Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia in routine clinical care: a randomized, controlled trial

Evaluation of the pharmacodynamic interaction effect of augmentation agents with clozapine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: A simulation study of clinical data

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to evaluate interaction effect of various augmentation strategies with clozapine in patients with Treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

METHODS

Data was extracted for change in positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) or brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) scores for monotherapy with various antipsychotic agents alone and their combination with clozapine. Individual patient data was generated using simulation of data (factorial trial framework) from published clinical trials for sample sizes from eight to 400 to evaluate interaction effect through linear modeling. Dose equivalents were calculated, and best fit models were determined for simulated data.

RESULTS

The polynomial model was found to be the best fit for the simulated data to determine interaction effect of combination. The clozapine augmentation with risperidone and ziprasidone was found to be antagonistic, whereas it was additive for haloperidol, aripiprazole, and quetiapine. A synergistic effect was observed for ECT combined with clozapine (Interaction effect: -7.62; p <0.001). A sample size of 250-300 may be sufficient to demonstrate a clinically significant interaction in future trials.

CONCLUSION

Clozapine may be augmented with electroconvulsive therapy, leading to the enhancement of antipsychotic effect. Though some antipsychotics like aripiprazole demonstrate additive effects, they may also add to the adverse effects.

Clinical trajectories of individuals with severe mental illness continuing and discontinuing long-acting antipsychotics: a one-year mirror-image analysis from the STAR Network Depot study

Evidence on long-acting antipsychotics (LAIs) in unselected populations with severe mental illness is scant. In this mirror-image study, we compared multiple clinical outcomes 1 year before and after a first LAI prescription in adults with severe mental illness, describing clinical trajectories of LAI continuers and discontinuers. We compared LAI continuers and discontinuers through Mann-Whitney U test, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, regression for interval-censored data, and a maximum-likelihood mixed-model with individual random-effect and time as predictor. Of the 261 participants analyzed, 71.3% had schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, and 29.5% discontinued the LAI before 1 year. At baseline, LAI discontinuers had a shorter illness duration, lower attitude and adherence scores. The mirror-image analysis showed reduced hospital admissions only for LAI continuers. Over time, continuers spent less days hospitalized, but had more adverse events and more antipsychotics prescribed, with higher overall doses. In conclusion, this study shows that LAIs might be beneficial in unselected patient populations, provided that adherence is maintained. LAI continuers spent less time hospitalized, but received more antipsychotics and suffered from more cumulative adverse events over time. Therefore, the choice of initiating and maintaining a LAI should be carefully weighed on a case-by-case basis.

Third-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and non-responsivity or intolerance to clozapine regimen: What is the evidence?

Clozapine is considered « the golden standard » for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but many patients do not present adequate responsivity even to this antipsychotic. If we add the need to strictly monitor the hematologic and cardiometabolic adverse events during each clozapine trial and the difficulty of preserving therapeutic adherence in patients with low insight, residual negative/positive symptoms, or economic challenges, then the necessity of exploring alternative interventions for these patients becomes obvious. Also, in case of intolerance to clozapine or where clozapine did not induce remission, clinicians have to find new ways to help their patients. Switching to other antipsychotics or using these agents as add-ons to clozapine are the main interventions explored in this review, for patients with schizophrenia resistant to clozapine (ultra-resistant schizophrenia, URS). When clozapine intolerance is detected, conversion to another antipsychotic with distinct pharmacologic properties or formulation (e.g., long-acting intramuscular injectable agents, LAI) may be a useful option. Third-generation antipsychotics (TGA) have been selected for their distinct pharmacodynamically profile, which allows, at a theoretical level, their use in combination with clozapine. This narrative review is based on searching four electronic databases, that retrieved 19 primary and secondary reports on aripiprazole (seven case reports or case series presenting 24 patients; nine clinical trials, and three systematic reviews/meta-analyses), two primary reports on brexpiprazole (case report and case series, N = 3 patients), and six primary reports on cariprazine (case reports and case series, N = 14 patients). Based on the information collected from these reports, which included oral and LAI formulations, the TGA most supported by evidence for the augmentation of clozapine is aripiprazole (high-and medium-quality data), followed by cariprazine (low-quality data). Brexpiprazole has not yet been systematically explored for this indication, and in the case of lumateperone, no report could be found. The efficacy of aripiprazole and cariprazine was supported in the domains of positive, negative, and general symptoms, and aripiprazole may positively impact the metabolic profile in patients with URS. Also, adding TGA may lead to a decrease in the dose of clozapine concomitantly administered. More data derived from good quality research are needed in order to confirm the circumstances of TGAs recommendation in patients with URS, either as monotherapy, or added to clozapine.

Effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in Preventing Mental Disorders in Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Western Europe: A Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Self-Help Plus (SH+) is a group-based psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization for managing stress.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of SH+ in preventing mental disorders in refugees and asylum seekers in Western Europe.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 5 European countries. Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire score ≥3), but without a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) or ICD/10 diagnosis of mental disorder, as assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), were randomized to SH+ or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The primary outcome was the frequency of mental disorders with the MINI at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of mental disorders at postintervention, self-identified problems, psychological symptoms, and other outcomes.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-nine individuals were randomly assigned to SH+ or ETAU. For the primary outcome, we found no difference in the frequency of mental disorders at 6 months (Cramer V = 0.007, p = 0.90, RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.52-1.78), while the difference significantly favored SH+ at after the intervention (secondary outcome, measured within 2 weeks from the last session; Cramer V = 0.13, p = 0.01, RR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomized indicated prevention study with the aim of preventing the onset of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees in Western Europe. As a prevention effect of SH+ was not observed at 6 months, but rather after the intervention only, modalities to maintain its beneficial effect in the long term need to be identified.

Characteristics and definitions of ultra-treatment-resistant schizophrenia - A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to characterize ultra-treatment-resistant Schizophrenia also known as clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS) patients across clozapine combination and augmentation trials through demographic and clinical baseline data. Furthermore, we investigated the variability and consistency in CRS definitions between studies.

METHODS

Systematic searches of articles indexed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PsycINFO were conducted in March 2020. 1541 randomized and non-randomized clinical trials investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological clozapine add-on strategies were screened and a total of 71 studies were included. The primary outcome was the overall symptom score at baseline, measured with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total scores.

RESULTS

Data from 2731 patients were extracted. Patients were overall moderately ill with a mean PANSS total score at baseline of 79.16 (±7.52), a mean duration of illness of 14.64 (±4.14) years with a mean clozapine dose of 436.94 (±87.47) mg/day. Illness severity data were relatively homogenous among patients independently of the augmentation strategy involved, although stark geographical differences were found. Overall, studies showed a large heterogeneity of CRS definitions and insufficient guidelines implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This first meta-analysis characterizing CRS patients and comparing CRS definitions revealed a lack of consistent implementation of a CRS definition from guidelines into clinical trials, compromising the replicability of the results and their applicability in clinical practice. We offer a new score modeled on a best practice definition to help future trials increase their reliability.

Adjunctive second-generation antipsychotics for specific symptom domains of schizophrenia resistant to clozapine: A meta-analysis

A fair amount of subjects with schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine and are defined 'ultra-resistant'. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we tested the efficacy of adjunctive second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for main symptom domains (positive, negative, and depressive symptoms) in individuals with clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. We searched main electronic databases till December 2017. We included twelve double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the efficacy of SGAs for clozapine non/partial responders. We did not find any difference between SGAs and placebo (standardized mean difference, SMD = -0.21; p = 0.170; I² = 68.0%) in improving positive symptoms. The effect size varied according to RCT duration (p = 0.025) and assessment methods (p = 0.016). Low-moderate effects of SGAs on both negative (SMD = -0.38; p = 0.005; I² = 62.7%) and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.35; p = 0.003; I² = 4.9%), were estimated. In sum, our meta-analysis highlights the lack of efficacy of SGAs as add-on treatment for positive symptoms in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. A small benefit of SGAs was estimated for both negative and depressive symptoms. Further RCTs are needed to establish efficacy and tolerability of SGAs or other augmentation strategies for different symptoms of clozapine-resistant schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic combinations for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with their initial antipsychotic drug treatment. Sometimes a second antipsychotic, in combination with the first, is used in these situations.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether:1. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is effective for schizophrenia; and2. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is safe for the same illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We ran searches in September 2010, August 2012 and January 2016. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic combinations with antipsychotic monotherapy for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CIs. For the meta-analysis we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-two studies are included in the review, 31 of these compared clozapine monotherapy with clozapine combination. We considered the risk of bias in the included studies to be moderate to high. The majority of trials had unclear allocation concealment, method of randomisation and blinding, and were not free of selective reporting.There is some limited evidence that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in improving clinical response (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; participants = 2364; studies = 29, very low-quality evidence), although subgroup analyses show that the positive result was due to the studies with clozapine in both the monotherapy and combination groups (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83; participants = 1127; studies = 17). Few studies reported on rate of relapse, most likely due to the short length of the studies. Overall, a combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in preventing relapse (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; participants = 512; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence), but the pooled data showed high heterogeneity (I² = 82%). A combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in reducing the number of participants discontinuing treatment early (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 3103; studies = 43, low-quality evidence). No difference was found between treatment groups in the number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.55; participants = 202; studies = 3, low-quality evidence) . We did not find evidence of a difference between treatment groups in serious adverse events or those requiring discontinuation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.69; participants = 2398; studies = 30, very low-quality evidence). There is as lack of evidence on clinically important change in quality of life, with only four studies reporting average endpoint or change data for this outcome on three different scales, none of which showed a difference between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, most evidence regarding the use of antipsychotic combinations comes from short-term trials, limiting the assessment of long-term efficacy and safety. We found very low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics may improve the clinical response. We also found low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics is may make no difference at preventing participants from leaving the study early, preventing relapse and/or causing more serious adverse events than monotherapy.

