Effects on cognitive functioning after olanzapine-ziprasidone crossover in recent-onset schizophrenia

Clinical features, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-induced hypoglycemia

OBJECTIVE

Hypoglycemia is a sporadic and serious adverse reaction of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) due to its sulfonylurea-like effect. This study explored the clinical characteristics, risk factors, treatment, and prognosis of TMP-SMX-induced hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Case reports and series of TMP-SMX-induced hypoglycemia were systematically searched using Chinese and English databases. Primary patient and clinical information were extracted for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 34 patients were reported from 31 studies (16 males and 18 females). The patients had a median age of 64 years (range 0.4-91), and 75.8% had renal dysfunction. The median duration of a hypoglycemic episode was six days (range 1-20), and the median minimum glucose was 28.8 mg/dL (range 12-60). Thirty-two patients (97.0%) showed neuroglycopenic symptoms, with consciousness disturbance (30.3%) and seizure (24.2%), sweating (18.2%), confusion (15.2%), asthenia (12.1%) being the most common symptoms. Fifteen patients (44.1%) had elevated serum insulin levels, with a median of 31.8 μU/mL (range 3-115.3). C-peptide increased in 13 patients (38.2%), with a median of 7.7 ng/mL (range 2.2-20). Complete recovery from symptoms occurred in 88.2% of patients without sequelae. The duration of hypoglycemia symptoms was 8 hours to 47 days after the intervention. Interventions included discontinuation of TMP-SMX, intravenous glucose, glucagon, and octreotide.

CONCLUSION

Hypoglycemia is a rare and serious adverse effect of TMP-SMX. Physicians should be aware of this potential adverse effect, especially in patients with renal insufficiency, increased drug doses, and malnutrition.

The effect of antipsychotics on the cognitive performance of individuals with psychotic disorders: Network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Cognitive deficits are a core aspect of psychotic disorders; however, it is not clear to which extent different pharmacological treatments could distinctly impact these outcomes. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and ten network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to compare the effect of antipsychotics on cognitive performance of individuals with psychotic disorders. Fifty-four trials were included in the analyses, enrolling 5866 patients. Compared to other antipsychotics, amisulpride performed better on verbal learning; quetiapine on composite score, attention and verbal learning; lurasidone on composite score; olanzapine on composite score and most cognitive domains; perphenazine on composite score, executive function, working memory, and verbal learning; risperidone on executive function and verbal learning; sertindole on processing speed; and ziprasidone on composite score, working memory, and verbal learning. Oppositely, haloperidol performed poorer on all cognitive domains, occupying the last positions in all rankings; and clozapine performed poorer on composite score, executive function, verbal learning, and visuoconstruction. We hope that these results should be taken into account when assessing and treating individuals with psychosis.

Does cognitive impairment in treatment-resistant and ultra-treatment-resistant schizophrenia differ from that in treatment responders?

This study aimed to investigate whether cognitive impairment is more pronounced in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia compared with those who respond well to first-line antipsychotic medication. Fifty-one patients with schizophrenia were assigned to one of three groups dependent on their clinical history: (i) 16 people who had responded well to first-line antipsychotic medication, (ii) 20 people who were treatment-resistant but responding to clozapine monotherapy, (iii) 15 people who were ultra-treatment-resistant/clozapine-resistant but responding to antipsychotic polypharmacy. Twenty-two controls were also recruited. Groups were matched for age, sex, disease duration and psychopathology. All participants undertook a computerised battery of neuropsychological tests that assessed multiple cognitive domains. Raw data were converted to z-scores, and test performance was compared between groups. People with schizophrenia performed significantly worse than controls in the majority of neuropsychological tests, with verbal memory, sustained attention, and sensorimotor the most commonly impaired domains. No significant differences in performance between people deemed to be treatment-resistant or ultra-treatment-resistant, and those who responded well to first-line antipsychotic medication were observed. There was no significant relationship between antipsychotic dose and scores on any of the neuropsychological tests. Cognitive impairment is a central feature of schizophrenia, but our results suggest that treatment-resistance may not be associated with more severe deficits.

Systematic Literature Review of the Methods Used to Compare Newer Second-Generation Agents for the Management of Schizophrenia: A focus on Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

The challenges of comparative effectiveness to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are important considerations in the choices of antipsychotic medications for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to assess the study methods used and outcomes reported in the published literature to address the question of comparative effectiveness of newer antipsychotic agents and the adequacy and availability of evidence to support HTA agencies.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search of the PubMed database from 1 January 2009 to 30 September 2013 was conducted to identify studies evaluating new atypical antipsychotics reporting on comparative effectiveness.

