Effects of switching from olanzapine to aripiprazole on the metabolic profiles of patients with schizophrenia and metabolic syndrome: a double-blind, randomized, open-label study

Efficacy and Side Effects of Aripiprazole and Olanzapine in Patients with Psychotic Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives

In clinical experience, selecting atypical antipsychotics optimally balancing their benefits and potential side effects is seen to improve treatment adherence in patients. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and side effect profiles of aripiprazole and olanzapine in patients with psychotic disorders.

Methods

In this double-blind clinical trial, the subjects were patients with psychotic disorders treated with aripiprazole and olanzapine. The subjects were randomly divided into two equally sized groups. One group was treated with olanzapine and the other group with aripiprazole. All participants were assessed using the positive and negative syndrome scale and side effects were monitored over a two-month follow-up period.

Results

The participants comprised N = 76 patients (65 male; 11 female). Treatments with both aripiprazole (n = 38) and olanzapine (n = 38) were associated with a significant decrease in the severity of psychotic symptoms over the two-month treatment period. This decrease was achieved faster in the olanzapine group. There were no significant differences in the changes in body mass index, waist circumference, blood sugar, triglyceride, or cholesterol between the two groups. A qualitative difference between the groups was found in their total sleep duration.

Conclusions

Olanzapine was more effective than aripiprazole in reducing psychotic symptoms. There were no significant differences between the overall side effect profiles of the two drugs.

Relapse in patients with schizophrenia and amisulpride-induced hyperprolactinemia or olanzapine-induced metabolic disturbance after switching to other antipsychotics

Hyperprolactinemia and metabolic disturbance are common side effects of antipsychotics that cause intolerance. Despite its potential influence on relapse, there are no established guidelines for antipsychotic switching. This naturalistic study explored the association between antipsychotic switching, baseline clinical status, metabolic changes, and relapse in patients with schizophrenia. In total, 177 patients with amisulpride-induced hyperprolactinemia and 274 with olanzapine-induced metabolic disturbance were enrolled. Relapse was determined by assessing changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores from baseline to 6 months (increased over 20% or 10% reaching 70). Metabolic indices were measured at baseline and 3 months. Patients with baseline PANSS >60 were more likely to relapse. Further, patients switching to aripiprazole had a higher risk of relapse regardless of their original medication. Participants who originally used amisulpride had reduced prolactin levels following medication change, while switching to olanzapine caused increased weight and blood glucose levels. In patients originally using olanzapine, only switching to aripiprazole reduced insulin resistance. Adverse effects on weight and lipid metabolism were observed in patients who switched to risperidone, while amisulpride improved lipid profiles. Changing schizophrenia treatment requires careful consideration of multiple variables, particularly the choice of substituted drug and the patient's baseline symptoms.

Oral and long-acting antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a network meta-analysis of 92 randomized trials including 22,645 participants

According to current evidence and guidelines, continued antipsychotic treatment is key for preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, but evidence-based recommendations for the choice of the individual antipsychotic for maintenance treatment are lacking. Although oral antipsychotics are often prescribed first line for practical reasons, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are a valuable resource to tackle adherence issues since the earliest phase of disease. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases and online registers were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LAIs or oral antipsychotics head-to-head or against placebo, published until June 2021. Relative risks and standardized mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were relapse and dropout due to adverse events. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality, and the CINeMA approach to assess the confidence of pooled estimates. Of 100 eligible trials, 92 (N=22,645) provided usable data for meta-analyses. Regarding relapse prevention, the vast majority of the 31 included treatments outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, "high" confidence in the results was found for (in descending order of effect magnitude) amisulpride-oral (OS), olanzapine-OS, aripiprazole-LAI, olanzapine-LAI, aripiprazole-OS, paliperidone-OS, and ziprasidone-OS. "Moderate" confidence in the results was found for paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, iloperidone-OS, fluphenazine-OS, brexpiprazole-OS, paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, asenapine-OS, haloperidol-OS, quetiapine-OS, cariprazine-OS, and lurasidone-OS. Regarding tolerability, none of the antipsychotics was significantly worse than placebo, but confidence was poor, with only aripiprazole (both LAI and OS) showing "moderate" confidence levels. Based on these findings, olanzapine, aripiprazole and paliperidone are the best choices for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, considering that both LAI and oral formulations of these antipsychotics are among the best-performing treatments and have the highest confidence of evidence for relapse prevention. This finding is of particular relevance for low- and middle-income countries and constrained-resource settings, where few medications may be selected. Results from this network meta-analysis can inform clinical guidelines and national and international drug regulation policies.

