Antipsychotic polypharmacy reduction versus polypharmacy continuation for people with schizophrenia

Better adherence to guidelines among psychiatrists providing pharmacological therapy is associated with longer work hours in patients with schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric disorder that is associated with various social dysfunctions, including shorter work hours. To measure the degree to which psychiatrists adhere to guidelines for pharmacological therapy of schizophrenia, we recently developed the individual fitness score (IFS) for adherence among psychiatrists in each patient. However, it remains unclear whether better adherence among psychiatrists is associated with higher patients' social functional outcomes, such as work hours. In this study, we examined the relationship between adherence to guidelines among psychiatrists and work hours in patients with schizophrenia. To evaluate the association between adherence to guidelines for pharmacological therapy among psychiatrists for treating schizophrenia and work hours, we used the IFS and social activity assessment, respectively, in 286 patients with schizophrenia. The correlation between IFS values and work hours was investigated in the patients. The adherence among psychiatrists to guidelines was significantly and positively correlated with work hours in patients with schizophrenia (rho = 0.18, p = 2.15 × 10-3). When we divided the patients into treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and nontreatment-resistant schizophrenia (non-TRS) groups, most patients with TRS (n = 40) had shorter work hours (0-15 h/week). Even after excluding patients with TRS, the positive correlation between adherence to guidelines among psychiatrists and work hours in patients with non-TRS (n = 246) was still significant (rho = 0.19, p = 3.32 × 10-3). We found that work hours were longer in patients who received the guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Our findings suggest that widespread education and training for psychiatrists may be necessary to improve functional outcomes in patients with schizophrenia.

Relationships Between Adherence to Guideline Recommendations for Pharmacological Therapy Among Clinicians and Psychotic Symptoms in Patients With Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Clinician adherence to guideline recommendations in the pharmacological therapy of schizophrenia is important for favorable patient outcomes. To evaluate whether prescriptions followed the guidelines for pharmacological therapy of schizophrenia, we recently developed a summary indicator of multiple quality indicators: the individual fitness score (IFS). It is unclear whether adherence to the guidelines is related to patient outcomes. Here, we investigated correlations between the IFS values and psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We assessed whether patients' current prescriptions adhered to the guideline recommendations using the IFS in 47 patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and 353 patients with non-TRS (total n = 400), respectively. We investigated correlations between the IFS and total scores and scores on the 5 subscales of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Furthermore, we explored correlations between over 2-year longitudinal changes in IFS values and changes in psychotic symptoms in some patients (n = 77).

RESULTS

We found significant negative correlation between the IFS and PANSS total score in all patients with schizophrenia (β = -0.18, P = 9.80 × 10-5). The IFS was significantly and nominally negatively correlated with the PANSS total score in patients with non-TRS (Spearman's rho = -0.15, P = 4.40 × 10-3) and patients with TRS (rho = -0.37, P = .011), respectively. The IFS was also significantly and nominally negatively correlated with several factors, such as the negative and depressed factors, in patients with non-TRS and patients with TRS, respectively (P < .05). Furthermore, the change in IFS values was marginally negatively correlated with the changes in PANSS total scores and scores on the positive and depressed factors (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that efforts to improve clinician adherence to guideline recommendations for pharmacological therapy of schizophrenia, as assessed by the IFS, may lead to better outcomes in patients with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life,  rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.  No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).   More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.