A Reasonable Alternative to Clozapine in the Chronically Relapsing Smoking Patient? A Retrospective Analysis

Second to none: rationale, timing, and clinical management of clozapine use in schizophrenia

Despite its enduring relevance as the single most effective and important evidence-based treatment for schizophrenia, underutilization of clozapine remains considerable. To a substantial degree, this is attributable to a reluctance of psychiatrists to offer clozapine due to its relatively large side-effect burden and the complexity of its use. This underscores the necessity for continued education regarding both the vital nature and the intricacies of clozapine treatment. This narrative review summarizes all clinically relevant areas of evidence, which support clozapine's wide-ranging superior efficacy - for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and beyond - and make its safe use eminently feasible. Converging evidence indicates that TRS constitutes a distinct albeit heterogeneous subgroup of schizophrenias primarily responsive to clozapine. Most importantly, the predominantly early onset of treatment resistance and the considerable decline in response rates associated with its delayed initiation make clozapine an essential treatment option throughout the course of illness, beginning with the first psychotic episode. To maximize patients' benefits, systematic early recognition efforts based on stringent use of TRS criteria, a timely offer of clozapine, thorough side-effect screening and management as well as consistent use of therapeutic drug monitoring and established augmentation strategies for suboptimal responders are crucial. To minimize permanent all-cause discontinuation, re-challenges after neutropenia or myocarditis should be considered. Owing to clozapine's unique efficacy, comorbid conditions including substance use and most somatic disorders should not dissuade but rather encourage clinicians to consider clozapine. Moreover, treatment decisions need to be informed by the late onset of clozapine's full effects, which for reduced suicidality and mortality rates may not even be readily apparent. Overall, the singular extent of its efficacy combined with the high level of patient satisfaction continues to distinguish clozapine from all other available antipsychotics.

The effect of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications compared with oral antipsychotic medications among people with schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medications may be an important modality of reducing costs, improving symptoms, and fostering quality of life outcomes for those with schizophrenia. Our objective was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of LAIs compared with oral antipsychotics on medication adherence, symptom remission/relapse, rehospitalization, outpatient visits, emergency department visits, healthcare costs, and social functioning. We performed a systematic search of PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus databases to examine studies meeting inclusion criteria prior to August 30th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies among people with schizophrenia with at least 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall effect sizes and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with random-effects modeling. We found 75 articles meeting our inclusion criteria, including 341 730 individuals with schizophrenia. Systematic review results indicated that LAIs compared with orals improved medication adherence (25/29 studies), symptom remission/relapse (10/18 studies), rehospitalizations (26/49 studies), emergency department visits (9/17 studies), medical costs (11/15 studies), and social functioning (5/9 studies); however, LAIs also increased outpatient visits (7/16 studies) and pharmacy costs (10/10 studies). Meta-analytic results of studies with similar outcome measures did not find differences between LAIs and orals in respect to outcomes, except lowering emergency department visits and increasing pharmacy costs. The differences between the results of the narrative synthesis and the meta-analyses were possibly because of the low availability of studies with similar outcomes in the pooled analyses. Our overall results suggest that LAIs are at least comparable to orals in supporting important healthcare outcomes for those with schizophrenia. These findings support clinical practice in encouraging providers to prescribe LAIs when indicated.