Risperidone versus olanzapine among patients with schizophrenia participating in supported employment: Eighteen-month outcomes

A systematic review of the real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of selected oral antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia in the United States: Updating the evidence and gaps

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT) remains the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia. However, nonadherence and high treatment failure lead to increased disease burden and medical spending. Cost-effective management of schizophrenia requires understanding the value of current therapies to facilitate better planning of management policies while addressing unmet needs.

OBJECTIVE

To review existing evidence and gaps regarding real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of OATs, including asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 2010 to March 2022 as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language articles describing adults with schizophrenia receiving at least 1 of the selected OATs and reporting real-world effectiveness, direct or indirect costs, humanistic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, adherence/persistence patterns, or product switching were identified.

RESULTS

We identified 25 studies from a total of 24,190 articles. Real-world effectiveness, cost, and adherence/persistence outcomes were reported for most OATs that were selected. Humanistic outcomes and product switching were reported only for lurasidone. Behavioral outcomes (eg, interpersonal relations and suicide ideation) were not reported for any OAT. The key economic outcomes across studies were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, and health care costs. In studies that compared long-acting injectables (LAIs) with OATs, LAIs had a higher pharmacy and lower medical costs, while total health care cost was similar between LAIs and OATs. Indirect costs associated with presenteeism, absenteeism, or work productivity were not reported for any of the selected OATs. Overall, patients had poor adherence to OATs, ranging between 20% and 61% across studies. Product switching did not impact the all-cause health care costs before and after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed considerable gaps exist for evidence on behavioral outcomes, humanistic outcomes, medication switching, and adherence/persistence across OATs. Our findings also suggest an unmet need regarding treatment nonadherence and lack of persistence among patients receiving OATs. We identified a need for research addressing OATs' behavioral and humanistic outcomes and evaluating the impact of product switching in adults with schizophrenia in the United States, which could assist clinicians in promoting patient-centered care and help payers understand the total value of new antipsychotic drugs.

Oral and long-acting antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a network meta-analysis of 92 randomized trials including 22,645 participants

According to current evidence and guidelines, continued antipsychotic treatment is key for preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, but evidence-based recommendations for the choice of the individual antipsychotic for maintenance treatment are lacking. Although oral antipsychotics are often prescribed first line for practical reasons, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are a valuable resource to tackle adherence issues since the earliest phase of disease. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases and online registers were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LAIs or oral antipsychotics head-to-head or against placebo, published until June 2021. Relative risks and standardized mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were relapse and dropout due to adverse events. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality, and the CINeMA approach to assess the confidence of pooled estimates. Of 100 eligible trials, 92 (N=22,645) provided usable data for meta-analyses. Regarding relapse prevention, the vast majority of the 31 included treatments outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, "high" confidence in the results was found for (in descending order of effect magnitude) amisulpride-oral (OS), olanzapine-OS, aripiprazole-LAI, olanzapine-LAI, aripiprazole-OS, paliperidone-OS, and ziprasidone-OS. "Moderate" confidence in the results was found for paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, iloperidone-OS, fluphenazine-OS, brexpiprazole-OS, paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, asenapine-OS, haloperidol-OS, quetiapine-OS, cariprazine-OS, and lurasidone-OS. Regarding tolerability, none of the antipsychotics was significantly worse than placebo, but confidence was poor, with only aripiprazole (both LAI and OS) showing "moderate" confidence levels. Based on these findings, olanzapine, aripiprazole and paliperidone are the best choices for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, considering that both LAI and oral formulations of these antipsychotics are among the best-performing treatments and have the highest confidence of evidence for relapse prevention. This finding is of particular relevance for low- and middle-income countries and constrained-resource settings, where few medications may be selected. Results from this network meta-analysis can inform clinical guidelines and national and international drug regulation policies.