Does Switching Antipsychotics Ameliorate Weight Gain in Patients With Severe Mental Illness? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Obesity and adverse metabolic outcomes in patients with severe mental illness are clinically significant but potentially preventable. Importantly, the evidence for switching to antipsychotics to reduce cardiometabolic burden is unclear.

METHOD

PubMED, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane were searched from inception to March 8, 2020. Articles reporting weight and metabolic changes after antipsychotic switching vs staying on the previous antipsychotic were meta-analyzed both across and within group.

RESULTS

Of 61 identified studies, 59 were meta-analyzed (40% rated high quality). In the switch-vs-stay pairwise meta-analyses, only aripiprazole significantly reduced weight (-5.52 kg, 95% CI -10.63, -0.42, P = .03), while olanzapine significantly increased weight (2.46 kg, 95% CI 0.34, 4.57, P = .02). Switching to aripiprazole also significantly improved fasting glucose (-3.99 mg/dl, 95% CI -7.34, -0.64, P = .02) and triglycerides (-31.03 mg/dl, 95% CI -48.73, -13.34, P = .0001). Dropout and psychosis ratings did not differ between switch and stay groups for aripiprazole and olanzapine. In before-to-after switch meta-analyses, aripiprazole (-1.96 kg, 95% CI -3.07, -0.85, P < .001) and ziprasidone (-2.22 kg, 95% CI -3.84, -0.60, P = .007) were associated with weight loss, whereas olanzapine (2.71 kg, 95% CI 1.87, 3.55, P < .001), and clozapine (2.80 kg, 95% CI 0.26, 5.34, P = .03) were associated with weight gain. No significant weight or other cardiometabolic changes were observed when switching to amisulpride, paliperidone/risperidone, quetiapine, or lurasidone.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching antipsychotics to agents with lower weight gain potential, notably to aripiprazole and ziprasidone, can improve weight profile and other cardiometabolic outcomes. When choosing switch agents, both the weight gain potential of the pre- and post-switch antipsychotic must be considered. Antipsychotic switching in psychiatrically stable patients must be weighed against the risk of psychiatric worsening.

Pharmacological Interventions to Treat Antipsychotic-Induced Dyslipidemia in Schizophrenia Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Introduction: Antipsychotic-induced dyslipidemia represents a common adverse effect faced by patients with schizophrenia that increases risk for developing further metabolic complications and cardiovascular disease. Despite its burden, antipsychotic-induced dyslipidemia is often left untreated, and the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for mitigating dyslipidemia has not been well-addressed. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions in alleviating dyslipidemia in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Medline, PsychInfo, and EMBASE were searched for all relevant English articles from 1950 to November 2020. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included. Differences in changes in triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and VLDL cholesterol levels between treatment and placebo groups were meta-analyzed as primary outcomes. Results: Our review identified 48 randomized controlled trials that comprised a total of 3,128 patients and investigated 29 pharmacological interventions. Overall, pharmacological interventions were effective in lowering LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol levels while increasing the levels of HDL cholesterol. Within the intervention subgroups, approved lipid-lowering agents did not reduce lipid parameters other than total cholesterol level, while antipsychotic switching and antipsychotic add-on interventions improved multiple lipid parameters, including triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol. Off label lipid lowering agents improved triglycerides and total cholesterol levels, with statistically significant changes seen with metformin. Conclusion: Currently available lipid lowering agents may not work as well in patients with schizophrenia who are being treated with antipsychotics. Additionally, antipsychotic switching, antipsychotic add-ons, and certain off label interventions might be more effective in improving some but not all associated lipid parameters. Future studies should explore novel interventions for effectively managing antipsychotic-induced dyslipidemia. Registration: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020219982; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020219982.

