapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole and haloperidol prescribing increased. Prescriptions for mood stabilisers and antidepressants fell by 25%. Sedative prescriptions declined by almost 50%. Absolute numbers of prescriptions written for methylphenidate and pregabalin were small but increased dramatically over the time period.

CONCLUSIONS

This community mental health service prescribed less of most psychiatric medications in 2016, than had been the case in 2005. This is despite an increase in the numbers of patients seen over the same period. It is not clear if this pattern is echoed in other services.

Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT

Background

Service users and carers using mental health services want more involvement in their care and the aim of this research programme was to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning in mental health services.

Objectives

Co-develop and co-deliver a training intervention for health professionals in community mental health teams, which aimed to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning. Develop a patient-reported outcome measure of service user involvement in care planning, design an audit tool and assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning involvement. Evaluate the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the training. Understand the barriers to and facilitators of implementing service user- and carer-involved care planning. Disseminate resources to stakeholders.

Methods

A systematic review, focus groups and interviews with service users/carers/health professionals informed the training and determined the priorities underpinning involvement in care planning. Data from focus groups and interviews were combined and analysed using framework analysis. The results of the systematic review, focus groups/interviews and a review of the training interventions were synthesised to develop the final training intervention. To develop and validate the patient-reported outcome measure, items were generated from focus groups and interviews, and a psychometric analysis was conducted. Patient-reported outcome measure items and a three-round consensus exercise were used to develop an audit tool, and a stated preference survey was undertaken to assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the training were evaluated using a pragmatic cluster trial with cohort and cross-sectional samples. A nested longitudinal qualitative process evaluation using multiple methods, including semistructured interviews with key informants involved locally and nationally in mental health policy, practice and research, was undertaken. A mapping exercise was used to determine current practice, and semistructured interviews were undertaken with service users and mental health professionals from both the usual-care and the intervention arms of the trial at three time points (i.e. baseline and 6 months and 12 months post intervention).

Results

The results from focus groups (n = 56) and interviews (n = 74) highlighted a need to deliver training to increase the quality of care planning and a training intervention was developed. We recruited 402 participants to develop the final 14-item patient-reported outcome measure and a six-item audit tool. We recruited 232 participants for the stated preference survey and found that preferences were strongest for the attribute ‘my preferences for care are included in the care plan’. The training was delivered to 304 care co-ordinators working in community mental health teams across 10 NHS trusts. The cluster trial and cross-sectional survey recruited 1286 service users and 90 carers, and the primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Training was positively evaluated. The results showed no statistically significant difference on the primary outcome (the Health Care Climate Questionnaire) (adjusted mean difference –0.064, 95% confidence interval –0.343 to 0.215; p = 0.654) or secondary outcomes at the 6-month follow-up. Overall, the training intervention was associated with a net saving of –£54.00 (95% confidence interval –£193.00 to £84.00), with a net quality-adjusted life-year loss of –0.014 (95% confidence interval –0.034 to 0.005). The longitudinal process evaluation recruited 54 service users, professionals and carers, finding a failure of training to become embedded in routine care.

Limitations

Our pragmatic study was designed to improve service user and care involvement in care planning among routine community mental health services. We intervened in 18 sites with > 300 care co-ordinators. However, our volunteer sites may not be fully representative of the wider population, and we lacked data with which to compare our participants with the eligible population.

Conclusions

We co-developed and co-delivered a training intervention and developed a unidimensional measure of service user and carer involvement in care planning and an audit tool. Despite a high level of satisfaction with the training, no significant effect was found; therefore, the intervention was ineffective. There was a failure of training to become embedded and normalised because of a lack of organisational readiness to accept change. Working with NHS trusts in our ‘Willing Adopters’ programme with enhanced organisational buy-in yielded some promising results.

Future work

Research should focus on developing and evaluating new organisational initiatives in addition to training health-care professionals to address contextual barriers to service and carer involvement in care planning, and explore co-designing and delivering new ways of enhancing service users’ and carers’ capabilities to engage in care planning.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16488358.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Automated psychological therapy using virtual reality (VR) for patients with persecutory delusions: study protocol for a single-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trial (THRIVE)

Background

Persecutory delusions are a major psychiatric problem and are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes. Our theoretical model views these delusions as unfounded threat beliefs which persist due to defence behaviours (e.g. avoidance) that prevent disconfirmatory evidence being processed. The treatment implications are that patients need to (1) go into feared situations and (2) not use defence behaviours. This enables relearning of safety and hence paranoia diminution. However, this is very difficult for patients due to their severe anxiety. A solution is to use virtual reality (VR) social situations, which are graded in difficulty and which patients find much easier to enter. We have now automated the provision of cognitive therapy within VR using an avatar coach, so that a therapist is not required and the treatment is scalable. In the THRIVE trial, the automated VR cognitive treatment will be tested against a VR control condition. It will contribute to our wider programme of work developing VR for patients with psychosis.

Methods

Patients with persistent persecutory delusions in the context of non-affective psychosis will be randomised (1:1) to the automated VR cognitive treatment or VR mental relaxation (control condition). Each VR treatment will comprise approximately four sessions of 30 min. Standard care will remain as usual in both groups. Assessments will be carried out at 0, 2, 4 (post treatment), 8, 16, and 24 weeks by a researcher blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is degree of conviction in the persecutory delusion (primary endpoint 4 weeks). Effect sizes will be re-established by an interim analysis of 30 patients. If the interim effect size suggests that the treatment is worth pursuing (d > 0.1), then the trial will go on to test 90 patients in total. Secondary outcomes include real world distress, activity levels, suicidal ideation, and quality of life. Mediation will also be tested. All main analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is funded by the Medical Research Council Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme.

Discussion

The trial will provide the first test of automated cognitive therapy within VR for patients with psychosis. The treatment is potentially highly scalable for treatment services.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN12497310. Registered on 14 August 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3198-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reducing relapse and suicide in bipolar disorder: practical clinical approaches to identifying risk, reducing harm and engaging service users in planning and delivery of care – the PARADES (Psychoeducation, Anxiety, Relapse, Advance Directive Evaluation and Suicidality) programme

Background

Bipolar disorder (BD) costs £5.2B annually, largely as a result of incomplete recovery after inadequate treatment.

Objectives

A programme of linked studies to reduce relapse and suicide in BD.

Design

There were five workstreams (WSs): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of group psychoeducation (PEd) versus group peer support (PS) in the maintenance of BD (WS1); development and feasibility RCTs of integrated psychological therapy for anxiety in bipolar disorder (AIBD) and integrated for problematic alcohol use in BD (WS2 and WS3); survey and qualitative investigations of suicide and self-harm in BD (WS4); and survey and qualitative investigation of service users’ (SUs) and psychiatrists’ experience of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), with reference to advance planning (WS5).

Setting

Participants were from England; recruitment into RCTs was limited to certain sites [East Midlands and North West (WS1); North West (WS2 and WS3)].

Participants

Aged ≥ 18 years. In WS1–3, participants had their diagnosis of BD confirmed by the Structural Clinical Interview for theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Interventions

In WS1, group PEd/PS; in WS3 and WS4, individual psychological therapy for comorbid anxiety and alcohol use, respectively.

Main outcome measures

In WS1, time to relapse of bipolar episode; in WS2 and WS3, feasibility and acceptability of interventions; in WS4, prevalence and determinants of suicide and self-harm; and in WS5, professional training and support of advance planning in MCA, and SU awareness and implementation.

Results

Group PEd and PS could be routinely delivered in the NHS. The estimated median time to first bipolar relapse was 67.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.3 to 90.9] weeks in PEd, compared with 48.0 (95% CI 30.6 to 65.9) weeks in PS. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; likelihood ratio testp = 0.217). The interaction between the number of previous bipolar episodes (1–7 and 8–19, relative to 20+) and treatment arm was significant (χ2 = 6.80, degrees of freedom = 2;p = 0.034): PEd with one to seven episodes showed the greatest delay in time to episode. A primary economic analysis indicates that PEd is not cost-effective compared with PS. A sensitivity analysis suggests potential cost-effectiveness if decision-makers accept a cost of £37,500 per quality-adjusted life-year. AIBD and motivational interviewing (MI) cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) trials were feasible and acceptable in achieving recruitment and retention targets (AIBD:n = 72, 72% retention to follow-up; MI-CBT:n = 44, 75% retention) and in-depth qualitative interviews. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes for either trial overall. The factors associated with risk of suicide and self-harm (longer duration of illness, large number of periods of inpatient care, and problems establishing diagnosis) could inform improved clinical care and specific interventions. Qualitative interviews suggested that suicide risk had been underestimated, that care needs to be more collaborative and that people need fast access to good-quality care. Despite SUs supporting advance planning and psychiatrists being trained in MCA, the use of MCA planning provisions was low, with confusion over informal and legally binding plans.