Genetic Polymorphisms Associated With the Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Adverse Effects of Olanzapine, Aripiprazole and Risperidone

Olanzapine, aripiprazole and risperidone are atypical antipsychotics or neuroleptics widely used for schizophrenia treatment. They induce various adverse drug reactions depending on their mechanisms of action: metabolic effects, such as weight gain and alterations of glucose and lipid metabolism; hyperprolactinemia and extrapyramidal effects, such as tremor, akathisia, dystonia, anxiety and distress. In this review, we listed polymorphisms associated with individual response variability to olanzapine, aripiprazole and risperidone. Olanzapine is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzymes, CYP1A2 and CYP2D6, whereas aripiprazole and risperidone metabolism is mainly mediated by CYP2D6 and CYP3A4. Polymorphisms in these genes and other enzymes and transporters, such as enzymes from the uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) family and ATP-binding cassette sub-family B member 1 (ABCB1), are associated to differences in pharmacokinetics. The three antipsychotics act on dopamine and serotonin receptors, among others, and several studies found associations between polymorphisms in these genes and variations in the incidence of adverse effects and in the response to the drug. Since olanzapine is metabolized by CYP1A2, a lower starting dose should be considered in patients treated with fluvoxamine or other CYP1A2 inhibitors. Regarding aripiprazole, a reduced dose should be administered in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (PMs). Additionally, a reduction to a quarter of the normal dose is recommended if the patient is treated with concomitant CYP3A4 inhibitors. Risperidone dosage should be reduced for CYP2D6 PMs and titrated for CYPD6 ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs). Moreover, risperidone dose should be evaluated when a CYP2D6, CYP3A4 or ABCB1 inhibitor is administered concomitantly.

Real-world effectiveness of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia in Brazil over a 16-year follow-up period; findings and implications

Introduction: Antipsychotics are widely prescribed for patients with schizophrenia. The Brazilian public health system provides these patients free of charge to patients and it is pertinent to evaluate their benefits.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the real-world and assessing risk factors for their discontinuation through a national non-concurrent cohort with 16 years of follow-up.Methods: Three SUS administrative databases were integrated by deterministic-probabilistic linkage. After patients were matched (1:1) for psychiatric hospitalization, year of receiving the antipsychotic, sex, and age, considering either olanzapine or risperidone at study entry. Kaplan-Meier was used to estimate the cumulative probabilities of discontinuation of treatment and associated factors were identified. Sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: 3416 pairs of patients were included. Olanzapine had a longer time until discontinuation of treatment (p = 0.021), and risperidone had a higher risk of discontinuation (p = 0.021). Among patients persistent for at least 24 months, there was no statistically significant difference.Conclusion: Olanzapine demonstrated superior real-world effectiveness over risperidone, in terms of survival and psychiatric hospitalization. This superiority was not sustained in all analyses.

Long-term effectiveness of oral second-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct head-to-head comparisons

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are recommended for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia. However, comparative long-term effectiveness among SGAs is unclear. Here we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials lasting ≥⃒6 months comparing SGAs head-to-head in schizophrenia and related disorders. The primary outcome was all-cause discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included efficacy and tolerability, i.e., psychopathology, inefficacy-related and intolerability-related discontinuation, relapse, hospitalization, remission, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. Pooled risk ratio and standardized mean difference were calculated using random-effects models. Across 59 studies (N=45,787), lasting 47.4±32.1 weeks (range 24-186), no consistent superiority of any SGA emerged across efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Regarding all-cause discontinuation, clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone were significantly (p<0.05) superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine was inferior to several other SGAs. As to psychopathology, clozapine and olanzapine were superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine and ziprasidone were inferior to several other SGAs. Data for other efficacy outcomes were sparse. Regarding intolerability-related discontinuation, risperidone was superior and clozapine was inferior to several other SGAs. Concerning weight gain, olanzapine was worse than all other compared non-clozapine SGAs, and risperidone was significantly worse than several other SGAs. As to prolactin increase, risperidone and amisulpride were significantly worse than several other SGAs. Regarding parkinsonism, olanzapine was superior to risperidone, without significant differences pertaining to akathisia. Concerning sedation and somnolence, clozapine and quetiapine were significantly worse than some other SGAs. In summary, different long-term SGA efficacy and tolerability patterns emerged. The long-term risk-benefit profiles of specific SGAs need to be tailored to individual patients to optimize maintenance treatment outcomes.