[Medicamental treatment of schizophrenia]

Antipsychotics play a key role in biologic therapy of schizophrenia. Following the first-generation neuroleptics, associated with many extrapyramidal side effects (severe dystonias, parkinsonian syndrome, akatisia and late dyskinesia) altering patients' compliance to the treatment, one can now find a new generation of molecules considered as atypical antipsychotics because they rarely cause neurological complications. This propriety provides a better compliance, along with a clear decrease of late dyskinesia risk but the effectiveness compared to ordinary molecules is still questioned. However, some of them can cause an increased risk of metabolic syndrome. Some molecules such as benzodiazepines and some antidepressants can also be prescribed to cure schizophrenic patients.

Troubles métaboliques associés aux antipsychotiques atypiques : consensus belge sur la conduite à tenir

BACKGROUND

The current literature supports that schizophrenia (and bipolar disorders) appear to be associated with a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Because of the silent nature of diabetes mellitus, and the fact that schizophrenic patients are not screened comprehensively for the disease, the true prevalence of hyperglycemia and diabetes may be substantially underestimated. Notably, it has been suggested that schizophrenia as such carries an increased risk, as certain characteristics of schizophrenic patients such as unhealthy life style promote the diabetes risk.

LITERATURE FINDINGS

This risk may be increased by antipsychotic drug treatment, as was already suggested for first-generation antipsychotics (FGA). The amount of literature on the association of SGA and metabolic disorders is much larger however, although well-controlled prospective data are sparse. Reports comprise abnormal glucose regulation, exacerbation of existing type 1 and 2 diabetes, new-onset pseudo-type 1 or type 2 diabetes, diabetic ketoacidosis, coma and death. In large-scale studies (mostly retrospective), reviews and meta-analyses, the association was not found for all drugs.

NEW DATA

According to recent reviews, the risk of developing diabetes was highest for clozapine and olanzapine, followed by quetiapine and risperidone. The hierarchy of liability of weight gain, or differential effects on insulin resistance was also in the described order. Apart from disturbances in glucose metabolism, further frequent metabolic abnormalities in schizophrenic patients on SGA include features of the metabolic syndrome. Antipsychotics such as clozapine and olanzapine have also been associated with hypertriglyceridemia, while agents such as haloperidol, risperidone and ziprasidone were associated with reductions in plasma triglycerides. Amisulpride, aripiprazole and ziprasidone seem to carry the lowest risk for weight gain, diabetes and effects on insulin resistance.

CONCLUSION

As a consequence, there is a shift in attention toward physical health monitoring in patients with mental health disorders. The APA and ADA as well a British working group have recently published the findings on SGA and metabolic abnormalities in a joint statement (table I).

Belgian consensus on metabolic problems associated with atypical antipsychotics

A workshop was convened by a panel of psychiatrists, diabetologists and pharmacists from major Belgian hospitals to review the latest information relating to the risks with second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) for the development of metabolic disorders, especially impaired glucose tolerance, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia. The panelists sought to formulate recommendations for practising psychiatrists when initiating and maintaining therapy with SGA, and for the switch of SGA or initiation of further treatment if metabolic complications occur. In addition, recommendations for counselling of the patient and for the cooperation between the psychiatrist and the general physician or diabetologist, respectively, were provided.

Efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine in patients with schizophrenia switched from other antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE The Seroquel Patient Evaluation on Changing Treatment Relative to Usual Medication (SPECTRUM) study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine (Seroquel™) in patients with schizophrenia switched from treatments providing suboptimal outcomes. METHODS This was an international, open-label, non-comparative study, designed with titration to 400 mg/day quetiapine over 7 days, then flexible dosing (300-750 mg/day) for 11 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity of Illness and Global Improvement scores; and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). Clinical benefit and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS The mean modal dose of quetiapine was 505 mg/day; 509 patients switched to quetiapine from olanzapine (13%), risperidone (11%), conventional antipsychotics (37%) and combinations of antipsychotics (28%), amongst others. Significant decreases in CGI Severity of Illness and PANSS scores and a significant improvement in CDSS score resulted from the switch (all P<0.001 versus baseline). There were significant reductions in extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) on the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) and Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) (both P<0.001 versus baseline) and a low incidence of EPS-related adverse events (4.7%). CONCLUSION Results indicate that switching to quetiapine was clinically beneficial for patients with poor efficacy or intolerable side effects on their previous antipsychotic medication.