A Review of Switching Strategies for Patients with Schizophrenia Comorbid with Metabolic Syndrome or Metabolic Abnormalities

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with schizophrenia occurs 2-3 times more frequently than in the general population. Antipsychotic medication is a primary risk factor for patients with MetS. In particular, the widely used second-generation antipsychotics can affect glucose and lipid metabolism and can induce insulin resistance and other metabolic abnormalities through various receptors. Notably, the metabolic risks of various antipsychotics may differ because of their different pharmacological affinity to MetS-related receptors. Several previous studies have shown that switching from high to low metabolic risk antipsychotics may improve patients' metabolic parameters. The current review aims to discuss the strategies for switching antipsychotic medications and the impact on metabolic abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia.

Updating the Comparative Evidence on Second‐Generation Antipsychotic Use With Schizophrenia

Objective

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of literature comparing second‐generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with each other and with first‐generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in treating schizophrenia.

Methods

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were searched through January 2020. Following standard methods, recent high‐quality systematic reviews of each drug comparison and subsequently published primary studies were included to update the meta‐analyses with any new data. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, abstraction, and quality assessment.

Results

Two systematic reviews and 29 newer trials (total of 162 trials of SGAs, N=53,861; 116 trials of SGAs versus FGAs, N=119,558) were included. Most trials were of fair quality, industry‐funded, and included older SGAs and a few recently approved SGAs (asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, brexpiprazole and long‐acting injection [LAI] formulations of aripiprazole and paliperidone). Older SGAs had similar effects on function, quality of life, mortality, and adverse event incidence, although clozapine improved symptoms more than most other drugs and olanzapine and risperidone were superior to some other drugs. Olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole performed similarly on outcomes of benefit compared with haloperidol. Risperidone LAI and olanzapine resulted in fewer withdrawals due to adverse events, but risk of diabetes increased with olanzapine. Haloperidol had greater incidence of adverse events than did olanzapine and risperidone, but similar effects on other outcomes.

Conclusions

Most comparative evidence favored older SGAs, with clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone superior on more outcomes than other SGAs. Older SGAs had similar benefits as haloperidol but with fewer adverse events.

Use of the second‐generation antipsychotics olanzapine, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone resulted in similar function, quality of life, mortality, and overall incidence of adverse events.

Core illness symptoms improved more with olanzapine and risperidone than asenapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and more with paliperidone than lurasidone or iloperidone.

Haloperidol showed similar benefits but more adverse events than did olanzapine or risperidone.

Lurasidone and risk for metabolic syndrome: results from short- and long-term clinical studies in patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of treatment with lurasidone on risk for metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Rates of metabolic syndrome during treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/d) were analyzed using pooled, short-term data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (vs olanzapine and quetiapine XR); long-term data from two active-comparator-controlled studies (vs risperidone and quetiapine XR); and data from two open-label studies in which patients were switched from olanzapine or risperidone to lurasidone.

RESULTS

MetS was defined based on the National Cholesterol Education Program criteria. In short-term studies, the odds of meeting criteria for MetS at week 6 LOCF (adjusted for baseline metabolic syndrome status) was similar for the lurasidone and placebo groups (OR = 1.18; [95% CI, 0.81-1.71]; P = .39), but the odds (vs placebo) were significantly greater for olanzapine (OR = 2.81; [95% CI, 1.53-5.15]; P < .001) and quetiapine (OR = 3.49; [95% CI, 1.93-6.29]; P < .0001). No dose effect was observed for lurasidone across the dose range of 40-160 mg/d. In long-term studies, the odds of MetS after 12 months of treatment was significantly higher for risperidone compared with lurasidone (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.15-3.90; P = .016) and for quetiapine XR compared with lurasidone (OR = 3.92; 95% CI, 1.15-13.40; P = .029). In open-label extension studies, the rate of MetS decreased in patients switched to lurasidone after 6 weeks of treatment with olanzapine or 12 months of treatment with risperidone.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of lurasidone clinical trials, the odds of developing metabolic syndrome were minimal during short- and long-term treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/d).