Limitations

Inferences for routine clinical practice from WS1 were limited by the absence of a ‘treatment as usual’ group.

Conclusion

The programme has contributed significantly to understanding how to improve outcomes in BD. Group PEd is being implemented in the NHS influenced by SU support.

Future work

Future work is needed to evaluate optimal approaches to psychological treatment of comorbidity in BD. In addition, work in improved risk detection in relation to suicide and self-harm in clinical services and improved training in MCA are indicated.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62761948, ISRCTN84288072 and ISRCTN14774583.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral fluphenazine with placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia. To evaluate any available economic studies and value outcome data.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (23 July 2013, 23 December 2014, 9 November 2016 and 28 December 2017 ) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the effects of interventions, a review team inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow-up, but, where possible, mean differences (MD) were calculated. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by an economic review team to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary.

MAIN RESULTS

From over 1200 electronic records of 415 studies identified by our initial search and this updated search, we excluded 48 potentially relevant studies and included seven trials published between 1964 and 1999 that randomised 439 (mostly adult participants). No new included trials were identified for this review update. Compared with placebo, global state outcomes of 'not improved or worsened' were not significantly different in the medium term in one small study (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 1.12 CI 0.79 to 1.58, very low quality of evidence). The risk of relapse in the long term was greater in two small studies in people receiving placebo (n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.05 to 3.31, very low quality of evidence), however with high degree of heterogeneity in the results. Only one person allocated fluphenazine was reported in the same small study to have died on long-term follow-up (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 2.38 CI 0.10 to 55.72, low quality of evidence). Short-term extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly more frequent with fluphenazine compared to placebo in two other studies for the outcomes of akathisia (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.23 to 9.56, moderate quality of evidence) and rigidity (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.76 to 7.14, moderate quality of evidence). For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes for relapse and presented them in additional tables.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and if accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.

Amisulpride augmentation in clozapine-unresponsive schizophrenia (AMICUS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

When treatment-refractory schizophrenia shows an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine, clinicians commonly add a second antipsychotic, despite the lack of robust evidence to justify this practice.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the study were to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of clozapine medication with a second antipsychotic, amisulpride, for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

DESIGN

The study was a multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with follow-up at 12 weeks.

SETTINGS

The study was set in NHS multidisciplinary teams in adult psychiatry.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible participants were people aged 18-65 years with treatment-resistant schizophrenia unresponsive, at a criterion level of persistent symptom severity and impaired social function, to an adequate trial of clozapine monotherapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions comprised clozapine augmentation over 12 weeks with amisulpride or placebo. Participants received 400 mg of amisulpride or two matching placebo capsules for the first 4 weeks, after which there was a clinical option to titrate the dosage of amisulpride up to 800 mg or four matching placebo capsules for the remaining 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of 'responders', using a criterion response threshold of a 20% reduction in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 68 participants were randomised. Compared with the participants assigned to placebo, those receiving amisulpride had a greater chance of being a responder by the 12-week follow-up (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 3.42) and a greater improvement in negative symptoms, although neither finding had been present at 6-week follow-up and neither was statistically significant. Amisulpride was associated with a greater side effect burden, including cardiac side effects. Economic analyses indicated that amisulpride augmentation has the potential to be cost-effective in the short term [net saving of between £329 and £2011; no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and possibly in the longer term.

LIMITATIONS

The trial under-recruited and, therefore, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. The economic analyses indicated high uncertainty because of the short duration and relatively small number of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk-benefit of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia that has shown an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine monotherapy is worthy of further investigation in larger studies. The size and extent of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination may partly reflect the comprehensive assessment of side effects in this study. The design of future trials of such a treatment strategy should take into account that a clinical response may be not be evident within the 4- to 6-week follow-up period usually considered adequate in studies of antipsychotic treatment of acute psychotic episodes. Economic evaluation indicated the need for larger, longer-term studies to address uncertainty about the extent of savings because of amisulpride and impact on QALYs. The extent and nature of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination has implications for the nature and frequency of safety and tolerability monitoring of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic in both clinical and research settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number 2010-018963-40 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68824876.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder: Results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) costs the English economy an estimated £5.2billion/year, largely through incomplete recovery. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of group psychoeducation (PEd), versus group peer support (PS), for treating BD.

METHODS

A 96-week pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT), conducted in NHS primary care. The primary analysis compared PEd with PS, using multiple imputed datasets for missing values. An economic model was used to compare PEd with treatment as usual (TAU). The perspective was Health and Personal Social Services.

RESULTS

Participants receiving PEd (n=153) used more (costly) health-related resources than PS (n=151) (net cost per person £1098 (95% CI, £252-£1943)), with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.023 (95% CI, 0.001-0.056). The cost per QALY gained was £47,739. PEd may be cost-effective (versus PS) if decision makers are willing to pay at least £37,500 per QALY gained. PEd costs £10,765 more than PS to avoid one relapse. The economic model indicates that PEd may be cost-effective versus TAU if it reduces the probability of relapse (by 15%) or reduces the probability of and increases time to relapse (by 10%).

LIMITATIONS

Participants were generally inconsistent in attending treatment sessions and low numbers had complete cost/QALY data. Factors contributing to pervasive uncertainty of the results are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first economic evaluation of PEd versus PS in a pragmatic trial. PEd is associated with a modest improvement in health status and higher costs than PS. There is a high level of uncertainty in the data and results.

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

For around a third of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the condition proves to respond poorly to treatment with many typical and atypical antipsychotics. This is commonly referred to as treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clozapine is the only antipsychotic with convincing efficacy for people whose symptoms are considered treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication. However, 30-40 % of such conditions will have an insufficient response to the drug. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for schizophrenia when delivered in combination with antipsychotic medication, with several meta-analyses showing robust support for this approach. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with a schizophrenia diagnosis whose symptoms are treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication is limited. There is a clinical and economic need to evaluate treatments to improve outcomes for people with such conditions.

METHODS/DESIGN

A parallel group, prospective randomised, open, blinded evaluation of outcomes design will be used to compare a standardised cognitive behavioural therapy intervention added to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual alone (the comparator group) for individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia for whom an adequate trial of clozapine has either not been possible due to tolerability problems or was not associated with a sufficient therapeutic response. The trial will be conducted across five sites in the United Kingdom.

DISCUSSION

The recruitment target of 485 was achieved, with a final recruitment total of 487. This trial is the largest definitive, pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia whose symptoms have failed to show an adequate response to clozapine treatment. Using a prognostic risk model, baseline information will be used to explore whether there are identifiable subgroups for which the treatment effect is greatest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552 . Registered 29(th) November 2012.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug from the phenothiazine group of antipsychotics. It has been commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, however, with the advent of atypical antipsychotic medications, use has declined over the years.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the outcomes (both beneficial and harmful) of the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral fluphenazine versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (25 April 2013). For the economic search, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on 31 January 2014 SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine (oral) with any other oral atypical antipsychotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors worked independently to inspect citations and assess the quality of the studies and to extract data. For homogeneous dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies randomising a total of 202 people with schizophrenia are included. Oral fluphenazine was compared with oral amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine.Comparing oral fluphenazine with amisulpride, there was no difference between groups for mental state using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 5.10 95% CI -2.35 to 12.55, very low-quality evidence), nor was there any difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 98, RR 1.19 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28, very low-quality evidence). More people required concomitant anticholinergic medication in the fluphenazine group compared to amisulpride (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 7.82 95% CI 1.07 to 57.26, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for important outcomes including relapse, changes in life skills, quality of life or cost-effectiveness.Comparing oral fluphenazine with risperidone, data showed no difference between groups for 'clinically important response' (1 RCT, n = 26, RR 0.67 95% CI 0.13 to 3.35, very low-quality evidence) nor leaving the study early due to inefficacy (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 1.08 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported data for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Once again there was no difference when oral fluphenazine was compared with quetiapine for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.62 95% CI 0.12 to 3.07, very low-quality evidence), nor leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.05 to 4.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; clinically important change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Compared to olanzapine, fluphenazine showed no superiority for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.86 to 2.07, very low-quality evidence), in incidence of akathisia (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.90 to 10.01, very low-quality evidence) or in people leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; or cost-effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Measures of clinical response and mental state do not highlight differences between fluphenazine and amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine or olanzapine. Largely measures of adverse effects are also unconvincing for substantive differences between fluphenazine and the newer drugs. All included trials carry a substantial risk of bias regarding reporting of adverse effects and this bias would have favoured the newer drugs. The four small short included studies do not provide much clear information about the relative merits or disadvantages of oral fluphenazine compared with newer atypical antipsychotics.