Controlled comparison of nefazodone and amitriptyline in major depressive inpatients

Nefazodone, a phenylpiperazine antidepressant, exhibits novel dual activity on serotonin (5-HT) neurons; it binds to 5-HT2 receptors and inhibits 5-HT reuptake. Flexible doses of nefazodone (100-400 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50-200 mg/day) were compared in 106 major depressive inpatients in a 6-week double-blind study. Results showed significant superiority of amitriptyline over nefazodone on all rating instruments: Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale (P < 0.0001), Hamilton depression scale (P < 0.0006), Clinical Global Impressions (P < 0.0001) and Patient Global Assessment (P < 0.01). A total of 65% of patients under amitriptyline and 56% of patients under nefazodone reported adverse events during the study, with significantly more dry mouth in the amitriptyline group (39% versus 11%, P = 0.001). Modal daily doses within the last treatment week reached 242 mg with nefazodone and 124 mg with amitriptyline. The lower efficacy of nefazodone, which contradicts comparative trials with imipramine in US patients, is discussed with regard to the dose of nefazodone, probably below the optimal therapeutic range for melancholic patients, and to the clinical differences between the patient samples.

Interest of a loading dose of milnacipran in endogenous depressive inpatients. Comparison with the standard regimen and with fluvoxamine

A multicenter controlled study was designed to test the hypothesis that a loading dose of an antidepressant could shorten the latency of its clinical efficacy. Three parallel groups of about 40 endogenous depressive inpatients received either a loading dose of milnacipran (300 mg daily for 2 weeks and 150 mg daily during the 2 following weeks), the standard regimen of milnacipran in severe depression (200 mg daily for 4 weeks), or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily for 4 weeks). The duration of the study was 4 weeks, with assessments at baseline and after 4, 9, 14, 21, and 28 days of therapy by means of Montgomery and Asberg depression scale (MADS), the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), and a checklist of symptoms and side-effects. Results showed very similar evolution in the 3 treatment groups. In addition, the level of side-effects did not exhibit significant differences among the treatment groups, except for excitement-nervousness and akathisia which were more frequently reported with fluvoxamine. These results do not support the usefulness of a loading dose of an antidepressant such as milnacipran. They demonstrate however that milnacipran can be given at a 300 mg daily dose from the very first day of treatment with an excellent tolerance.

Controlled comparison of two doses of milnacipran (F 2207) and amitriptyline in major depressive inpatients

A multicenter study compared the antidepressant efficacy and the tolerance of two doses of milnacipran (50 mg and 100 mg/day) and amitriptyline (150 mg/day) in three parallel groups of 45 major depressive inpatients defined by Research Diagnostic Criteria. After a wash-out period of 4-7 days on placebo with lorazepam and/or nitrazepam if necessary, patients were randomly assigned to a daily dose of milnacipran 50 mg, milnacipran 100 mg or amitriptyline 150 mg reached on the 5th day and then stable over a 4-week period, with weekly assessments by means of the Montgomery and Asberg depression scale, the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) and the Target Emergent Signs and Symptoms. Results showed significant superiority of both milnacipran 100 mg/day and amitriptyline over milnacipran 50 mg/day at the end of the treatment period. However, amitriptyline induced a nonsignificant trend toward more rapid improvement after 2 weeks of treatment, mainly based on items related to insomnia, supporting more sedative properties of amitriptyline as compared to milnacipran. Anticholinergic side-effects were significantly lower with milnacipran than with amitriptyline, explaining why milnacipran 100 mg exhibited at the end of the treatment period, a nonsignificantly better efficacy index on the CGI. Moreover, in contrast to milnacipran, amitriptyline was responsible for a significant decrease in blood pressure and a significant weight gain.