Clozapine combined with different antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Between 40% and 70% of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine, despite adequate blood levels. For these people, a number of treatment strategies have emerged, including the prescription of a second anti-psychotic drug in combination with clozapine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotic drugs in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia both in terms of efficacy and tolerability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (to 28 August 2015) and MEDLINE (November 2008). We checked the reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials (RCT). For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects meta-analysis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two further studies with 169 participants that met our inclusion criteria. This review now includes five studies with 309 participants. The quality of evidence was low, and, due to the high degree of heterogeneity between studies, we were unable to undertake a formal meta-analysis to increase the statistical power.For this update, we specified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response in mental state (clinically significant response, mean score/change in mental state), clinical response in global state (mean score/change in global state), weight gain, leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment), service utilisation outcomes (hospital days or admissions to hospital) and quality of life.We found some significant differences between clozapine combination strategies for global and mental state (clinically significant response and change), and there were data for leaving the study early and weight gain. We found no data for service utilisation and quality of life. Clozapine plus aripiprazole versus clozapine plus haloperidolThere was no long-term significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol combination strategies in change of mental state (1 RCT, n = 105, MD 0.90, 95% CI -4.38 to 6.18, low quality evidence). There were no adverse effect data for weight gain but there was a benefit of aripiprazole for adverse effects measured by the LUNSERS at 12 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.48 to -1.32) and 24 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.25 to -1.55), but not 52 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.80, 95% CI -9.79 to 0.19). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 106, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.22, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus amisulpride versus clozapine plus quetiapine One study showed a significant benefit of amisulpride over quetiapine in the short term, for both change in global state (Clinical Global Impression (CGI): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.42, very low quality evidence) and mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.86 to -2.14, low quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 56, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, very low quality evidence) Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus sulpirideThere was no difference between risperidone and sulpiride for clinically significant response, defined by the study as 20% to 50% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.68, very low quality evidence). There were similar equivocal results for weight gain (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.90, very low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -2.28, 95% CI -7.41 to 2.85, very low quality evidence). No-one left the study early. Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus ziprasidoneThere was no difference between risperidone and ziprasidone for clinically significant response (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.27, very low quality evidence), change in global state CGI-II score (1 RCT, n = 22, MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.22, very low quality evidence), change in PANSS total score (1 RCT, n = 16, MD 1.00, 95% CI -7.91 to 9.91, very low quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.49, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus ziprasidone versus clozapine plus quetiapineOne study found, in the medium term, a superior effect for ziprasidone combination compared with quetiapine combination for clinically significant response in mental state (> 50% reduction PANSS: 1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81, low quality evidence), global state (CGI - Severity score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.22, low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -12.30, 95% CI -22.43 to -2.17, low quality evidence). There was no effect for leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.52, CI 0.05 to 5.41, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The reliability of results from this review is limited, evidence is of low or very low quality. Furthermore, due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to undertake formal meta-analyses. As a consequence, any conclusions drawn from these findings are based on single, small-sized RCTs with high risk of type II error. Properly conducted and adequately powered RCTs are required. Future trialists should seek to measure patient-important outcomes such as quality of life, as well as clinical response and adverse effects.