An open-label randomised comparison of aripiprazole, olanzapine and risperidone for the acute treatment of first-episode schizophrenia: Eight-week outcomes

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole, olanzapine and risperidone in first-episode schizophrenia (FES).

METHODS

The eight-week, open, randomised study was conducted in six Chinese medical centres. Altogether, 498 FES subjects were randomised to aripiprazole (n = 165), olanzapine (n = 168) or risperidone (n = 165). Efficacy was measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), tolerability with the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser Side Effect Rating Scale (UKU) and functioning with the Personal and Social Performance Scale (PSP).

RESULTS

All three antipsychotics significantly improved the baseline to end-point PANSS total and each of the sub-scale scores (p < 0.001). Risperidone was superior to olanzapine and aripiprazole regarding PANSS total end-point scores (p < 0.05). Cumulative response (PANSS total score reduction ⩾30%) was similar between risperidone, olanzapine and aripiprazole (74.8%, 73.5% and 70.1%; p = 0.707), but risperidone was superior to aripiprazole regarding PANSS total score reduction ⩾50% (37.8% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.05). Olanzapine was associated with the largest weight gain at week 4 and 8 (p < 0.01), weight gain ⩾7% (olanzapine = 49.0% vs. risperidone = 32.5% vs. aripiprazole = 17.0%; p < 0.01), more psychic side effects at week 8 (p < 0.01 each) and more 'other' side effects at week 4 (p < 0.001) and week 8 (p < 0.05) but fewer neurological side effects at week 4 (p < 0.05) and week 8 (p < 0.01). PSP improved more with risperidone than with aripiprazole at week 4 and 8 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For FES, risperidone might be a better choice than aripiprazole due to improved efficacy and functional improvement, without inferior tolerability. Aripiprazole is a better choice to avoid relevant short-term weight gain. Olanzapine could be chosen to avoid neurological adverse effects.

Long-term effectiveness of oral second-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct head-to-head comparisons

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are recommended for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia. However, comparative long-term effectiveness among SGAs is unclear. Here we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials lasting ≥⃒6 months comparing SGAs head-to-head in schizophrenia and related disorders. The primary outcome was all-cause discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included efficacy and tolerability, i.e., psychopathology, inefficacy-related and intolerability-related discontinuation, relapse, hospitalization, remission, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. Pooled risk ratio and standardized mean difference were calculated using random-effects models. Across 59 studies (N=45,787), lasting 47.4±32.1 weeks (range 24-186), no consistent superiority of any SGA emerged across efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Regarding all-cause discontinuation, clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone were significantly (p<0.05) superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine was inferior to several other SGAs. As to psychopathology, clozapine and olanzapine were superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine and ziprasidone were inferior to several other SGAs. Data for other efficacy outcomes were sparse. Regarding intolerability-related discontinuation, risperidone was superior and clozapine was inferior to several other SGAs. Concerning weight gain, olanzapine was worse than all other compared non-clozapine SGAs, and risperidone was significantly worse than several other SGAs. As to prolactin increase, risperidone and amisulpride were significantly worse than several other SGAs. Regarding parkinsonism, olanzapine was superior to risperidone, without significant differences pertaining to akathisia. Concerning sedation and somnolence, clozapine and quetiapine were significantly worse than some other SGAs. In summary, different long-term SGA efficacy and tolerability patterns emerged. The long-term risk-benefit profiles of specific SGAs need to be tailored to individual patients to optimize maintenance treatment outcomes.