The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003-13: a multimethod evaluation

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme supports research tailored to the needs of NHS decision-makers, patients and clinicians. This study reviewed the impact of the programme, from 2003 to 2013, on health, clinical practice, health policy, the economy and academia. It also considered how HTA could maintain and increase its impact.

METHODS

Interviews (n = 20): senior stakeholders from academia, policy-making organisations and the HTA programme. Bibliometric analysis: citation analysis of publications arising from HTA programme-funded research. Researchfish survey: electronic survey of all HTA grant holders. Payback case studies (n = 12): in-depth case studies of HTA programme-funded research.

RESULTS

We make the following observations about the impact, and routes to impact, of the HTA programme: it has had an impact on patients, primarily through changes in guidelines, but also directly (e.g. changing clinical practice); it has had an impact on UK health policy, through providing high-quality scientific evidence - its close relationships with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) contributed to the observed impact on health policy, although in some instances other organisations may better facilitate impact; HTA research is used outside the UK by other HTA organisations and systematic reviewers - the programme has an impact on HTA practice internationally as a leader in HTA research methods and the funding of HTA research; the work of the programme is of high academic quality - the Health Technology Assessment journal ensures that the vast majority of HTA programme-funded research is published in full, while the HTA programme still encourages publication in other peer-reviewed journals; academics agree that the programme has played an important role in building and retaining HTA research capacity in the UK; the HTA programme has played a role in increasing the focus on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in medicine - it has also contributed to increasingly positive attitudes towards HTA research both within the research community and the NHS; and the HTA focuses resources on research that is of value to patients and the UK NHS, which would not otherwise be funded (e.g. where there is no commercial incentive to undertake research). The programme should consider the following to maintain and increase its impact: providing targeted support for dissemination, focusing resources when important results are unlikely to be implemented by other stakeholders, particularly when findings challenge vested interests; maintaining close relationships with NICE and the NSC, but also considering other potential users of HTA research; maintaining flexibility and good relationships with researchers, giving particular consideration to the Technology Assessment Report (TAR) programme and the potential for learning between TAR centres; maintaining the academic quality of the work and the focus on NHS need; considering funding research on the short-term costs of the implementation of new health technologies; improving the monitoring and evaluation of whether or not patient and public involvement influences research; improve the transparency of the priority-setting process; and continuing to monitor the impact and value of the programme to inform its future scientific and administrative development.

Risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new generation antipsychotic drug made available in a long-acting injection formulation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of depot risperidone for treatment of schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medication.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and cost-effectiveness of risperidone (depot) for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2002, 2012, and October 28, 2015). We also checked the references of all included studies, and contacted industry and authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing depot risperidone with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, with a total of 5723 participants were randomised to the following comparison treatments: Risperidone depot versus placebo Outcomes of relapse and improvement in mental state were neither measured or reported. In terms of other primary outcomes, more people receiving placebo left the study early by 12 weeks (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.74 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, very low quality evidence), experienced severe adverse events in short term (1 RCT, n=400, RR 0.59 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93, very low quality evidence). There was however, no difference in levels of weight gain between groups (1 RCT, n=400, RR 2.11 95% CI 0.48 to 9.18, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus general oral antipsychotics The outcome of improvement in mental state was not presented due to high levels of attrition, nor were levels of severe adverse events explicitly reported. Most primary outcomes of interest showed no difference between treatment groups. However, more people receiving depot risperidone experienced nervous system disorders (long-term:1 RCT, n=369, RR 1.34 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58, very-low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral risperidoneData for relapse and severe adverse events were not reported. All outcomes of interest were rated as moderate quality evidence. Main results showed no differences between treatment groups with equivocal data for change in mental state, numbers leaving the study early, any extrapyramidal symptoms, weight increase and prolactin-related adverse events. Risperidone depot versus oral quetiapine Relapse rates and improvement in mental state were not reported. Fewer people receiving risperidone depot left the study early (long-term: 1 RCT, n=666, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence). Experience of serious adverse events was similar between groups (low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone experienced EPS (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.83 95% CI 1.07 to 3.15, low quality evidence), had greater weight gain (1 RCT, n=666, RR 1.25 95% CI 0.25 to 2.25, low quality evidence) and more prolactin-related adverse events (1 RCT, n=666, RR 3.07 95% CI 1.13 to 8.36, very low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral aripiprazoleRelapse rates, mental state using PANSS, leaving the study early, serious adverse events and weight increase were similar between groups. However more people receiving depot risperidone experienced prolactin-related adverse events compared to those receiving oral aripiprazole (2 RCTs, n=729, RR 9.91 95% CI 2.78 to 35.29, very low quality of evidence). Risperidone depot versus oral olanzapineRelapse rates were not reported in any of the included studies for this comparison. Improvement in mental state using PANSS and instances of severe adverse events were similar between groups. More people receiving depot risperidone left the study early than those receiving oral olanzapine (1 RCT, n=618, RR 1.32 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58, low quality evidence) with those receiving risperidone depot also experiencing more extrapyramidal symptoms (1 RCT, n=547, RR 1.67 95% CI 1.19 to 2.36, low quality evidence). However, more people receiving oral olanzapine experienced weight increase (1 RCT, n=547, RR 0.56 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75, low quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus atypical depot antipsychotics (specifically paliperidone palmitate)Relapse rates were not reported and rates of response using PANSS, weight increase, prolactin-related adverse events and glucose-related adverse events were similar between groups. Fewer people left the study early due to lack of efficacy from the risperidone depot group (long term: 1 RCT, n=749, RR 0.60 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, low quality evidence), but more people receiving depot risperidone required use of EPS-medication (2 RCTs, n=1666, RR 1.46 95% CI 1.18 to 1.8, moderate quality evidence). Risperidone depot versus typical depot antipsychoticsOutcomes of relapse, severe adverse events or movement disorders were not reported. Outcomes relating to improvement in mental state demonstrated no difference between groups (low quality evidence). However, more people receiving depot risperidone compared to other typical depots left the study early (long-term:1 RCT, n=62, RR 3.05 95% CI 1.12 to 8.31, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Depot risperidone may be more acceptable than placebo injection but it is hard to know if it is any more effective in controlling the symptoms of schizophrenia. The active drug, especially higher doses, may be associated with more movement disorders than placebo. People already stabilised on oral risperidone may continue to maintain benefit if treated with depot risperidone and avoid the need to take tablets, at least in the short term. In people who are happy to take oral medication the depot risperidone is approximately equal to oral risperidone. It is possible that the depot formulation, however, can bring a second-generation antipsychotic to people who do not reliably adhere to treatment. People with schizophrenia who have difficulty adhering to treatment, however, are unlikely to volunteer for a clinical trial. Such people may gain benefit from the depot risperidone with no increased risk of extrapyramidal side effects.