An observational study of clozapine induced sedation and its pharmacological management

Clozapine induced sedation is common but its management is unclear. We analyzed the factors associated with clozapine-induced sedation and the efficacy of common pharmacological strategies. We conducted a naturalistic observational study using two years electronic records of a cohort patients and three analyses: a cross sectional analysis of factors associated with total number of hours slept (as an objective proxy of sedation), and two prospective analyses of which factors were associated with changes in hours slept and the efficacy of two pharmacological strategies. 133 patients were included, of which 64.7% slept at least 9h daily. Among monotherapy patients (n=30), only norclozapine levels (r=.367, p=.03) correlated with hours slept. Using the prospective cohort (n=107), 42 patients decreased the number of hours slept, due to decreasing clozapine (40%) or augmenting with aripiprazole (36%). These two strategies were recommended to 22 (20.6%) and 23 (21.5%) subjects respectively but the majority (81.8% and 73.9%) did not reduce number of hours slept. Thus, pharmacological and non-pharmacological factors are involved in sedation. Norclozapine plasma levels correlated with total sleeping hours. Reducing clozapine and aripiprazole augmentation were associated to amelioration of sedation, although both strategies were effective only in a limited numbers of subjects.

Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole augmentation of clozapine in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Limited options are available for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia and intolerable side effects of clozapine. We conducted a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia. Electronic databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science. This review synthesized the data of four short-term (8-24 weeks), placebo-controlled trials (N = 347). The overall relative risk (RR, 95% confidence interval) of discontinuation rates was not significantly different between groups (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.78 to 2.56). The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs, 95% CIs) (Z-test; number of study; I(2)-index) suggested trends of aripiprazole augmentation benefits on overall psychotic [-0.40 (-0.87 to 0.07) (n = 3; Z = 1.68, p = 0.09; I(2) = 68%)], positive [-1.05 (-2.39 to 0.29) (n = 3; Z = 1.54, p = 0.12; I(2) = 94%)], and negative [-0.36 (-0.77 to 0.05) (n = 3; Z = 1.74, p = 0.08; I(2) = 54%)] symptoms. Despite of no benefit on three cardiometabolic indices (i.e., fasting plasma glucose, triglyceride, and high-density lipoprotein), aripiprazole augmentation was superior for weight change with a mean difference (95% CI) of -1.36 kg (-2.35 to -0.36) (n = 3; Z = 2.67, p = 0.008; I(2) = 39%) and LDL-cholesterol with a mean difference of -11.06 mg/dL (-18.25 to -3.87) (n = 3; Z = 3.02, p = 0.003; I(2) = 31%). Aripiprazole augmentation was not correlated with headache and insomnia but significantly associated with agitation/akathesia (RR = 7.59, 95% CI = 1.43 to 40.18) (n = 3; Z = 2.38, p = 0.02; I(2) = 0%) and anxiety (RR = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.02 to 7.15) (n = 1; Z = 2.00, p = 0.05). The limited short-term data suggested that aripiprazole augmentation of clozapine can minimize the cardiometabolic risk, causes agitation/akathesia, and may be effective in attenuating psychotic symptoms.

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: results and lessons of an underpowered randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

As lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of deliberate self-harm (DSH) in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, we designed a pragmatic randomised trial to assess its efficacy in more than 200 patients with treatment-resistant depression. However, we randomised 56 patients only. The aim of this report is therefore twofold: first, to disseminate the results of this underpowered study which may be incorporated into future meta-analytical reviews; second, to analyse some critical aspects of the study which might explain failure to reach the target sample size.

METHODS

We carried out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode were allocated to add lithium to usual care (intervention arm) versus usual care alone (control arm). Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up constituted the composite primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 58 patients screened for inclusion, 29 were allocated to lithium plus usual care and 27 were assigned to usual care without lithium. Six patients in the lithium plus usual care group and seven in the usual care group committed acts of DSH during the follow-up phase. The survival probability did not differ between the two treatment arms (Chi2 = 0.17, p =0.676). With regard to changes in the severity of depressive symptomatology from baseline to endpoint, no significant differences were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study failed to achieve the minimum sample size needed to detect a clinically meaningful difference between the two treatment arms. Consequently, the finding that lithium, in addition to usual care, did not exert a positive effect in terms of reduction of DSH after 12 months of follow-up is likely due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference, if a difference existed. The dissemination of the results of this underpowered study will inform future meta-analytical reviews on lithium and suicide-related outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.

Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a 12-month, randomized, naturalistic trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term studies for patients with resistant schizophrenia are necessary to assess the effectiveness of combination strategies on persisting positive symptoms.

