Clozapine in drug induced psychosis in Parkinson's disease: a randomised, placebo controlled study with open follow up

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of clozapine in drug induced psychosis in Parkinson's disease (PD).

METHODS

A four week, randomised, double blind, parallel comparison of clozapine and placebo, followed by a 12 week clozapine open period, plus a one month period after drug discontinuation, in 60 patients with PD. The primary efficacy outcome was the "clinical global impression scale" (CGI); the positive subscore of the "positive and negative syndrome scale" (PANSS) was used as the secondary efficacy parameter and the "unified Parkinson's disease rating scale" (UPDRS) and the "mini mental test examination" (MMSE) as safety outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) dosage of clozapine was 35.8 (12.5-50) mg at the end of the double blind period. The mean (SD) scores on the CGI improved by 1.8 (1.5) for the clozapine group compared with 0.6 (1.1) for the placebo group (p = 0.001). The mean (SD) positive subscore of PANSS improved by 5.6 (3.9) for the clozapine group (0.8 (2.8) for the placebo group; p < 0.0001). At the end of the open period, 25 patients had completely recovered from delusions and hallucinations, and 19 experienced a relapse within one month after the clozapine washout period. The UPDRS motor and MMSE mean scores did not change significantly in either group. Somnolence was more frequent with clozapine than with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine at a mean dose lower than 50 mg/day improves drug induced psychosis in PD without significant worsening of motor function, and the effect wears off once the treatment stops.

[Rivastigmine in current clinical practice in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease]

Six hundred and sixty nine out patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease were enrolled by 193 French neurologists, psychiatrists and gerontologists. The patients, 38p.cent males and 62p.cent females with a mean age of 75 years were progressively titrated from 3 to 12mg by day of rivastigmine, Exelon((R)), a day, and treated for 6 months. Mean Mini-Mental State (MMS) at baseline was 18.6. Concomitant pathologies and treatments were present in 89p.cent of the patients. Safety was good though 86p.cent reported an adverse event which was mild in most of the cases. The premature drop out rate was 29p.cent. Seventy-five patients showed no change or an improvement in their 4 Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) score with no change in the MMS at the end of treatment (18.8). Four items of the Neuro-Psychiatric Inventory (NPI): delusions, anxiety, apathy, and irritability were significantly improved at week 12 and the improvement in anxiety was still significant at the end of treatment. The total score frequency X severity showed a tendency to improvement. The correlations between the sum of the 4 IADL, MMS and NPI scores were strongly significant.

A double-blind comparative study of clozapine and risperidone in the management of severe chronic schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of therapeutic doses of clozapine and risperidone in patients with severe chronic schizophrenia and poor previous treatment response.

METHOD

Male or female patients aged 18-65 years who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and study requirements for poor previous treatment response (N=273) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either clozapine or risperidone administered over 12 weeks in increasing increments. The primary efficacy measures were the magnitude of improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study.

RESULTS

The magnitude of improvement in mean BPRS and CGI scores from baseline to end of the study was significantly greater in the clozapine group than in the risperidone group. Statistically significant differences in favor of clozapine were also seen for most of the secondary efficacy measures (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Calgary Depression Scale, Psychotic Depression Scale, and Psychotic Anxiety Scale). The adverse event profile was similar for both treatment groups, with a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms in the clozapine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine showed superior efficacy over risperidone in this patient population. Both treatments were equally well tolerated as demonstrated through their adverse event profiles, although as expected clozapine was associated with a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms than risperidone.

[Clinical psychopharmacology: the example of clozapine (Leponex)]

Ever since clozapine was discovered, researchers have been attempted to answer the question of what makes it different and how to relate its many pharmacological actions to its clinical features. Its clinical profile conflicts with the hypothesis that antipsychotic effect is due entirely to D2 dopamine receptor blockade. Clozapine is known to interact with many neurotransmitters systems. To date, four main hypothesis have been proposed in an attempt to explain some or all for clozapine's atypical properties: selective blockade of mesolimbic dopamine function; D1, D2, D3 and D4 receptor blockade; 5-HT2 and D2 receptor blockade; Potent alpha 1 adrenergic blockade. These hypothesis are reviewed in relation to the clozapine clinical profile. No hypothesis fully accounts for clozapine's spectrum of neurotransmitter interactions. Such a multiplicity of action would preclude a unified mechanism.

