A Chart Audit Study of Clozapine Utilization in Early Psychosis

What is the current scope of research assessing patients' and clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment? A comprehensive scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Clozapine is continuously underused. The existing systematic reviews addressing barriers to clozapine prescribing primarily focus on clinical staff's attitudes and perceived barriers to prescribing. However, a preliminary literature search revealed additional literature on the subject not previously included in systematic reviews, including literature on patient perspectives. A scoping review is warranted to map the scope of primary studies on patients' and/or clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment and to identify gaps in research.

DESIGN

A scoping review was designed and reported in accordance with established guidelines for scoping reviews.

DATA SOURCES

The electronic databases Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and two grey literature databases were searched. Furthermore, citation tracking of selected studies was undertaken.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary, empirical studies reporting clinicians' and/or patients' perspectives on clozapine treatment. No limitation was set for the year of publication or type of primary study.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two researchers independently screened for studies, extracted the data and coded the content. Findings were summarised visually and narratively.

RESULTS

146 studies were included. Most studies reported on patients' or clinicians' perspectives on active clozapine treatment or on clinicians' perspectives on barriers to clozapine initiation in general. Three gaps in research were identified: (1) clozapine-eligible, yet clozapine-naïve, patients' attitudes towards clozapine commencement, (2) clinicians' reasons for clozapine withholding and perceived facilitators of clozapine treatment in specific patient-cases and (3) patient and clinician perspectives on clozapine discontinuation, continuation and rechallenge in specific patient cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on clozapine perspectives tends to repeat itself. Future studies addressing the identified gaps in evidence could provide the insights needed to optimise clozapine utilisation.

Once-daily versus divided dosing regimens of clozapine: A cross-sectional study in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Clozapine is recognized as the gold standard medication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Despite the general recommendation of administering in a divided dosing regimen, clozapine is often prescribed once daily at night in clinical practice. This study aims to compare patient characteristics, psychiatric symptoms, side effects, and plasma concentration of clozapine between once-daily dosing and divided dosing regimens.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 159 participants with treatment-resistant schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Participant's demographic information, anthropometric data, and medical history were collected. Their psychiatric symptoms, cognition, functioning, and side effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

Once-daily dosing regimen was associated with younger age and competitive employment. Lower clinical symptom severity, better functioning and cognitive performance were observed in the once-daily dosing group. Lower daily dose of clozapine, trough plasma concentrations of clozapine and norclozapine were also significantly associated with once-daily dosing regimen.

CONCLUSION

The study results support once-daily dosing of clozapine as a viable option to selected patients in clinical practice, as no association of severe symptoms or side effects were associated with once-daily dosing regimen. More studies are needed to examine the relationship between clinical outcomes and clozapine dosing regimen.

Clozapine once- versus multiple-daily dosing: a two-center cross-sectional study, systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of clozapine once- vs. multiple-daily dosing is limited. We compared demographic and clinical parameters between patients with once- vs. multiple-daily dosing in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, Germany (AGATE dataset), and the Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, using non-parametric tests. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were available in the AGATE dataset. We performed a systematic review in PubMed/Embase until February 2022, meta-analyzing studies comparing clozapine once- vs. multiple-daily-dosing. We estimated a pooled odds ratio for adverse drug-induced reactions (ADRs) and meta-analyzed differences regarding clinical symptom severity, age, percentage males, smokers, clozapine dose, and co-medications between patients receiving once- vs. multiple-daily dosing. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale. Of 1494 and 174 patients included in AGATE and Lausanne datasets, clozapine was prescribed multiple-daily in 74.8% and 67.8%, respectively. In the AGATE cohort, no differences were reported for the clinical symptoms severity or ADR rate (p > 0.05). Meta-analyzing eight cohorts with a total of 2810 clozapine-treated individuals, we found more severe clinical symptoms (p = 0.036), increased ADR risk (p = 0.01), higher clozapine doses (p < 0.001), more frequent co-medication with other antipsychotics (p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (p < 0.001), anticholinergics (p = 0.039), and laxatives (p < 0.001) in patients on multiple- vs. once-daily dosing. Of six studies, five were rated as good, and one as poor quality. Patients responding less well to clozapine may be prescribed higher doses multiple-daily, also treated with polypharmacy, potentially underlying worse safety outcomes. Patient preferences and adherence should be considered during regimen selection.

Clozapine dosing patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with treatment resistant schizophrenia

Clozapine is the only medication found to be effective for patients with treatment resistant schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (TRS) and its prescription patterns may impact on their outcomes. The study aims to explore the impact of clozapine dosing frequency, dose level and presence of pharmacological augmentation on the clinical, social and cognitive outcomes in patients with TRS. Patients with TRS and on clozapine were interviewed. Daily defined dose (DDD) and anticholinergic burden were calculated. Patients were categorized in three ways: the single daily dose (SDD) and multiple daily dose (MDD), ≤300 mg/day (LD) and >300 mg/day (HD) of clozapine, and clozapine monotherapy (MT) and augmentation therapy (AT). The impact of these clozapine prescription patterns and their interaction on patient outcomes were examined with ANOVA. Of 124 patients on clozapine, 98 patients (79%) had SDD, 59 patients (47.6%) received LD, and 58 patients (46.8%) had MT. Patients in the LD group had significantly better cognitive functions. Though no significant effect of clozapine dosing frequency on outcomes, among patients on LD, those on MDD had better processing speed, short-term and visual memory. Patients with MT had better motivation. Among patients on HD, those with MT had better motivation and vocational functioning. These results provide guidance to the clozapine prescription in a naturalistic setting to achieve optimizing outcomes for patients with TRS in social and cognitive functions. Further longitudinal studies are needed to verify the results.

