Sulpiride augmentation for schizophrenia

Exploring Hidden Issues in the Use of Antipsychotic Polypharmacy in the Treatment of Schizophrenia

The mainstay of schizophrenia treatment is pharmacological therapy using various antipsychotics including first- and second-generation antipsychotics which have different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic property leading to differential presentation of adverse events (AEs) and treatment effects such as negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms and cormorbid symptoms. Major treatment guidelines suggest the use of antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) as a gold standard in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the effects of APM is inadequate and less potent to achieve symptom remission as well as functional recovery in real practice which has been consistently reported in numerous controlled clinical trials, large practical trials, independent small studies and systematic reviews till today. Therefore anti-psychotic polypharmacy (APP) regardless of the class of antipsychotics has been also commonly utilized for many reasons in real world practice. However, APP has also crucial pitfalls including increase of total psychotics including antipsychotics, high-doses of antipsychotics used, poor compliance, drug-drug interaction and risks for developing AEs, all of which are paradoxically related to poor clinical outcomes, whereas APP has also substantial advantages in reduction of re-hospitalization, severe psychopathology and targeted control of concurrent symptoms. Given currently limited therapeutic options, it is also important to properly utilize APP in order to maximize its clinical utility and minimize its risk for better treatment outcomes for patients with schizophrenia, based on risk/benefit with full understanding of pharmacological and clinical issues on APP. The present paper intends to address intriguing and important issues in the use of APP in real world practice.

Clozapine resistant schizophrenia: Newer avenues of management

About 40%-70% of the patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia have a poor response to adequate treatment with clozapine. The impact of clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS) is even greater than that of treatment resistance in terms of severe and persistent symptoms, relapses and hospitalizations, poorer quality of life, and healthcare costs. Such serious consequences often compel clinicians to try different augmentation strategies to enhance the inadequate clozapine response in CRS. Unfortunately, a large body of evidence has shown that antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, electroconvulsive therapy, and cognitive-behavioural therapy are mostly ineffective in augmenting clozapine response. When beneficial effects of augmentation have been found, they are usually small and of doubtful clinical significance or based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, newer treatment approaches that go beyond the evidence are needed. The options proposed include developing a clinical consensus about the augmentation strategies that are most likely to be effective and using them sequentially in patients with CRS. Secondly, newer approaches such as augmentation with long-acting antipsychotic injections or multi-component psychosocial interventions could be considered. Lastly, perhaps the most effective way to deal with CRS would be to optimize clozapine treatment, which might prevent clozapine resistance from developing. Personalized dosing, adequate treatment durations, management of side effects and non-adherence, collaboration with patients and caregivers, and addressing clinician barriers to clozapine use are the principal ways of ensuring optimal clozapine treatment. At present, these three options could the best way to manage CRS until research provides more firm directions about the effective options for augmenting clozapine response.

Movement Disorders Associated With Antipsychotic Medication in People With Schizophrenia: An Overview of Cochrane Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Movement disorders associated with antipsychotic medications are relatively common, stigmatising, and potentially disabling. Their prevalence in people with psychosis who are prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) is uncertain, as is their level of recognition by clinicinas. We conducted meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials included in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses to estimate the prevalence of new-onset dystonia, akathisia, parkinsonism, and tremor with SGAs (amisulpride, asenapine, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, L-sulpiride, and ziprasidone) approved in Canada and the UK, comparing them with haloperidol and chlorpromazine. We used a random effects model because of the heterogeneity between-studies in drug dosage and method of ascertainment of movement disorders. Our systematic search yielded 37 Cochrane systematic reviews (28 for SGAs), which generated 316 informative randomised controlled trials (243 for SGAs). With respect to SGAs, prevalence estimates ranged from 1.4% (quetiapine) to 15.3% (L-sulpiride) for dystonia, 3.3% (paliperidone) to 16.4% (L-sulpiride) for akathisia, 2.4% (asenapine) to 29.3% (L-sulpiride) for parkinsonism, and 0.2% (clozapine) to 28.2% (L-sulpiride) for tremor. Prevalence estimates were not influenced by treatment duration, the use of a flexible or fixed dosing scheme, or whether studies used validated instruments for the screening/rating of movement disorders. Overall, we found high overlap on the prevalence of new-onset movement disorders across different SGAs precribed for established psychoses. Variations in prevalence figures across antipsychotic medications were observed for the different movement disorders. Differences in pharmacological properties, such as for the dopamine D2 R association rate and serotonin 5-HT2A antagonism, could contribute to this variation.

