A mirror image Out-patient study at a depot phenothiazine clinic

Is there a role for the depot clinic in the modern management of schizophrenia?

The value of antipsychotic medication in preventing relapse in schizophrenia has been apparent since soon after its introduction (National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Service Centre Study Group, 1964) but non-compliance remains a problem. Failure to take prescribed medication is a challenge in general medicine but presents special difficulties when treating mental illness; residual symptoms of psychosis and impaired insight after discharge increase the likelihood that a patient will stop taking antipsychotic medication, thereby contributing to higher relapse rates. The development of depot antipsychotic medication that could be administered intramuscularly at intervals of several weeks raised treatment and outcome expectations for patients who were felt to be at higher risk of non-compliance when in the community. The need for regular administration and monitoring of patients receiving depot medication led to depot and maintenance medication clinics. Today, with increasing numbers of patients who would previously have been receiving depot medication now taking atypical oral antipsychotics, is there still a need for the depot clinic?

The role of long-acting injectable antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a critical appraisal

Despite their widespread use, long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics (APs) are often regarded with some negativity because of the assumption of punishment, control and insufficient evolution towards psychosocial development of patients. However, LAI APs have proved effective in schizophrenia and other severe psychotic disorders because they assure stable blood levels, leading to a reduction of the risk of relapse. Therapeutic opportunities have also arisen after introduction of newer, second-generation LAI APs in recent years. Newer LAI APs are more readily dosed optimally, may be better tolerated and are better suited to integrated rehabilitation programmes. This review outlines the older and newer LAI APs available for the treatment of schizophrenia, with considerations of past and present pharmacological and therapeutic issues. Traditional, evidence-based approaches to systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials are of limited utility in this area so this paper's blending of experimental trials with observational research is particularly appropriate and effective.

Cost analysis of risperidone long-acting injection in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders in Hong Kong: an approach using generalised estimating equations

Schizophrenia is one of the most expensive psychiatric illnesses. This study compared retrospectively health-care resources consumed 12 months before and 24 months after risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) treatment in Hong Kong. A mirror-image analysis was conducted using data (N=191) from three public hospitals in Hong Kong from 2003 to 2007. The main outcome measure was hospitalisation cost. Other secondary outcomes such as hospitalisation episodes, outpatient visits and adverse events were also compared. A predictive model was established using linear regression based on generalised estimating equations. Analysis showed that RLAI was associated with a reduction in hospitalisation cost by HK$10,001,390 (24.7%) (HK$40,418,694 vs. HK$30,417,303; P-value <0.05). Days of hospitalisation were reduced by 1538 days (10.1%) (15,271 vs. 13,733; P-value <0.05). The predictive model estimated that the hospitalisation cost of patients using RLAI was only 11.1% (3.1-3.93%, 95% confidence interval (CI)) compared to those receiving conventional antipsychotics combined with oral risperidone. Cost of hospitalisation was significantly reduced after RLAI therapy. However, results should be considered as indicative or suggestive only, due to potential channelling bias where certain drug regimens are preferentially prescribed to patients with particular conditions. The findings from our study may be useful in health-care decision making considering treatment options for schizophrenia in resource-limited settings.

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: their role in relapse prevention

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Antipsychotic medications are the cornerstone of treatment in schizophrenia, and a large body of data confirms the value of ongoing and continuous antipsychotic pharmacotherapy in controlling symptoms and preventing relapse. However, nonadherence with antipsychotic treatment is a significant issue, with estimates as high as 90%.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review focuses on long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics and their role in the treatment of schizophrenia. The existing literature, with an emphasis on clinical evidence, is assessed. This includes both reviews and specific trials that examine LAIs and compare them with oral agents, with measures ranging from relapse and rehospitalization to adherence. Both advantages and limitations (e.g., challenges in terms of dose titration and time to steady state) are examined.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

This overview serves as an update for clinicians wishing to understand LAIs better, including the newer second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with this formulation available, and their potential role in the long-term treatment of individuals with schizophrenia.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Despite identified advantages, LAIs are not used as widely as might be expected. It would seem that clinicians are at least partly responsible for this, influenced by our own misperceptions (e.g., that LAIs are not acceptable to patients) and, perhaps, misinformation (e.g., increased side effect risk). As clinicians, we may well be shortchanging LAIs if we position them as a treatment of last resort for the multi-episode, nonadherent, 'revolving door' patient, especially given recent evidence underscoring their potential benefits in first-episode patients. The search for new and more effective antipsychotics will continue, but we are reminded that suboptimal outcomes may have as much to do with nonadherence as inadequate treatments. Evidence has established that LAI antipsychotics demonstrate distinct benefits in this regard, and we would be remiss if we did not exploit this already available strategy. As well as additional research, we need to rethink how we position these agents in our treatment algorithms if we are to maximize their potential.