Maximizing response to first-line antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a review focused on finding from meta-analysis

RATIONALE

There are many psychotropic drugs available for treatment of schizophrenia. The clinician's choice of the most effective first-line antipsychotic treatment for patients with schizophrenia should balance considerations of differential efficacy of antipsychotics against the relative risk of different side effects.

METHOD

We reviewed recent studies using meta-analytic techniques and additional studies of new antipsychotics which quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of side effects of first- and second-generation antipsychotics and studies of the efficacy on add-on secondary medications. We present an integrated summary of these results to guide a clinician's decision-making.

RESULTS

Recent meta-analyses have suggested that antipsychotics are not equivalent in efficacy. Clozapine (effect size [SMD] 0.88 vs. placebo), amisulpride (effect size 0.6 vs placebo), olanzapine (effect size 0.59 vs. placebo), and risperidone (effect size 0.56 vs placebo) show small but statistically significant differences compared to a number of other antipsychotics on measures of overall efficacy (effect sizes 0.33-0.50). However, increasing placebo response remains a concern in interpreting these data. Amisulpride (effect size 0.47 vs placebo) and cariprazine (effect size in one trial compared to risperidone 0.29) have the strongest evidence indicating greater efficacy for treating primary negative symptoms relative to other antipsychotics. In terms of side effects, clozapine and olanzapine have among the highest weight gain potential and sertindole and amisulpride have more effects on QTc prolongation than other commonly used antipsychotics. Prolactin elevation is highest with paliperidone, risperidone, and amisulpride. Adjunctive treatment with an antidepressant drug may improve response in patients with schizophrenia who also have severe depressive or negative symptoms. For multi-episode patients with an inadequate response to an adequate dose and duration of the initial antipsychotic choice, switching to another antipsychotic, with a different receptor profile, may improve response, although evidence is very limited. In first-episode patients, a recent study on switching to another antipsychotic, with a different receptor profile after 4 weeks demonstrated no beneficial effects. There is little evidence to support using doses above the therapeutic range other than in exceptional circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of recent studies using meta-analytic techniques has provided evidence that all antipsychotics are not equal in the severity of different side effects and in some measures of clinical efficacy. Comparative analysis and rankings from network meta-analyses can provide guidance to clinicians in choosing the most appropriate antipsychotic for first-line treatment, if used in conjunction with available information of the patient's history of previous clinical response or higher risks for specific side effects.

The Effectiveness of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Improving Glycaemic Control in Adults with Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have reduced life expectancy compared with the general population, which can be explained partly by their increased risk of diabetes. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for improving glycaemic control in people with SMI (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015558). A systematic literature search was performed on 30/10/2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with SMI, with or without a diagnosis of diabetes that measured fasting blood glucose or glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c). Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness, and subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression to explore heterogeneity. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess risk of bias. We found 54 eligible RCTs in 4,392 adults (40 pharmacological, 13 behavioural, one mixed intervention). Data for meta-analysis were available from 48 RCTs (n = 4052). Both pharmacological (mean difference (MD), -0.11mmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI), [-0.19, -0.02], p = 0.02, n = 2536) and behavioural interventions (MD, -0.28mmol//L; 95% CI, [-0.43, -0.12], p<0.001, n = 956) were effective in lowering fasting glucose, but not HbA_1c (pharmacological MD, -0.03%; 95% CI, [-0.12, 0.06], p = 0.52, n = 1515; behavioural MD, 0.18%; 95% CI, [-0.07, 0.42], p = 0.16, n = 140) compared with usual care or placebo. In subgroup analysis of pharmacological interventions, metformin and antipsychotic switching strategies improved HbA_1c. Behavioural interventions of longer duration and those including repeated physical activity had greater effects on fasting glucose than those without these characteristics. Baseline levels of fasting glucose explained some of the heterogeneity in behavioural interventions but not in pharmacological interventions. Although the strength of the evidence is limited by inadequate trial design and reporting and significant heterogeneity, there is some evidence that behavioural interventions, antipsychotic switching, and metformin can lead to clinically important improvements in glycaemic measurements in adults with SMI.