STUDY SELECTION

The systematic review comprised of studies on schizophrenia patients where at least two drugs were being compared and at least one treatment group received one of the following second-generation antipsychotics: risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, and quetiapine. The included studies were also required to have an efficacy, safety or economic outcome, such as Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score, weight gain, resource utilization, or costs.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Two reviewers (BW and GK) independently applied the inclusion criteria. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus, referring to the original sources. Information on the methodology and outcomes was collected for each included study. This included study description, head-to-head drug comparison, patient population, study methodology, statistical methods, reported outcomes, study support, and journal type.

RESULTS

A total of 198 studies were identified from electronic search methods. The largest category of studies was randomized controlled trials [RCTs] (N = 73; 36.9%), which were largely directed at the regulatory endpoint. Fewer studies were undertaken for HTA-purposes cohort studies (N = 53; 26.8%), meta-analyses (N = 32; 16.2%), economic studies (N = 14; 7.1%), and cross-sectional studies (N = 13; 6.6%). Direct head-to-head comparisons preferred by HTA were dominated by the comparison involving olanzapine and risperidone, representing 149 (75.3%) and 119 (60.1%) studies, respectively. RCTs, which are the primary study type for regulatory submissions, showed a lack of bias. Studies aimed at HTA were not as well performed. Cohort studies suffered from bias in the selection of comparison groups, lack of control for confounders, and differential dropout rates. As a group, cross-sectional studies scored poorly for bias, with a primary failure to identify a representative sample. Economic studies showed highly variable bias, with bias in the representation of effectiveness data, model assumptions without validation, and lack of sensitivity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

One limitation of this systematic review is that it only included studies from 2009 to 2013, potentially excluding some earlier comparator studies, particularly those involving first-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of comparative effectiveness studies of second-generation antipsychotic agents for schizophrenic patients revealed a wide range of study types, study methodologies, and outcomes. For traditional efficacy outcomes and select safety outcomes, there is strong evidence from many well-conducted studies; however, there are fewer studies of types preferred by HTA with limited head-to-head comparisons and a higher risk of bias in the execution of these studies.

Second-generation antipsychotic effect on cognition in patients with schizophrenia--a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of second-generation antipsychotics on cognitive function in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

METHOD

Multiple-treatments meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

On cognitive composite score, sertindole was superior to clozapine, effect size (ES) 0.87; 95% CI: 0.12-1.63, quetiapine, ES 0.75; 95% CI: 0.00-1.49, and first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), ES 0.89; 95% CI: 0.14-1.64. Analyses on each cognitive domain showed clozapine, ES 0.37; 95% CI: 0.00-0.74, olanzapine, ES 0.31; 95%CI: 0.02-0.59, quetiapine, ES 0.34; 95% CI: 0.03-0.64, and FGAs, ES 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18-0.83 performing poorer on verbal working memory than ziprasidone, as well as FGAs performing poorer than risperidone, ES 0.31; 95% CI: 0.04-0.58. On executive function, sertindole performed better than clozapine, ES 0.82; 95% CI: 0.06-1.58, olanzapine, ES 0.81; 95% CI: 0.07-1.55, quetiapine, ES 0.76; 95% CI: 0.02-1.51, ziprasidone, ES 0.90; 95% CI: 0.14-1.67, and FGAs, ES 0.83; 95% CI: 0.08-1.58. On processing speed, FGAs performed poorer than sertindole, ES 0.97; 95% CI: 0.02-1.91, and quetiapine, ES 0.36; 95% CI: 0.01-0.72. On long-term verbal working memory, clozapine performed poorer than olanzapine, ES 0.41; 95% CI: 0.06-0.76. On verbal fluency, FGAs performed poorer than olanzapine, ES 0.26; 95% CI: 0.01-0.50, and clozapine, ES 0.44; 95% CI: 0.06-0.81. Lastly, FGAs, ES 0.41; 95% CI: 0.04-0.78, and clozapine, ES 0.44; 95% CI: 0.05-0.83, performed poorer on visuospatial skill compared to olanzapine.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis was able to detect some trends in the data analyzed, but did not show any drug having a uniform positive cognitive profile.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics, safety and clinical efficacy of ziprasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

INTRODUCTION

Multiple strategies exist for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. In the last 20 years, several 'new' compounds have been introduced, called 'atypical antipsychotics', which have higher efficacy and better tolerability than first-generation neuroleptics. Among them, ziprasidone (ZPR) is currently finding widespread use, and it has also been shown to be active as an augmenter in bipolar disorder therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide the latest information on ZPR, an 'atypical' agent for the pharmacological therapy of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A literature search has been carried out with the keywords 'ziprasidone', 'schizophrenia', 'psychosis', 'bipolar', 'pharmacokinetics' and 'clinical trials'. In this process, particular attention has been paid to the drug pharmacokinetic characteristics and its safety in clinical use.