First-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections v. oral antipsychotics in schizophrenia: systematic review of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) are often used in an attempt to improve medication adherence in people with schizophrenia.

AIMS

To compare first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections (FGA-LAIs) with first- and second-generation oral antipsychotics in terms of clinical outcome.

METHOD

Systematic literature review.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed no difference in relapse or tolerability between oral antipsychotics and FGA-LAIs but global improvement was twice as likely with FGA-LAIs. Four prospective observational studies were identified; two studies reported lower discontinuation rates for FGA-LAIs compared with oral medication and two found that outcome was either no different or better with oral antipsychotics. Mirror-image studies consistently showed reduced in-patient days and admissions following a switch from oral antipsychotics to FGA-LAIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results are variable and inconclusive. Some evidence suggests that FGA-LAIs may improve outcome compared with oral antipsychotics. Methodological issues may partly explain the variable results. Selective recruitment in RCTs and lack of randomisation in observational studies are biases against LAIs, whereas regression to the mean in mirror-image studies favours LAIs. In terms of future research, a long-term pragmatic RCT of an FGA-LAI against an oral antipsychotic, in patients with problematic adherence, would be of value.

Relapse and long-acting injectable risperidone: a 1-year mirror image study with a national claims database in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

The development of long-acting, injectable atypical antipsychotics has provided a new paradigm for schizophrenia treatment. The study was designed to assess whether a risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) is associated with reduced relapses and service utilization in the real world.

METHODS

The Psychiatric Inpatients Medical Claims dataset was used for the analysis. It is a longitudinal dataset that includes the National Health Insurance claims of service uses by a cohort of mentally ill patients. The inclusion criteria for this analysis were patients who: 1) had available information for at least 12 months after the first dose of RLAI; 2) had a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia; and 3) were regularly treated with RLAI for at least 1 year. Patients who accumulatively received at least 75-mg RLAI per 3-month period were considered to be undergoing regular treatment. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed to compare differences in numbers of acute admissions, hospital days, emergency room visits, and relapses between the pre- and post-RLAI periods in this 1-year mirror-image study.

RESULTS

In total, 108 patients were eligible for analysis. Significant reductions in the total annual numbers of acute hospital admissions by 55% (80 vs. 36, P = 0.0003), hospital days by 48% (4106 vs. 2126, P = 0.0021), and relapses by 54% (115 vs. 53, P = 0.0005) were observed. A reduction of emergency room visits was also observed, but did not reach statistical significance (55 vs. 25, P = 0.1255).

CONCLUSIONS

This 1-year mirror-image analysis with claims-based data demonstrated that RLAI treatment was associated with reductions in relapses and hospital service utilization.

Efficacy and safety of risperidone long-acting injectable in stable psychotic patients previously treated with oral risperidone

This subgroup analysis of symptomatically stable patients with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders in the StoRMi trial determined the efficacy and tolerability of risperidone long-acting injectable in patients changed from oral risperidone monotherapy. Risperidone long-acting injectable was administered open-label (dosage 25/37.5/50 mg every 2 weeks for 6 months). In total, 568 patients (60% men, mean age 36-40 years) were included and grouped according to pre-trial oral risperidone dosage (56% < or =4 mg; 30% >4 to < or =6 mg; 14% >6 mg). Most patients (71-85% across groups) were diagnosed with schizophrenia. At endpoint, risperidone long-acting injectable dosages partly correlated with the previous oral risperidone dosage. Some patients previously on high dosages of oral risperidone responded well to lower risperidone long-acting injectable dosages. Efficacy significantly improved from baseline to endpoint in all groups; total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score improved by > or =20% in 39% of all patients. Clinical global impression symptoms, global assessment of function scores, and the SF-36 mental component summary score significantly improved in all groups. Hospitalizations were reduced by 74-80%. Extrapyramidal symptom rating scale scores were significantly better at endpoint (P< or =0.001). These results indicate that further improvement in symptom control can be seen after a change to risperidone long-acting injectable in clinically stable patients previously treated with oral risperidone.