Clozapine dose for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking and speech, emotional processes, behaviour and sense of self. Clozapine is useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, particularly when other antipsychotic medications have failed. It improves positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and negative symptoms (such as withdrawal and poverty of speech). However, it is unclear what dose of clozapine is most effective with the least side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine at different doses and to identify the optimal dose of clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (August 2011 and 8 December 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding status or language, that compared the effects of clozapine at different doses in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, diagnosed by any criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations from the searches, identified relevant abstracts, obtained full articles of relevant abstracts, and classified trials as included or excluded. We included trials that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies that could be included. Each compared the effects of clozapine at very low dose (up to 149 mg/day), low dose (150 mg/day to 300 mg/day) and standard dose (301 mg/day to 600 mg/day). Four of the five included studies were based on a small number of participants. We rated all the evidence reported for the main outcomes of interest as low or very low quality. No data were available for the main outcomes of global state, service use or quality of life. Very low dose compared to low doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low and very low doses of clozapine in terms of average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 3.55, 95% CI -4.50 to 11.60, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in body mass index (BMI) in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.75, low-quality evidence). Very low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between very low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of average BPRS-A endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 6.67, 95% CI -2.09 to 15.43, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 58, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.96, low-quality evidence) Low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of both clinician-assessed clinical improvement (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.61, medium-quality evidence) and clinically important response as more than 30% change in BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 176, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, medium-quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).We found some evidence of effect for other adverse effect outcomes; however, the data were again limited. Very low dose compared to low doseThere was limited evidence that serum triglycerides were lower at low-dose clozapine compared to very low dose in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49). Low dose compared to standard doseWeight gain was lower at very low dose compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 27, MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.38 to -0.02). Glucose level one hour after meal was also lower at very lose dose (1 RCT, n = 58, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.90 to -0.30). Total cholesterol levels were higher at very low compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 58, n = 58, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.80). Low dose compared to standard doseThere was evidence of fewer adverse effects, measured as lower TESS scores, in the low-dose group in the short term (2 RCTs, n = 266, MD -3.99, 95% CI -5.75 to -2.24); and in one study there was evidence that the incidence of lethargy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97), hypersalivation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84), dizziness (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and tachycardia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71) was less at low dose compared to standard dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of effect on mental state between standard, low and very low dose regimes, but we did not identify any trials on high or very high doses of clozapine. BMI measurements were similar between groups in the short term, although weight gain was less at very low dose compared to standard dose in one study. There was limited evidence that the incidence of some adverse effects was greater at standard dose compared to lower dose regimes. We found very little useful data and the evidence available is generally of low or very low quality. More studies are needed to validate our findings and report on outcomes such as relapse, remission, social functioning, service utilisation, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. There is a particular lack of medium- or long-term outcome data, and on dose regimes above the standard rate.

Association between antipsychotic/antidepressant drug treatments and hospital admissions in schizophrenia assessed using a mental health case register

Background:

The impact of psychotropic drug choice upon admissions for schizophrenia is not well understood.

Aims:

To examine the association between antipsychotic/antidepressant use and time in hospital for patients with schizophrenia.

Methods:

We conducted an observational study, using 8 years’ admission records and electronically generated drug histories from an institution providing secondary mental health care in Cambridgeshire, UK, covering the period 2005–2012 inclusive. Patients with a coded ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia were selected. The primary outcome measure was the time spent as an inpatient in a psychiatric unit. Antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs used by at least 5% of patients overall were examined for associations with admissions. Periods before and after drug commencement were compared for patients having pre-drug admissions, in mirror-image analyses correcting for overall admission rates. Drug use in one 6-month calendar period was used to predict admissions in the next period, across all patients, in a regression analysis accounting for the effects of all other drugs studied and for time.

Results:

In mirror-image analyses, sulpiride, aripiprazole, clozapine, and olanzapine were associated with fewer subsequent admission days. In regression analyses, sulpiride, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, and clozapine–aripiprazole and clozapine–amisulpride combinations were associated with fewer subsequent admission days.

Conclusions:

Use of these drugs was associated with fewer days in hospital. Causation is not implied and these findings require confirmation by randomized controlled trials.

Treatment resistant schizophrenia: a comprehensive survey of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a common serious mental health condition which has significant morbidity and financial consequences. The mainstay of treatment has been antipsychotic medication but one third of people will have a 'treatment resistant' and most disabling and costly illness. The aim of this survey was to produce a broad overview of available randomised evidence for interventions for people whose schizophrenic illness has been designated 'treatment resistant'.