The efficacy of a new translational treatment for persecutory delusions: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (The Feeling Safe Study)

Background

Persecutory delusions (strong unfounded fears that others intend harm to the person) occur in more than 70 % of the patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. This major psychotic experience is a key clinical target, for which substantial improvement in treatment is needed. Our aim is to use advances in theoretical understanding to develop a much more efficacious treatment that leads to recovery in at least 50 % of people with persistent persecutory delusions. Our cognitive conceptualisation is that persecutory delusions are threat beliefs, developed in the context of genetic and environmental risk, maintained by a number of psychological processes including excessive worry, low self-confidence, intolerance of anxious affect and other internal anomalous experiences, reasoning biases, and safety-seeking strategies. The clinical implication is that safety has to be relearned, by entering the feared situations after reduction of the influence of the maintenance factors. We have been individually evaluating modules targeting causal factors. These will now be tested together as a full treatment, called The Feeling Safe Programme. The treatment is modular, personalised, and includes patient preference. We will test whether the new treatment leads to greater recovery in persistent persecutory delusions, psychological well-being, and activity levels compared to befriending (that is, controlling for therapist attention).

Methods/design

The Feeling Safe Study is a parallel group randomised controlled trial for 150 patients who have persecutory delusions despite previous treatment in mental health services. Patients will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to The Feeling Safe Programme or befriending (both provided in 20 sessions over 6 months). Standard care will continue as usual. Online randomisation will use a permuted blocks algorithm, with randomly varying block size, stratified by therapist. Assessments, by a rater blind to allocation, will be conducted at 0, 6 (post treatment), and 12 months. The primary outcome is the level of delusional conviction at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include levels of psychological well-being, suicidal ideation, and activity. All main analyses will be intention-to-treat. The trial is funded by the NHS National Institute for Health Research.

Discussion

The Feeling Safe study will provide a Phase II evaluation of a new targeted translational psychological treatment for persecutory delusions.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18705064 (registered 11 November 2015).

Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis involves the comparison of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a new technology, which is more costly than existing alternatives, with the cost-effectiveness threshold. This indicates whether or not the health expected to be gained from its use exceeds the health expected to be lost elsewhere as other health-care activities are displaced. The threshold therefore represents the additional cost that has to be imposed on the system to forgo 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of health through displacement. There are no empirical estimates of the cost-effectiveness threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To provide a conceptual framework to define the cost-effectiveness threshold and to provide the basis for its empirical estimation. (2) Using programme budgeting data for the English NHS, to estimate the relationship between changes in overall NHS expenditure and changes in mortality. (3) To extend this mortality measure of the health effects of a change in expenditure to life-years and to QALYs by estimating the quality-of-life (QoL) associated with effects on years of life and the additional direct impact on QoL itself. (4) To present the best estimate of the cost-effectiveness threshold for policy purposes.

METHODS

Earlier econometric analysis estimated the relationship between differences in primary care trust (PCT) spending, across programme budget categories (PBCs), and associated disease-specific mortality. This research is extended in several ways including estimating the impact of marginal increases or decreases in overall NHS expenditure on spending in each of the 23 PBCs. Further stages of work link the econometrics to broader health effects in terms of QALYs.

RESULTS

The most relevant 'central' threshold is estimated to be £12,936 per QALY (2008 expenditure, 2008-10 mortality). Uncertainty analysis indicates that the probability that the threshold is < £20,000 per QALY is 0.89 and the probability that it is < £30,000 per QALY is 0.97. Additional 'structural' uncertainty suggests, on balance, that the central or best estimate is, if anything, likely to be an overestimate. The health effects of changes in expenditure are greater when PCTs are under more financial pressure and are more likely to be disinvesting than investing. This indicates that the central estimate of the threshold is likely to be an overestimate for all technologies which impose net costs on the NHS and the appropriate threshold to apply should be lower for technologies which have a greater impact on NHS costs.

LIMITATIONS

The central estimate is based on identifying a preferred analysis at each stage based on the analysis that made the best use of available information, whether or not the assumptions required appeared more reasonable than the other alternatives available, and which provided a more complete picture of the likely health effects of a change in expenditure. However, the limitation of currently available data means that there is substantial uncertainty associated with the estimate of the overall threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods go some way to providing an empirical estimate of the scale of opportunity costs the NHS faces when considering whether or not the health benefits associated with new technologies are greater than the health that is likely to be lost elsewhere in the NHS. Priorities for future research include estimating the threshold for subsequent waves of expenditure and outcome data, for example by utilising expenditure and outcomes available at the level of Clinical Commissioning Groups as well as additional data collected on QoL and updated estimates of incidence (by age and gender) and duration of disease. Nonetheless, the study also starts to make the other NHS patients, who ultimately bear the opportunity costs of such decisions, less abstract and more 'known' in social decisions.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research-Medical Research Council Methodology Research Programme.

Treatments for delusional disorder

BACKGROUND

Delusional disorder is commonly considered to be difficult to treat. Antipsychotic medications are frequently used and there is growing interest in a potential role for psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of delusional disorder.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of medication (antipsychotic medication, antidepressants, mood stabilisers) and psychotherapy, in comparison with placebo in delusional disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating treatments in delusional disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors extracted data independently for the one eligible trial. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis with a fixed-effect model. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again with a fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of bias of the included study and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one randomised trial met our inclusion criteria, despite our initial search yielding 141 citations. This was a small study, with 17 people completing a trial comparing CBT to an attention placebo (supportive psychotherapy) for people with delusional disorder. Most participants were already taking medication and this was continued during the trial. We were not able to include any randomised trials on medications of any type due to poor data reporting, which left us with no usable data for these trials. For the included study, usable data were limited, risk of bias varied and the numbers involved were small, making interpretation of data difficult. In particular there were no data on outcomes such as global state and behaviour, nor any information on possible adverse effects.A positive effect for CBT was found for social self esteem using the Social Self-Esteem Inventory (1 RCT, n = 17, MD 30.5, CI 7.51 to 53.49, very low quality evidence), however this is only a measure of self worth in social situations and may thus not be well correlated to social function. More people left the study early if they were in the supportive psychotherapy group with 6/12 leaving early compared to 1/6 from the CBT group, but the difference was not significant (1 RCT, n = 17, RR 0.17, CI 0.02 to 1.18, moderate quality evidence). For mental state outcomes the results were skewed making interpretation difficult, especially given the small sample.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite international recognition of this disorder in psychiatric classification systems such as ICD-10 and DSM-5, there is a paucity of high quality randomised trials on delusional disorder. There is currently insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations for treatments of any type for people with delusional disorder. The limited evidence that we found is not generalisable to the population of people with delusional disorder. Until further evidence is found, it seems reasonable to offer treatments which have efficacy in other psychotic disorders. Further research is needed in this area and could be enhanced in two ways: firstly, by conducting randomised trials specifically for people with delusional disorder and, secondly, by high quality reporting of results for people with delusional disorder who are often recruited into larger studies for people with a variety of psychoses.

Antipsychotic prescription in children and adolescents: an analysis of data from a German statutory health insurance company from 2005 to 2012

BACKGROUND

Despite sparse documentation of their long-term therapeutic effects and side effects, antipsychotic drugs have come to be prescribed more frequently for children and adolescents in recent years, both in the USA and in Europe. No current data are available about antipsychotic prescriptions for this age group in Germany.

METHODS

Data from the largest statutory health insurance fund in Germany (BARMER GEK) were studied to identify antipsychotic prescriptions for children and adolescents (age 0-19 years) from 2005 to 2012 and analyze them with respect to age, sex, drug prescribed, prescribing medical specialty, and any observable secular trends.

RESULTS

The percentage of children and adolescents receiving a prescription for an antipsychotic drug rose from 0.23% in 2005 to 0.32% in 2012. In particular, atypical antipsychotic drugs were prescribed more frequently over time (from 0.10% in 2005 to 0.24% in 2012). The rise in antipsychotic prescriptions was particularly marked among 10- to 14-year-olds (from 0.24% to 0.43%) and among 15- to 19-year-olds (from 0.34% to 0.54%). The prescribing physicians were mostly either child and adolescent psychiatrists or pediatricians; the most commonly prescribed drugs were risperidone and pipamperone. Risperidone was most commonly prescribed for patients with hyperkinetic disorders and conduct disorders.

CONCLUSION

In Germany as in other industrialized countries, antipsychotic drugs have come to be prescribed more frequently for children and adolescents in ecent years. The German figures, while still lower than those from North America, are in the middle range of figures from European countries. The causes of the increase should be critically examined; if appropriate, the introduction of prescribing guidelines of a more restrictive nature could be considered.

Perphenazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our original search using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (September 2013), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow-up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD), both with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed quality of data using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationtool) and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 4662 participants (of which 4522 were receiving the drugs relevant to our comparison) and presented data that could be used for at least one comparison. The trial centres were located in Europe (especially Scandinavia), Japan and Northern America.When comparing perphenazine with placebo, for our primary outcome of clinical response, results favoured perphenazine with significantly more people receiving placebo rated as either 'no better or deterioration' for global state than people receiving perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 61 RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.78, very low quality evidence). More people receiving placebo relapsed, although not a statistically significant number (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 0.14 CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in the perphenazine versus placebo comparison. Experiences of dystonia were equivocal between groups (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 1.00 CI 0.07 to 15.08, very low quality evidence); other outcomes not reported in this comparison include serious adverse events, economic outcomes, and service use and hospitalisation.For the comparison of perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs, no real differences in effect between the drugs were found. There was no significant difference between groups for those considered 'no better or deterioration' (17 RCTs, n = 1879, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.17, very low quality evidence). For mental state outcome of 'no effect' of the study drug, there was again no significant difference between groups (4 RCTs, n = 383, RR 1.24 CI 0.61 to 2.52, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no significant difference in rates of dystonia with perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs (4 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36 CI 0.23 to 8.16, very low quality evidence), nor was there a significant difference between groups for serious adverse events (2 RCTs, n = 1760, RR 0.98 CI 0.68 to 1.41, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although perphenazine has been used in randomised trials for more than 50 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. All data for the main outcomes in this review were of very low quality evidence. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.

Haloperidol versus first-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.

Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.

Flupenthixol decanoate (depot) for schizophrenia or other similar psychotic disorders

BACKGROUND

Long-acting depot injections of drugs such as flupenthixol decanoate are extensively used as a means of long-term maintenance treatment for schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of flupenthixol decanoate in comparison with placebo, oral antipsychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for people with schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses, in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant trials by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register in March 2009 and then for this update version, a search was run in April 2013. The register is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that focused on people with schizophrenia or other similar psychotic disorders where flupenthixol decanoate had been compared with placebo or other antipsychotic drugs were included. All clinically relevant outcomes were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. For dichotomous data we estimated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We summated normal continuous data using mean difference (MD), and 95% CIs using a fixed-effect model. We presented scale data only for those tools that had attained prespecified levels of quality. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) we created 'Summary of findings tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 15 randomised controlled trials with 626 participants. No trials compared flupenthixol decanoate with placebo.One small study compared flupenthixol decanoate with an oral antipsychotic (penfluridol). Only two outcomes were reported with this single study, and it demonstrated no clear differences between the two preparations as regards leaving the study early (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 3.00, CI 0.33 to 27.23,very low quality evidence) and requiring anticholinergic medication (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.19, CI 0.77 to 1.83, very low quality evidence).Ten studies in total compared flupenthixol decanoate with other depot preparations, though not all studies reported on all outcomes of interest. There were no significant differences between depots for outcomes such as relapse at medium term (n = 221, 5 RCTs, RR 1.30, CI 0.87 to 1.93, low quality evidence), and no clinical improvement at short term (n = 36, 1 RCT, RR 0.67, CI 0.36 to 1.23, low quality evidence). There was no difference in numbers of participants leaving the study early at short/medium term (n = 161, 4 RCTs, RR 1.23, CI 0.76 to 1.99, low quality evidence) nor with numbers of people requiring anticholinergic medication at short/medium term (n = 102, 3 RCTs, RR 1.38, CI 0.75 to 2.25, low quality evidence).Three studies in total compared high doses (100 to 200 mg) of flupenthixol decanoate with the standard doses (˜40mg) per injection. Two trials found relapse at medium term (n = 18, 1 RCT, RR 1.00, CI 0.27 to 3.69, low quality evidence) to be similar between the groups. However people receiving a high dose had slightly more favourable medium term mental state results on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -10.44, CI -18.70 to -2.18, low quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in the use of anticholinergic medications to deal with side effects at short term (2 RCTs n = 47, RR 1.12, CI 0.83 to 1.52 very low quality evidence). One trial comparing a very low dose of flupenthixol decanoate (˜6 mg) with a low dose (˜9 mg) per injection reported no difference in relapse rates (n = 59, 1 RCT, RR 0.34, CI 0.10 to 1.15, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the current state of evidence, there is nothing to choose between flupenthixol decanoate and other depot antipsychotics. From the data reported in clinical trials, it would be understandable to offer standard dose rather than the high dose depot flupenthixol as there is no difference in relapse. However, data reported are of low or very low quality and this review highlights the need for large, well-designed and reported randomised clinical trials to address the effects of flupenthixol decanoate.

Cost-effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of alternate treatment strategies using second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different sequences of treatments for 40-year-old patients with schizophrenia. We considered first-line treatment with one of the four SGAs: olanzapine (OLZ), risperidone (RSP), quetiapine (QTP), and ziprasidone (ZSD). Patients could switch to another of these antipsychotics as second-line therapy, and only clozapine (CLZ) was allowed as third-line treatment. We derived parameter estimates from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study and published sources.

RESULTS

The ZSD-QTP strategy (first-line treatment with ZSD, change to QTP if ZSD is discontinued, and switch to CLZ if QTP is discontinued) was most costly while yielding the greatest QALYs, with an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $542,500 per QALY gained compared with the ZSD-RSP strategy. However, the ZSD-RSP strategy had an ICER of $5,200/QALY gained versus the RSP-ZSD strategy and had the greatest probability of being cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. All other treatment strategies were more costly and less effective than another strategy or combination of other strategies. Results varied by different time horizons adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

The ZSD-RSP strategy was most cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold between $5,200 and $542,500 per QALY. Our results should be interpreted with caution because they are based largely on the CATIE trial with potentially limited generalizability to all patient populations and doses of SGAs used in practice.

Patterns of antipsychotic prescription to patients with schizophrenia in Korea: results from the health insurance review & assessment service-national patient sample

This study aimed to analyze the patterns of antipsychotic prescription to patients with schizophrenia in Korea. Using the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service-National Patients Sample (HIRA-NPS), which was a stratified sampling from the entire population under the Korean national health security system (2009), descriptive statistics for the patterns of the monopharmacy and polypharmacy, neuropsychiatric co-medications, and prescribed individual antipsychotic for patients with schizophrenia were performed. Comparisons of socioeconomic and clinical factors were performed among patients prescribed only with first- and second-generation antipsychotics. Of 126,961 patients with schizophrenia (age 18-80 yr), 13,369 were prescribed with antipsychotic monopharmacy and the rest 113,592 with polypharmacy. Two or more antipsychotics were prescribed to 31.34% of the patients. Antiparkinson medications (66.60%), anxiolytics (65.42%), mood stabilizers (36.74%), and antidepressants (25.90%) were co-medicated. Patients who were prescribed only with first-generation antipsychotics (n=26,254) were characterized by significantly older age, greater proportion of male, higher proportion of medicaid, higher total medical cost, lower self-payment cost, and higher co-medication rates of antiparkinson agents and anxiolytics than those who were prescribed only with second-generation antipsychotics (n=67,361). In this study, it has been reported substantial prescription rates of first-generation antipsychotics and antipsychotic polypharmacy and relatively small prescription rate of clozapine to patients with schizophrenia. Since this study has firstly presented the patterns of antipsychotic prescription to schizophrenic patients in Korean national population, the findings of this study can be compared with those of later investigations about this theme.

Cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable risperidone versus flupentixol decanoate in the treatment of schizophrenia: a Markov model parameterized using administrative data

We use longitudinal patient-level data from a German sickness fund with 7.26 million insured in a Markov-simulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable risperidone (LAI-RIS) compared with long-acting injectable flupentixol (LAI-FLX) in the long-term management of schizophrenia. We simulate treatment costs from the payer's perspective, hospitalization, the probability to be prescribed co-medication, and treatment discontinuation over a 2-year time horizon. Model inputs were derived from 935 patients hospitalized with schizophrenia between 2005 and 2008 who received either LAI-RIS or LAI-FLX for at least 1 month. After 2 years, 89.4% (95.8%) of patients who were initiated on LAI-RIS (LAI-FLX) discontinued the initial regimen. The number of days spent in hospital per month and patient was slightly lower with LAI-RIS (1.08 vs. 1.28 days, p<0.001). The proportion of patients receiving side-effect co-medication was lower with LAI-RIS (8.3 vs. 15.0% per month, p<0.001). Mean total costs of treatment per patient and month were 1,015 € under LAI-RIS and 395 € under LAI-FLX, resulting in an ICER of 3,088 € (95% CI [-913 €; 3,551 €]) for an avoided hospital day per patient and month in the base case scenario with a 15.1% probability of LAI-FLX being the dominant treatment strategy. Cost differences were mainly attributable to the higher drug costs of LAI-RIS. The effectiveness of LAI-RIS in preventing hospital days appears to be similar to LAI-FLX, with a slight superiority in side-effect and switching rates. This comes at the cost of substantially higher treatment expenses. From a decision-maker's point of view, the use of health insurance data as a source of input for decision models appears to be a reasonable alternative to models driven by clinical data only.

Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Trifluoperazine is a long-established high potency typical antipsychotic drug used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine absolute effects of trifluoperazine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses compared with placebo.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and economic evaluation of trifluoperazine compared with placebo for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (July 2012), supplemented with handsearching, reference searching, personal communication and contact with industry. Two review authors undertook a search for economic studies using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on the 9th April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All available clinical randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses that compare trifluoperazine with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies for the effects of interventions were reliably selected by a review team and data were doubly independently extracted to reduce bias. We only used dichotomous data, using intention-to-treat analysis when possible. Data were estimated using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A 'Summary of findings' table was produced, where possible, for each primary outcome using GRADE. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by review authors (VF and SS) to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 10 studies with a total number of 686 participants featuring in 20 different outcomes of interest. Overall, there was significant clinical improvement in clinical global state at medium term amongst people receiving trifluoperazine (3 RCTs, n = 417, RR 4.61, CI 1.54 to 13.84, low quality evidence) and significantly fewer people receiving trifluoperazine left the studies early due to relapse or worsening at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 381, RR 0.34, CI 0.23 to 0.49, low quality evidence). However, results were equivocal for leaving the study early at medium term for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 0.80, CI 0.17 to 3.81, very low quality evidence) and due to severe adverse effects (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 1.54, CI 0.56 to 4.24, very low quality evidence). Equivocal data were also found for intensified symptoms at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 80, RR 1.05, CI 0.54 to 2.05, very low quality evidence) and rates of agitation or distress again at medium term (1 RCT, n = 52, RR 2.00, CI 0.19 to 20.72, very low quality evidence). Comparison between low and high-dose trifluoperazine with placebo from a single study provided equivocal evidence of effects. For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes in GBP terms and presented them in additional tables; there was an estimated saving of £3488.3 in favour of trifluoperazine. However, numerous assumptions were made and these savings need to be interpreted in light of those assumptions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results agree with existing evidence that compared to placebo, trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia. Furthermore, our review provides supportive evidence that trifluoperazine increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Although the effect sizes against placebo are similar to those observed with other agents, they are based on data from many small, pre-CONSORT trials with generally either a low or very low GRADE evidence that has limited implication for clinical practice. Large, independent trials are needed that adhere to the CONSORT statement to compare trifluoperazine with placebo used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses.

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.

Implementation of antipsychotic selection recommendations at a veterans affairs facility

Introduction: In 2012, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management Services created recommendations for antipsychotic selection in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders. The recommendations stated that patients must fail two first line agents (haloperidol, loxapine, quetiapine, risperidone or perphenazine) and clozapine (if appropriate) before being allowed to trial second line agents olanzapine, ziprasidone or aripiprazole. The aim of this project was to determine the amount of cost savings that could have been provided had the above recommendations been implemented last year.

Use of second generation antipsychotics has been associated with weight gain, diabetes, and worsening lipid profiles. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has created guidelines regarding cardiometabolic monitoring of second generation antipsychotic agents. A secondary aim of this project was to determine the rate of provider adherence to the ADA recommendations.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients &gt;18 years of age who were initiated on aripiprazole, ziprasidone, or olanzapine for all indications between July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012. The costs of the mean doses of these agents were compared to an equivalent mean dose of the first line agent risperidone (4mg) using VA drug acquisition costs.

Cardiometabolic monitoring data were collected to include weight, blood pressure, fasting glucose and fasting lipid profiles at baseline and at 12 weeks.

Results: Of the 542 patients started on second line agents, only 68 met criteria for their use. A potential cost savings of over $850,000 may have been realized had these criteria been enacted within the one year time period studied.

None of the 542 patients had both baseline and follow-up values for weight, blood pressure, fasting glucose and fasting lipid profiles. While roughly 60% of patients had blood pressure and weight values at baseline and 27% had glucose and cholesterol values, less than 14% received follow-up testing with approximately 2% receiving neither baseline nor follow-up testing.

Discussion: Significant cost savings can be realized via the use of selection criteria without sacrificing efficacy as most studies do not demonstrate the superiority of one agent and the rates of adverse events between first and second generation agents are more similar than previously thought. This study also highlighted the lack of adequate cardiometabolic monitoring which could lead to cardiovascular disease.

Current approaches to treatments for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, part II: psychosocial interventions and patient-focused perspectives in psychiatric care

Schizophrenia is a disabling psychiatric illness associated with disruptions in cognition, emotion, and psychosocial and occupational functioning. Increasing evidence shows that psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia, as an adjunct to medications or usual psychiatric care, can reduce psychotic symptoms and relapse and improve patients' long-term outcomes such as recovery, remission, and illness progression. This critical review of the literature was conducted to identify the common approaches to psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia. Treatment planning and outcomes were also explored and discussed to better understand the effects of these interventions in terms of person-focused perspectives such as their perceived quality of life and satisfaction and their acceptability and adherence to treatments or services received. We searched major health care databases such as EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycLIT and identified relevant literature in English from these databases. Their reference lists were screened, and studies were selected if they met the criteria of using a randomized controlled trial or systematic review design, giving a clear description of the interventions used, and having a study sample of people primarily diagnosed with schizophrenia. Five main approaches to psychosocial intervention had been used for the treatment of schizophrenia: cognitive therapy (cognitive behavioral and cognitive remediation therapy), psychoeducation, family intervention, social skills training, and assertive community treatment. Most of these five approaches applied to people with schizophrenia have demonstrated satisfactory levels of short- to medium-term clinical efficacy in terms of symptom control or reduction, level of functioning, and/or relapse rate. However, the comparative effects between these five approaches have not been well studied; thus, we are not able to clearly understand the superiority of any of these interventions. With the exception of patient relapse, the longer-term (eg, >2 years) effects of these approaches on most psychosocial outcomes are not well-established among these patients. Despite the fact that patients' perspectives on treatment and care have been increasingly concerned, not many studies have evaluated the effect of interventions on this perspective, and where they did, the findings were inconclusive. To conclude, current approaches to psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia have their strengths and weaknesses, particularly indicating limited evidence on long-term effects. To improve the longer-term outcomes of people with schizophrenia, future treatment strategies should focus on risk identification, early intervention, person-focused therapy, partnership with family caregivers, and the integration of evidence-based psychosocial interventions into existing services.

Another view of the history of antipsychotic drug discovery and development

Chlorpromazine initiated effective pharmacotherapy for schizophrenia 60 years ago. This discovery initiated or stimulated key developments in the field of psychiatry. Nonetheless, advances in pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia have been modest. Psychosis remains the primary aspect of psychopathology addressed, and core pathologies such as cognition and negative symptom remain unmet therapeutic challenges. New clinical and basic neuroscience paradigms may guide the near future and provide a more heuristic construct for novel and innovative discovery.