EXPERT OPINION

ZPR shares most advantages and disadvantages with other atypical antipsychotics. However, it can be useful for its low tendency to cause metabolic syndrome and hyperprolactinaemia, especially in patients suffering from excess weight, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes or who have suffered from hyperprolactinaemia when using other antipsychotics. However, there are serious doubts as to whether ZPR should be administered to patients suffering from arrhythmias or QTc prolongation, and even more for administration to bipolar patients undergoing polypharmacy with antidepressants.

Switching among antipsychotics in everyday clinical practice: focus on ziprasidone

OBJECTIVES

This article addresses points to consider when switching patients to the second-generation antipsychotic (SGA), ziprasidone, in everyday clinical practice: 1) the pharmacologic properties of the pre-switch antipsychotic and of ziprasidone; 2) switch and dosing strategies to ensure maintenance or attainment of efficacy; 3) recognition and management of possible rebound effects of the pre-switch medication discontinuation; 4) recognition and management of potential side effects of ziprasidone; and 5) education and support for patients/caregivers concerning correct ziprasidone administration.

METHODS

A Medline search (up to July 7, 2010) identified studies in which adult patients with schizophrenia were switched to ziprasidone from another antipsychotic. In addition, based on their extensive clinical experience, an expert faculty of European psychiatrists provided advice on identifying patients who may be appropriate candidates for switching to ziprasidone, and on establishing optimal strategies for switching to ziprasidone in everyday clinical practice.

RESULTS

Data from 10 studies, in which 1395 patients were switched to ziprasidone, showed that switching from first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) or SGAs generally resulted in maintenance or improvement of efficacy across all studied symptom domains, improvements in tolerability, and acute and long-term benefits regarding cardiometabolic parameters, including body weight. Maintenance of efficacy is most likely to be achieved using a plateau cross-titration strategy, with a rapid uptitration of ziprasidone to a dose range of 60 to 80 mg administered twice daily with food. Temporary coadministration of benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, or beta-blockers should be considered for the management of potential rebound effects.

CONCLUSION

Optimal switching of patients with schizophrenia from FGAs or SGAs to ziprasidone requires careful attention to differences in the pharmacological profiles of the pre-switch medication and of ziprasidone, which may impact efficacy and tolerability. Good communication between the clinician and patient/caregiver about the goals of switching, the importance of adherence to the chosen switch strategy, and the correct administration of ziprasidone are essential.

Ziprasidone versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In many countries of the industrialised world second generation ('atypical') antipsychotics have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether, and if so how much, the effects of the various new generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of ziprasidone compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialised Register (April 2007) and references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised, at least single-blind, controlled trials comparing oral ziprasidone with oral forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or zotepine in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (MD) for dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 3361 participants. The overall rate of premature study discontinuation was very high (59.1%). Data for the comparisons of ziprasidone with amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone were available. Ziprasidone was a less acceptable treatment than olanzapine (leaving the studies early for any reason: 5 RCTs, n=1937, RR 1.26 CI 1.18 to 1.35, NNH 7 CI 5 to 10) and risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1029, RR 1.11 CI 1.02 to 1.20, NNH 14 CI 8 to 50), but not than the other second generation antipsychotic drugs. Ziprasidone was less efficacious than amisulpride (leaving the study early due to inefficacy: 1 RCT, n=123, RR 4.72 CI 1.06 to 20.98, NNH 8 CI 5 to 50) olanzapine (PANSS total score: 4 RCTs, n=1291, MD 8.32 CI 5.64 to 10.99) and risperidone (PANSS total score: 3 RCTs, n=1016, MD 3.91 CI 0.27 to 7.55). Based on limited data there were no significant differences in tolerability between ziprasidone and amisulpride or clozapine. Ziprasidone produced less weight gain than olanzapine (5 RCTs, n=1659, MD -3.82 CI -4.69 to -2.96), quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, RR 0.45 CI 0.28 to 0.74) or risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1063, RR 0.49 CI 0.33 to 0.74). It was associated with less cholesterol increase than olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone. Conversely ziprasidone produced slightly more extrapyramidal side-effects than olanzapine (4 RCTs, n=1732, RR 1.43 CI 1.03 to 1.99, NNH not estimable) and more prolactin increase than quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, MD 4.77 CI 1.37 to 8.16), but less movement disorders (2 RCTs, n=822, RR 0.70 CI 0.51 to 0.97, NNT not estimable) and less prolactin increase (2 RCTs, n=767, MD -21.97 CI -27.34 to -16.60) than risperidone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ziprasidone may be a slightly less efficacious antipsychotic drug than amisulpride, olanzapine and risperidone. Its main advantage is the low propensity to induce weight gain and associated adverse effects. However, the high overall rate of participants leaving the studies early limits the validity of any findings.