METHOD

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's comprehensive Trials Register, selected all relevant randomised trials and, taking care not to double count, extracted the number of people randomised within each study. Finally we sought relevant reviews on the Cochrane Library and investigated how data on this subgroup of people had been presented.

RESULTS

We identified 542 relevant papers based on 268 trials (Average size 64.8 SD 61.6, range 7-526, median 56 IQR 47.3, mode 60). The most studied intervention is clozapine with 82 studies (total n = 6299) comparing it against other anti-psychotic medications. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) supplementing a standard care and risperidone supplementation of clozapine has also been extensively evaluated within trials. Many approaches, however, were clearly under researched. There were only four studies investigating combinations of non-clozapine antipsychotics. Only two psychological approaches (CBT and Family Rehabilitation Training) had more than two studies. Cochrane reviews rarely presented data specific to this important clinical sub-group.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a broad taxonomy of how much evaluative research has been carried out investigating interventions for people with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Over 280 trials have been undertaken but, with a few exceptions, most treatment approaches--and some in common use--have only one or two relevant but small trials. Too infrequently the leading reviews fail to highlight the paucity of evidence in this area--as these reviews are maintained this shortcoming should be addressed.

Sulpiride versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Sulpiride is a relatively old antipsychotic drug reputed to have a low incidence of adverse effects and an effect on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This relatively inexpensive antipsychotic drug has a similar neuropharmacological profile to several novel atypical drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of sulpiride for schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (September 2008) and references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information. We updated this search 7th November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sulpiride with placebo for people with schizophrenia and other types of schizophrenia-like psychoses. The primary outcome of interest was clinically significant response in global state.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality-assessed these. IMO and JW extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using a random-effects risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. Where continuous data were included, we analysed these data using random-effects mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were included from the 2012 search. The review still includes two trials of short duration comparing sulpiride with placebo (total n = 113). No study reported our primary outcome of interest of 'global state: clinically significant response', nor our secondary outcomes of interest of 'quality of life', 'severe adverse effects', and 'safety assessments'. As regards mental state, there were no clear differences between groups for either positive or negative symptoms; measured positive symptoms using the Manchester scale were skewed and therefore not included in meta-analysis (n = 18, 1 RCT, very low quality evidence). Measured negative symptoms using the Manchester scale also demonstrated no clear difference (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -3.0 CI -1.66 to 1.06, very low quality evidence). Few people left these studies by three months (n = 113, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.25 to 4.00). One subscore finding demonstrated a significant improvement in social behaviour using the Current Behaviour Schedule (CBS) when receiving placebo (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -2.90 CI -5.60 to -0.20). There were no data for many important outcomes such as global outcomes, service use or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulpiride may be an effective antipsychotic drug but evidence of its superiority over placebo from randomised trials is very limited. Practice will have to use evidence from sources other than trials until better evidence is generated.

Current approaches to treatments for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, part I: an overview and medical treatments

During the last three decades, an increasing understanding of the etiology, psychopathology, and clinical manifestations of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, in addition to the introduction of second-generation antipsychotics, has optimized the potential for recovery from the illness. Continued development of various models of psychosocial intervention promotes the goal of schizophrenia treatment from one of symptom control and social adaptation to an optimal restoration of functioning and/or recovery. However, it is still questionable whether these new treatment approaches can address the patients' needs for treatment and services and contribute to better patient outcomes. This article provides an overview of different treatment approaches currently used in schizophrenia spectrum disorders to address complex health problems and a wide range of abnormalities and impairments resulting from the illness. There are different treatment strategies and targets for patients at different stages of the illness, ranging from prophylactic antipsychotics and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the premorbid stage to various psychosocial interventions in addition to antipsychotics for relapse prevention and rehabilitation in the later stages of the illness. The use of antipsychotics alone as the main treatment modality may be limited not only in being unable to tackle the frequently occurring negative symptoms and cognitive impairments but also in producing a wide variety of adverse effects to the body or organ functioning. Because of varied pharmacokinetics and treatment responsiveness across agents, the medication regimen should be determined on an individual basis to ensure an optimal effect in its long-term use. This review also highlights that the recent practice guidelines and standards have recommended that a combination of treatment modalities be adopted to meet the complex health needs of people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. In view of the heterogeneity of the risk factors and the illness progression of individual patients, the use of multifaceted illness management programs consisting of different combinations of physical, psychological, and social interventions might be efficient and effective in improving recovery.