Glutamatergic Approaches for the Treatment of Schizophrenia

Glutamate is the major excitatory neurotransmitter in the mammalian central nervous system and plays a key role in most aspects of normal brain function including cognition, learning and memory. Dysfunction of glutamatergic neurotransmission has been implicated in a number of neurological and psychiatric disorders with a growing body of evidence suggesting that hypofunction of glutamatergic neurotransmission via the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor plays an important role in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. It thus follows that potentiation of NMDA receptor function via pharmacological manipulation may provide therapeutic utility for the treatment of schizophrenia and a number of different approaches are currently being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry with this aim in mind. These include strategies that target the glycine/d-serine site of the NMDA receptor (glycine transporter GlyT1, d-serine transporter ASC-1 and d-amino acid oxidase (DAAO) inhibitors) together with those aimed at enhancing glutamatergic neurotransmission via modulation of AMPA receptor and metabotropic glutamate receptor function. Such efforts are now beginning to bear fruit with compounds such as the GlyT1 inhibitor RG1678 and mGlu2 agonist LY2140023 proving to have clinical meaningful effects in phase II clinical trials. While more studies are required to confirm long-term efficacy, functional outcome and safety in schizophrenic agents, these agents hold real promise for addressing unmet medical needs, in particular refractory negative and cognitive symptoms, not currently addressed by existing antipsychotic agents.

Comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia: what have real-world trials taught us?

Real-world, effectiveness studies add an important new dimension to the evaluation of the benefits of individual antipsychotics. Efficacy studies have already shown the unique effectiveness of clozapine, and suggested improved outcomes for olanzapine compared with some atypical antipsychotics and a reduced tendency to produce acute and chronic movement disorders for atypical compared with typical drugs. Recent effectiveness studies largely confirm these prior observations. The CATIE (Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness), CUtLASS (Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study) and SOHO (Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes) programmes confirmed the superiority of clozapine over other antipsychotics; CATIE and SOHO also confirmed olanzapine as probably the second most effective antipsychotic. Effectiveness studies have confirmed the high incidence of adverse metabolic effects with clozapine, olanzapine and (with less certainty) quetiapine but the ZODIAC (Ziprasidone Observational Study of Cardiac Outcomes) study found no excess cardiovascular events or deaths for olanzapine compared with ziprasidone. Prior observations on reduced frequency of movement disorders for second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotics were also largely (but not uniformly) supported. Overall, recent real-world studies have done much to confirm prior observations from efficacy-based randomized, controlled trials.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antipsychotics in reducing schizophrenia relapses

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a severe form of mental illness which is associated with significant and long-lasting health, social and financial burdens.The aim of this project is to assess the efficiency of the antipsychotics used in Spain in reducing schizophrenia relapses under the Spanish Health System perspective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to explore the relative cost-effectiveness of five antipsychotic medications, amisulpride, aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone Extended-Release (ER) and risperidone, compared to haloperidol, over a 1-year treatment period among people living in Spain with schizophrenia. The transition probabilities for assessed therapies were obtained from the systemic review and meta-analysis performed by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

RESULTS

Paliperidone ER was the option that yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (0.7573). In addition, paliperidone ER was the least costly strategy (€3,062), followed by risperidone (€3,194), haloperidol (€3,322), olanzapine (€3,893), amisulpride (€4,247) and aripiprazole (€4,712).In the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) analysis of the assessed antipsychotics compared to haloperidol, paliperidone ER and risperidone were dominant options. ICE ratios for other medications were €23,621/QALY gained, €91,584/QALY gained and €94,558/QALY gained for olanzapine, amisulpride and aripiprazole, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that risperidone is always dominant when compared to haloperidol. Paliperidone ER is also dominant apart from the exception of the scenario with a 20% decrease in the probability of relapses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings may be of interest to clinicians and others interested in outcomes and cost of mental health services among patients with schizophrenia.Paliperidone ER and risperidone were shown to be dominant therapies compared to haloperidol in Spain. It is worthwhile to highlight that schizophrenia is a highly incapacitating disease and choosing the most appropriate drug and formulation for a particular patient is crucial.The availability of more accurate local epidemiological data on schizophrenia would allow a better adaptation of the model avoiding some of the assumptions taken in our work. Future research could be focused on this.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Non-didactically delivered curriculum based group psychoeducation has been shown to be more effective than both group support in a specialist mood disorder centre in Spain (with effects lasting up to five years), and treatment as usual in Australia. It is unclear whether the specific content and form of group psychoeducation is effective or the chance to meet and work collaboratively with other peers. The main objective of this trial is to determine whether curriculum based group psychoeducation is more clinically and cost effective than unstructured peer group support.

METHODS/DESIGN

Single blind two centre cluster randomised controlled trial of 21 sessions group psychoeducation versus 21 sessions group peer support in adults with bipolar 1 or 2 disorder, not in current episode but relapsed in the previous two years. Individual randomisation is to either group at each site. The groups are carefully matched for the number and type of therapists, length and frequency of the interventions and overall aim of the groups but differ in content and style of delivery. The primary outcome is time to next bipolar episode with measures of the therapeutic process, barriers and drivers to the effective delivery of the interventions and economic analysis. Follow up is for 96 weeks after randomisation.

DISCUSSION

The trial has features of both an efficacy and an effectiveness trial design. For generalisability in England it is set in routine public mental health practice with a high degree of expert patient involvement.

Costs and outcomes associated with an aripiprazole add-on or switching open-label study in psychosis

Health service providers increasingly need to consider not only the efficacy and safety of a therapy, but also its cost. Our hypothesis was that in our previously reported aripiprazole add-on or switching study, the improved outcomes would be associated with reduced costs. We here report data from this study, now to 52-week follow-up, with 27 total recruits (outpatients partially refractory or intolerant of their current antipsychotic regime). Serial clinical ratings included the Quality of Life Scale and Client Service Receipt Inventory, applied at baseline (N = 24), week 26 (N = 21) and 52 (N = 18). Cost data were unavailable for the drop outs. On last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis, there was a significant increase in the Quality of Life Scale between baseline and one year (p = 0.007). There were also reductions over time in total direct and indirect costs. For study completers, the total costs at the one-year follow-up period were £ 482 less than those for the corresponding baseline period, with the Quality of Life Scale score at one year being 21.6 points (or 16.4 on LOCF analysis) higher. Therefore, in the completers, improved outcome was associated with reduced costs. Cost-effectiveness could be similarly investigated in a controlled trial.

Cost-effectiveness of olanzapine long-acting injection in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the United States: a micro-simulation economic decision model

OBJECTIVE

To compare, from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States health care system, the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI, depot) with alternative antipsychotic agents including risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, haloperidol-LAI, and oral olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia who have been non-adherent or partially adherent with oral antipsychotics.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 1-year micro-simulation economic decision model was developed to simulate the dynamics of usual care of patients with schizophrenia who continue, discontinue, switch, or restart their medication. The model uses a range of clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation rates by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct health care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Key model outputs include annual total direct cost (US$) per treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness values per additional QALY gained.

RESULTS

Model results found that the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy was more effective (greater QALYs) and less costly than risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, and haloperidol-LAI. In addition, olanzapine-LAI was both more effective and more costly, with an estimated incremental cost/QALY of $26,824 compared to oral olanzapine. The base-case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine-LAI to remain within acceptable cost-effective ranges (<$50,000) in terms of incremental cost/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

This micro-simulation model finds the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy to result in better effectiveness and to be a cost-effective alternative compared to oral olanzapine and the LAI formulations of risperidone, paliperidone, and haloperidol in the treatment of non-adherent and partially adherent patients with schizophrenia in the United States. A key limitation is the assumption how LAI therapies compare to oral counterparts due to sparse head-to-head data. Further research is needed to verify baseline assumptions.

Efficacy of atypical v. typical antipsychotics in the treatment of early psychosis: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate about the use of atypical antipsychotics as a first-line treatment for first-episode psychosis.

AIMS

To examine the evidence base for this recommendation.

METHOD

Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in the early phase of psychosis, looking at long-term discontinuation rates, short-term symptom changes, weight gain and extrapyramidal side-effects. Trials were identified using a combination of electronic (Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) and manual searches.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomised controlled trials with a total of 2522 participants were included. No significant differences between atypical and typical drugs were found for discontinuation rates (odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2) or effect on symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.02). Participants on atypical antipsychotics gained 2.1 kg (95% CI 0.1 to 4.1) more weight than those on typicals, whereas those on typicals experienced more extrapyramidal side-effects (SMD = -0.4, 95% CI -0.5 to -0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence for differences in efficacy between atypical and typical antipsychotics, but there was a clear difference in the side-effect profile.