[Therapeutic trials in Alzheimer disease. Selection--recruitment and stratification]

Therapeutic trials conducted in Alzheimer's disease have benefited from the standardization of diagnostic criteria based on internationally recognized scales (DSM III-R, NINCDS-ADRDA) which ensure more valid inclusions. Well specified exclusion criteria are also of the utmost importance, in particular depression, vascular dementia and concomitant psychotropic drugs. Cognitive and/or functional scales allow an appreciation of the severity of the disease. Due to the heterogeneity of Alzheimer's disease stratification methods on identified prognostic factors i.e. aphasia, extrapyramidal symptoms should be performed. Selection of responders during an enrichment phase has still to be discussed. Multicentric studies become imperative because of the large number of patients required and the difficulties in selecting the adequate patients. These raise the issues of investigators' experience, coordination and between center variability.

[Clozapine (Leponex) in France]

Leponex (clozapine) is an atypical neuroleptic indicated in severe schizophrenia, launched in France in December 1991. The safety and efficacy data pertaining to 1,062 patients treated on a compassionate needs basis between May 1989 and December 1991 constitute the first French experience on the drug. The results of an interim analysis pertaining to 602 patients, i.e. available data on 03-15-1992, generally collected on a retrospective basis, by means of a specific questionnaire are reviewed. The population included patients with severe and long-standing schizophrenia i.e. 15.71 +/- 9.3 years, resistant to usual neuroleptic therapy (90.86% of cases), and rarely with a history of intolerance to this class (2.49%). The indication was in the majority of the cases a paranoid schizophrenia (67.2%). The mean maintenance daily dose was 419 mg/d (+/- 152). Overall, with respect to associated drugs, neuroleptics were recorded in 16.4%, another psychotropic drug in 44.7% and symptomatic treatments for extrapyramidal disorders in 21.3% of patients. Of interest is the fact that, for those patients started on Leponex more recently, the drug is more often prescribed on a single basis. Leponex was stopped in 24.3% for the following reasons: adverse events 10.6%, lack of efficacy 6%, non compliance 3.8%, other reasons 3.8%. The adverse event profile is consistent with the literature data, taking into account the fact that certain adverse events were more commonly described: fatigue of lower limbs 11.8%, leucocytosis 19.8% and eosinophilia 4.3%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Reliability of clinical criteria for the diagnosis of dementia. A longitudinal multicenter study

The reliability of the clinical diagnosis of dementia was estimated by comparing the diagnosis made at 1-year intervals on 55 consecutive subjects with suspected cognitive impairment seen at three different centers by neurologists and gerontologists. The diagnosis was based on history and clinical examination, the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (revised ed 3), the Modified Ischemic Score, and a computed tomographic scan. Fifty-two of 55 subjects were given the same diagnosis a year later indicating a reliability of 95%. The study shows that a diagnosis of dementia established by simple clinical criteria comparable to the NINCDS/ADRDA criteria affords sufficient reliability to allow the comparability of groups at different centers for purposes of research, including research on the evaluation of the efficacy of pharmacologic treatment.

Predictors of non-bedridden survival in dementia

The present study examined non-bedridden survival in 105 patients diagnosed as demented (Alzheimer's disease, multi-infarct dementia, mixed dementia) in a neurological ward. Follow-up observations were made. During the first year, the cumulative mortality rate was 69% compared to a rate of 44% in the second year. The initial disability stage, as assessed by the Dementia Disability Scale, was found to be the only significant predictor of non-bedridden survival. The type of dementia, age, type of diagnosis, and post-hospitalization placement in an institution have not been found to be significant predictors of this evolution.

[Development of a neurological score for the clinical evaluation of sylvian infarctions]

Among the main methodological problems raised by clinical trials in cerebral vascular accidents, one of the most serious is the lack of well-established and widely accepted criteria to evaluate the course of the disease. On the basis of published scores and of several trials carried on by us in three different centres during the last few years, we have developed a neurological score devised to reflect, as accurately as possible, deficits due to infarctions in the Sylvian territory, yet rapid and simple enough to provide an objective and reproducible rating. We report here the results of a prospective study concerning the inter-rater variations of the score from one centre to the other (inter-centre study) and within each centre (intra-centre study). These results have led us to withdraw three items with insufficient response rate and poor agreement, viz, "mental confusion", "visual field" and "sensory disorders". With the remaining 10 items the mean agreement between individual items varied from 85% to 90% and the global score agreement exceeded 90%. A study comparing our score with the Barthel index showed close correlation up to the autonomy threshold (Barthel index = 60) and divergent results beyond that point. The good agreement observed between inter-rater variations suggests that the score is reliable but does not inform on its sensitivity. In view of their relative independence, the neurological and the functional score should be regarded as complementary and should be used together as criteria of clinical assessment.