Intracellular pathways of antipsychotic combined therapies: implication for psychiatric disorders treatment

Dysfunctions in the interplay among multiple neurotransmitter systems have been implicated in the wide range of behavioral, emotional and cognitive symptoms displayed by major psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression. The complex clinical presentation of these pathologies often needs the use of multiple pharmacological treatments, in particular (1) when monotherapy provides insufficient improvement of the core symptoms; (2) when there are concurrent additional symptoms requiring more than one class of medication and (3) in order to improve tolerability, by using two compounds below their individual dose thresholds to limit side effects. To date, the choice of drug combinations is based on empirical paradigm guided by clinical response. Nonetheless, several preclinical studies have demonstrated that drugs commonly used to treat psychiatric disorders may impact common intracellular target molecules (e.g. Akt/GSK-3 pathway, MAP kinases pathway, postsynaptic density proteins). These findings support the hypothesis that convergence at crucial steps of transductional pathways could be responsible for synergistic effects obtained in clinical practice by the co-administration of those apparently heterogeneous pharmacological compounds. Here we review the most recent evidence on the molecular crossroads in antipsychotic combined therapies with antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines, as well as with antipsychotics. We first discuss clinical clues and efficacy of such combinations. Then we focus on the pharmacodynamics and on the intracellular pathways underpinning the synergistic, or concurrent, effects of each therapeutic add-on strategy, as well as we also critically appraise how pharmacological research may provide new insights on the putative molecular mechanisms underlying major psychiatric disorders.

Is rational antipsychotic polytherapy feasible? A selective review

Antipsychotic polytherapy (APT) has evolved as a common treatment strategy at odds with recommendations from schizophrenia treatment guidelines. The literature on combinations with clozapine as a means to enhance efficacy and with aripiprazole to reduce side effects was reviewed. No solid evidence supporting antipsychotic combinations with clozapine for treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia was identified. The reason for this may be that most combinations with clozapine increase the D(2)-receptor blockade, and this strategy is probably not efficient for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Some basic and clinical evidence for the addition of aripiprazole to lower prolactin levels was identified. In conclusion, there is very limited support in the evidence for the feasibility of rational APT.

Augmentation of clozapine with a second antipsychotic - a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine using meta-analysis the effect of adding a second antipsychotic to established clozapine monotherapy.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in April 2011, and randomised placebo-controlled double-blind studies were identified. We performed a meta-analysis of efficacy (as standardised mean difference) and tolerability (withdrawals from trials) and a regression analysis of duration of study versus effect size. We also examined publication bias using funnel-plot analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 14 studies were included (734 subjects). Individual study numbers ranged from 10 to 207 (mean 52.6, median 40). Augmentation of clozapine with a second antipsychotic conferred a small benefit over placebo (effect size -0.239 (95% CI: -0.452, -0.026); P = 0.028). Meta-regression of the effect of length of treatment on effect size showed no relationship (P = 0.254). The risk of discontinuing antipsychotic augmentation was no greater than the risk of discontinuing placebo (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.80-1.82). There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Augmentation with a second antipsychotic is modestly beneficial in patients not responding fully to clozapine. Tolerability seems not to be adversely affected, at least in the short term. Longer studies do not appear to increase the probability of showing positive effects for augmentation.

Treatment-resistant Schizophrenia: Evidence-based Strategies

Treatment-resistant symptoms complicate the clinical course of schizophrenia, and a large proportion of patients do not reach functional recovery. In consequence, polypharmacy is frequently used in treatment-refractory cases, addressing psychotic positive, negative and cognitive symptoms, treatment-emergent side effects caused by antipsychotics and comorbid depressive or obsessive-compulsive symptoms. To a large extent, such strategies are not covered by pharmacological guidelines which strongly suggest antipsychotic monotherapy. Add-on strategies comprise combinations of several antipsychotic agents and augmentations with mood stabilizers; moreover, antidepressants and experimental substances are applied. Based on the accumulated evidence of clinical trials and meta-analyses, combinations of clozapine with certain second-generation antipsychotic agents and the augmentation of antipsychotics with antidepressants seem recommendable, while the augmentation with mood stabilizers cannot be considered superior to placebo. Forthcoming investigations will have to focus on innovative pharmacological agents, the clinical spectrum of cognitive deficits and the implementation of cognitive behavioral therapy.