Antipsychotics and schizophrenia: from efficacy and effectiveness to clinical decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively review the 2 recent and large antipsychotic effectiveness trials for treatment of schizophrenia: the United Kingdom's Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS), and the National Institute of Mental Health-initiated Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) schizophrenia trial.

METHOD

We present a review of the rationale, methodology, and findings to date from the CUtLASS and CATIE schizophrenia trials, including all primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary findings from both trials, CUtLASS and CATIE, suggest that first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are equally effective in the treatment of schizophrenia. The exception is in treatment-resistant populations where clozapine exhibits superiority, compared with other SGAs. In the CATIE trial, there is a suggestion that olanzapine is superior in effectiveness, compared with other nonclozapine SGAs, although this seems to be mediated by past history of olanzapine use, and carries with it increased weight gain and metabolic adverse events. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, there is no evidence that SGAs are superior to FGAs, with findings suggesting the possibility that FGAs may be superior.

CONCLUSION

Past efficacy trials have strongly supported the position that SGAs are superior to FGAs in the treatment of schizophrenia and in side effect profile. Two large independent effectiveness trials, CUtLASS and CATIE, have offered a strong challenge to these claims. Both suggest that SGAs, except clozapine in the treatment-resistant population, offer little, if any, clinical benefits, and, moreover, harbour their own significant side effects.

Principles of antipsychotic prescribing for policy makers, circa 2008. Translating knowledge to promote individualized treatment

Findings from 2 pivotal government-funded studies of comparative antipsychotic effectiveness undermine assumptions about the marked superiority of the more expensive second-generation "atypical" medications in comparison to the less expensive first-generation "typical" drugs. Because this assumption was the basis for the almost universal recommendation that these newer antipsychotics be used preferentially resulting in a 10-fold increase in state governmental expenditures on this class of medications over the past decade, a reassessment of policy is called for. To address the issue, the Medical Directors Council of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors critically reviewed findings of these studies in the context of other data and considered policy implications in the light of the obligations of state government to make available best possible and individually optimized treatment that is cost-effective. The Medical Directors Council unanimously adopted a set of recommendations to promote appropriate access, efficient utilization, and best practice use. We present our policy statement, in which we provide a succinct background, articulate general principles, and describe a set of 4 broad recommendations. We then summarize our understanding of the current state of knowledge about comparative antipsychotic effectiveness, best antipsychotic practice, and considerations for state policy that represent the basis of our position statement.

The CATIE and CUtLASS studies in schizophrenia: results and implications for clinicians

Numerous double-blind studies have compared second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), with most finding better efficacy and tolerability for SGAs. However, these 'efficacy trials' were generally short term and included only highly selected patients. Mostly because of weight gain and other metabolic effects of the SGAs, as well as their high acquisition price, the debate on the (cost) effectiveness of the SGAs led to two pragmatic clinical trials with no sponsorship by industry. Both trials had broad inclusion criteria and long follow-up, and tried to mimic clinical routine: CATIE (Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness) and CUtLASS (Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic drugs in Schizophrenia Study). 1493 patients participated in CATIE, an 18-month, double-blind trial comparing the SGAs olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone with the FGA perphenazine. If efficacy or tolerability was insufficient, patients were re-randomized to a medication other than the one they previously received. Improvement of psychopathology and of quality of life was only moderate. Overall, 74% of patients discontinued study medication before 18 months, and the median time to discontinuation was 4.6 months. Aside from olanzapine (time to discontinuation 9.2 months), the other SGAs did not differ from each other or from perphenazine. Except for adverse effects as a reason for discontinuation, differences between the SGAs and the FGA were minimal. In CUtLASS, a 12-month open-label trial, 277 patients were randomized to receive an FGA or a SGA. Again, efficacy was rather similar between the two groups, with only limited improvement of psychopathology and quality of life. The authors of both trials concluded that SGAs do not markedly differ from FGAs regarding compliance, quality of life and effectiveness. The methodological problems of both trials have been discussed extensively. Patients had psychotic symptoms that were moderate in severity and were at least partially treatment resistant. The marginal improvement observed indicated that this population might not be appropriate to detect differences between FGAs and SGAs. Specific issues of CATIE include the exclusion of patients with tardive dyskinesia in the perphenazine arm and the high discontinuation rate. In CUtLASS, the concept of including 13 different FGAs and four SGAs in the respective classes was problematic. It is of interest that the most widely prescribed drug was sulpiride--of the FGAs, this is probably the 'most atypical' drug. Aside from the finding that the advantages of the SGAs are not as strong as early trials and marketing suggested or promised, the trials do not provide much helpful information regarding everyday practice. For tardive dyskinesia, no conclusions at all can be drawn. Similarly, methodological problems inhibited the detection of the other major advantage of the SGAs, i.e. the improved subjective well-being/quality of life while receiving these agents. It is well known that patients' and doctors' perspectives differ markedly, and the Quality of Life Scale (QLS), an expert-rated scale used in both trials, might not be sensitive enough to detect the subjective advantages reported by the majority of patients in other trials. CATIE and CUtLASS suggest that SGAs do not live up to all the previous expectations. However, even if most of these advantages are debatable, the lower risk of tardive dyskinesia and the better subjective effects should be strong enough reasons to favour these drugs. There is no single antipsychotic that is best for every schizophrenia patient, as individual responses differ markedly. For successfully individualized treatment, a multitude of antipsychotic options are needed.

The treatment of challenging behaviour in intellectual disabilities: cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are used in the routine treatment of adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) and challenging behaviour in the UK despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. There is no evidence on their cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

The relative cost-effectiveness of risperidone, haloperidol and placebo in treating individuals with an ID and challenging behaviour was compared from a societal perspective in a 26-week, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were changes in aggression and quality of life. Costs measured all service impacts and unpaid caregiver inputs.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, patients randomised to placebo had lower costs compared with those in the risperidone and haloperidol treatment groups. Aggression was highest for patients treated with risperidone and lowest for patients treated with haloperidol; however, quality of life was lowest for patients treated with haloperidol and highest for patients treated with risperidone.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of challenging behaviour in ID with antipsychotic drugs is not a cost-effective option.

Cost-effectiveness model comparing olanzapine and other oral atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a persistent and costly illness that requires continued treatment with antipsychotics. Differences among antipsychotics on efficacy, safety, tolerability, adherence, and cost have cost-effectiveness implications for treating schizophrenia. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone (at generic cost, primary comparator), quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of third-party payers in the U.S. health care system.

METHODS

A 1-year microsimulation economic decision model, with quarterly cycles, was developed to simulate the dynamic nature of usual care of schizophrenia patients who switch, continue, discontinue, and restart their medications. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct medical care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions. Key model outcomes included mean annual total direct cost per treatment, cost per stable patient, and incremental cost-effectiveness values per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The results of the microsimulation model indicated that olanzapine had the lowest mean annual direct health care cost ($8,544) followed by generic risperidone ($9,080). In addition, olanzapine resulted in more QALYs than risperidone (0.733 vs. 0.719). The base case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine to be the dominant choice in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of olanzapine is predicted in this model to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total direct health care costs compared to generic risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole. Olanzapine may, therefore, be a cost-effective therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.

Genetic underpinnings of tardive dyskinesia: passing the baton to pharmacogenetics

Manifestation of tardive dyskinesia (TD) among schizophrenia subjects on long-term antipsychotic treatment with typical drugs has been a clinical concern. Despite its association with extrapyramidal symptoms, typical drugs are still routinely prescribed globally though marginally superior atypical drugs have long been available. The genetic component in the etiology of TD is well documented. Search for these determinants has led to a few consensus associations of CYP2D6 *10, CYP1A2*1F, DRD2 Taq1A (rs1800497), DRD3 Ser9Gly (rs6280) and MnSOD Ala9Val (rs4880) variants with TD. However, translation of these observations into the clinic has not been achieved so far. This review discusses the salient features of TD etiopathology, current status of TD genetics, interactions between genetic and nongenetic factors, some major drawbacks, challenges and expected focus in TD research over the next decade, with emphasis on pharmacogenetics.