Depot antipsychotic preparations in schizophrenia: the state of the economic evidence

Depot treatment of schizophrenia - to date restricted to conventional antipsychotic medications - remains widespread. Whilst there have been numerous studies of clinical effectiveness, and systematic reviews of the accumulated evidence, little appears to be known about the cost-effectiveness of depot treatment. A systematic review was conducted of the international literature in an attempt to find, appraise and summarize the economic evaluative evidence. Very few studies of relevance or quality could be found. Most of the papers purporting to examine the economic consequences of depot treatment were methodologically weak. There were no randomized controlled trials of depot vs. oral antipsychotics, the few mirror-image studies were uncontrolled and a single naturalistic observational study measured costs only narrowly. Two modelling studies - which have a number of limitations because of their partial reliance on expert opinion rather than observational data - suggest that depot treatment may lower costs and improve cost-effectiveness. Overall, however, it is not possible to draw conclusions as to the cost-effectiveness of depot conventional antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia.

Treatment models

Antipsychotic drugs are used in a range of schizophrenic patients from the acutely disturbed to the chronically inert. Acute psychotic breakdowns usually involve secondary phenomena such as anxiety, depression and hostility superimposed on a worsening of the psychotic illness: a threshold of arousal is exceeded. This sets up a vicious circle which requires a major therapeutic effort to interrupt. Unfortunately, patients still relapse despite apparently adequate medication, suggesting only partial protection. Relapse is influenced by drug-related factors such as compliance and substance abuse, psychological factors such as cultural context, family dynamics and life events, and illness features such as poor insight. Treatment strategies, such as low-dose and intermittent medication, have proved disappointing. The most pragmatic model is the classic stressor-vulnerability model, but this does not explain the enhanced efficacy of clozapine.

Long-term depot antipsychotics. A risk-benefit assessment

The main advantage of depot antipsychotic medication is that it overcomes the problem of covert noncompliance. Patients receiving depot treatment who refuse their injection or fail to receive it for any other reason can be immediately identified and appropriate action taken. In the context of a carefully monitored management programme, depot treatment can have a major impact on compliance and, consequently, the risk of relapse and hospitalisation can be reduced. Another major advantage is that the considerable individual variation in bioavailability and metabolism with oral antipsychotic drugs is markedly reduced with depot treatment. A better correlation between the dose administered and the concentration of medication found in blood or plasma is achieved with depot treatment, and thus, the clinician has greater control over the amount of drug being delivered to the site of activity. A further benefit of depot treatment is the achievement of stable plasma concentrations over long periods, allowing injections to be given every few weeks. However, this also represents a potential disadvantage in that there is a lack of flexibility of administration. Should adverse effects develop, the drug cannot be rapidly withdrawn. Furthermore, adjustment to the optimal dose becomes a long term strategy. The controlled studies of low dose maintenance therapy with depot treatment suggest that it can take months or years for the consequences of dose reduction, in terms of increased risk of relapse, to become manifest. When weighing up the risks and benefits of long term antipsychotic treatment for the individual patient with schizophrenia, the clinician must take into account the nature, severity and frequency of past relapses, and the degree of distress and disability related to any adverse effects. However, the clinical decision to prescribe either a depot or an oral antipsychotic for maintenance treatment will probably rest largely on an assessment of the risk of poor compliance in the particular patient. There is no convincing evidence that the range, nature or severity of adverse effects reported with depot treatment is significantly different from that seen with oral treatment, and depot treatment has been shown to be as good or better than oral medication in preventing or postponing relapse. Furthermore, when adjusting the dose or frequency of depot injection, to improve control of psychotic symptoms or reduce adverse effects, the clinician can be confident that the dose prescribed is the dose being received by the patient.

Depot antipsychotic drugs. Place in therapy

The pharmacokinetics of depot antipsychotic medications are such that an intramuscular injection given at intervals of from 1 to 4 weeks will produce adequate plasma concentrations that are sufficient to prevent relapse over the dosage interval. Such medication is useful in patients who do not reliably take their oral medication. The pharmacokinetics and clinical actions of various depot formulations of antipsychotic drugs have been extensively studied. Unfortunately, patients who do not reliably take their oral medications are unlikely to volunteer for controlled studies. This is because the same factors that influence a patient to not cooperate with the physician in taking the medication as prescribed will also interfere with their willingness to volunteer for research protocols. Thus, evidence from blinded controlled trials may not necessarily reflect the actual patient population at risk. We feel that particularly important evidence of efficacy of depot vs oral medication comes from mirror-image studies. In these trials, the number of hospitalisations after initiation of depot medication is compared with that observed when the patient was solely taking oral medication. Studies of this type show that depot medication substantially reduces the rate of relapse. There is considerable evidence about how long depot medications should be used. For many patients, depot medication to prevent relapse in schizophrenia should be used for the life of the patient. As the conventional antipsychotic agents are replaced by a new generation of agents, the need for depot formulations will continue, and the knowledge gained about the current formulations should transfer to future generations of drugs.