Clozapine rechallenge or continuation despite neutropenia or agranulocytosis using colony-stimulating factor: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Rechallenge/continuation of clozapine in association with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) following neutropenia/agranulocytosis has been reported, but many questions remain unanswered about efficacy and safety. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of rechallenging/continuing clozapine in patients following neutropenia/agranulocytosis using CSFs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception date to July 31, 2022. Articles screening and data extraction were realized independently by two reviewers, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 systematic review guidance. Included articles had to report on at least one case where clozapine was rechallenged/continued using CSFs despite previous neutropenia/agranulocytosis.

RESULTS

Eight hundred forty articles were retrieved; 34 articles met the inclusion criteria, totaling 59 individual cases. Clozapine was successfully rechallenged/continued in 76% of patients for an average follow-up period of 1.9 years. There was a trend toward better efficacy reported in case reports/series, compared with consecutive case series (overall success rates of 84% and 60%, respectively, p-value = 0.065). Two administration strategies were identified, "as-needed" and prophylactic, both yielding similar success rates (81% and 80%, respectively). Only mild and transient adverse events were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited by the relatively small number of published cases, factors such as time of onset to first neutropenia and severity of the episode did not seem to impact the outcome of a subsequent clozapine rechallenge using CSFs. While the efficacy of this strategy remains to be further adequately evaluated in more rigorous study designs, its long-term innocuity warrants considering its use more proactively in the management of clozapine hematological adverse events as to maintain this treatment for as many individuals as possible.

Antipsychotic prescribing practices for outpatients with schizophrenia and reasons for non-clozapine treatment - Data from a Danish quality assessment audit

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is the gold standard for treating treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) although widely underutilised. Both organisational, patient- and clinician related reasons for the underutilisation have been reported, however, the clinical impact of either in real-world settings is not fully elucidated.

AIM

This audit aimed to evaluate the local antipsychotic (AP) prescribing practices for outpatients with schizophrenia and to assess the spectrum and prevalence of journalised reasons for non-clozapine treatment amongst eligible outpatients.

METHODS

Data on demographics, current and former AP treatments, as well as documented reasons for non-clozapine treatment, was extracted through chart audit.

RESULTS

Of the 668 affiliated outpatients with schizophrenia, 43% were treated with AP polytherapy (APP) and 19.6% with clozapine. The most prevalent reason for clozapine discontinuation was related to side effects whereas the most prevalent reason for refusal or omission of clozapine treatment was related to the associated monitoring regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit showed that APP prescribing is a highly prevalent practice in our services when treating outpatients with schizophrenia and that clozapine is underutilised in a 'last resort' manner. The blood-monitoring regimen associated with clozapine treatment was found to be an important factor in the underutilisation. It seemed, however, that the monitoring constituted a barrier for different reasons, requiring different approaches to remedy. Future studies, directly involving both patients and clinicians in the identification and management of the most clinically relevant barriers and their corresponding facilitators, are warranted.

Clozapine Once-Daily Versus Divided Dosing Regimen: A Cross-sectional Study in Japan

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine is generally recommended to be prescribed in a divided dosing regimen based on its relatively short plasma half-life. However, there has been little evidence to support the superiority of divided dosing of clozapine over once-daily dosing. To our knowledge, there have been no studies examining differences in actual plasma concentrations or adverse effects between the 2 dosing strategies of clozapine. We aimed to compare actual plasma concentrations of clozapine between once-daily and divided dosing regimens, and to examine the relationships of these regimens with psychiatric symptoms and adverse effects of clozapine.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 108 participants of a previous study conducted in 2 hospitals in Japan. A population pharmacokinetic model was used to estimate the peak and trough plasma concentrations of clozapine based on actual plasma concentrations. We evaluated psychiatric symptoms with the Brief Evaluation of Psychosis Symptom Domains and adverse effects of clozapine with the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effects Scale for Clozapine.

RESULTS

The estimated peak and trough plasma concentrations of clozapine did not differ significantly between once-daily and divided dosing regimens. There were no significant differences in psychiatric symptoms except for depression/anxiety or subjective adverse effects of clozapine between the 2 dosing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings tentatively support the feasibility and clinical utility of once-daily dosing of clozapine in clinical practice. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings and determine causality between dosing strategies and clinical outcomes.

Association between previous and future antipsychotic adherence in patients initiating clozapine: real-world observational study

BACKGROUND

Although recognised as the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine remains underused. One reason is the widespread concern about non-adherence to clozapine because of poor adherence before initiating clozapine.

AIMS

To determine if prior poor out-patient adherence to treatmentbefore initiating clozapine predisposes to poor out-patient adherence to clozapine or to any antipsychotics (including clozapine) after its initiation.

METHOD

This cohort study included 3228 patients with schizophrenia living in Quebec (Canada) initiating (with a 2-year clearance period) oral clozapine (index date) between 2009 and 2016. Using pharmacy data, out-patient adherence to treatment was measured by the medication possession ratio (MPR), over a 1-year period preceding and following the index date. Five groups of patients were formed based on their prior MPR level (independent variable). Two dependent variables were defined after clozapine initiation (good out-patient adherence to any antipsychotics and to clozapine only). Along with multiple logistic regressions, state sequence analysis was used as a visual representation of antipsychotic-use trajectories over time, before and after clozapine initiation.

RESULTS

Although prior poor adherence to antipsychotics was associated with poor adherence after clozapine initiation, the absolute risk of subsequent poor adherence remained low, regardless of previous adherence level. Most patients adhered to their treatment after initiating clozapine (>68% to clozapine and >84% to any antipsychotics).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that poor adherence prior to initiating clozapine is widely recognised by clinicians as a barrier for the prescription of clozapine, the current study supports the initiation of clozapine in all eligible patients.