AIMS AND METHODS

This multicenter, naturalistic, randomized, superiority study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00395915) aimed to compare clinical efficacy and tolerability of haloperidol versus aripiprazole as combination treatment with clozapine in patients with resistant schizophrenia.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were followed up for 12 months. After 12 months, the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was not significantly different between aripiprazole and haloperidol (37% vs 28%, respectively; P = 0.431). The change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (-7.0 vs -7.9, respectively; P = 0.389), whereas the tolerability total score decreased significantly more in the aripiprazole group (-7.2 vs -2.3; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

While the effectiveness of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic agent is not clearly demonstrated yet, results from this study suggest that augmentation with aripiprazole offers no substantial benefit over haloperidol in efficacy. Aripiprazole was perceived more tolerable than haloperidol, but it is uncertain how this finding may translate into the real world of clinical practice.

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.

Polypharmacy for schizophrenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Combining psychotropic medications is common for people diagnosed with schizophrenia facing a variety of clinical circumstances. This review provides an update on evidence regarding the effectiveness of polypharmacy approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiology studies have demonstrated that polypharmacy is extremely common, but evidence regarding all polypharmacy approaches for schizophrenia from randomized controlled trials remains scarce. Combinations of antipsychotic medicines are unsupported by evidence. Antidepressants are commonly used to treat depressive symptoms; this logical role for antidepressants has little support from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but may be associated with lower suicide and all-cause mortality. Insufficient evidence supports the use of benzodiazepines for schizophrenia; possible risks of benzodiazepines, including increased mortality rates revealed in observational studies, warrant caution and further study.

SUMMARY

The lack of evidence regarding common treatment strategies exacerbates the tremendous challenge of providing optimal pharmacotherapy for individuals with schizophrenia. Comparative effectiveness research, using observational methods when appropriate and RCTs when possible, is needed to inform clinical practice, use resources wisely and improve outcomes.

The psychopharmacology algorithm project at the Harvard South Shore Program: an update on schizophrenia

This article is an update of the algorithm for schizophrenia from the Psychopharmacology Algorithm Project at the Harvard South Shore Program. A literature review was conducted focusing on new data since the last published version (1999-2001). The first-line treatment recommendation for new-onset schizophrenia is with amisulpride, aripiprazole, risperidone, or ziprasidone for four to six weeks. In some settings the trial could be shorter, considering that evidence of clear improvement with antipsychotics usually occurs within the first two weeks. If the trial of the first antipsychotic cannot be completed due to intolerance, try another until one of the four is tolerated and given an adequate trial. There should be evidence of bioavailability. If the response to this adequate trial is unsatisfactory, try a second monotherapy. If the response to this second adequate trial is also unsatisfactory, and if at least one of the first two trials was with risperidone, olanzapine, or a first-generation (typical) antipsychotic, then clozapine is recommended for the third trial. If neither trial was with any these three options, a third trial prior to clozapine should occur, using one of those three. If the response to monotherapy with clozapine (with dose adjusted by using plasma levels) is unsatisfactory, consider adding risperidone, lamotrigine, or ECT. Beyond that point, there is little solid evidence to support further psychopharmacological treatment choices, though we do review possible options.

A continuum of progress: applications of N-hetereocyclic carbene catalysis in total synthesis

N-Heterocyclic carbene (NHC) catalyzed transformations have emerged as powerful tactics for the construction of complex molecules. Since Stetter's report in 1975 of the total synthesis of cis-jasmon and dihydrojasmon by using carbene catalysis, the use of NHCs in total synthesis has grown rapidly, particularly over the last decade. This renaissance is undoubtedly due to the recent developments in NHC-catalyzed reactions, including new benzoin, Stetter, homoenolate, and aroylation processes. These transformations employ typical as well as Umpolung types of bond disconnections and have served as the key step in several new total syntheses. This Minireview highlights these reports and captures the excitement and emerging synthetic utility of carbene catalysis in total synthesis.

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.

Aripiprazole: a review of its use in the management of schizophrenia in adults

Oral aripiprazole (Abilify®) is an atypical antipsychotic agent that is approved worldwide for use in adult patients with schizophrenia. It is a quinolinone derivative that has a unique receptor binding profile as it exhibits both partial agonist activity at dopamine D(2) receptors and serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptors and antagonist activity at 5-HT(2A) receptors. In several well designed, randomized, clinical trials of 4-6 weeks duration, aripiprazole provided symptomatic control for patients with acute, relapsing schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Furthermore, following 26 weeks' treatment, the time to relapse was significantly longer for patients with chronic, stabilized schizophrenia receiving aripiprazole compared with those receiving placebo. Using a variety of efficacy outcomes, aripiprazole showed a mixed response when evaluated against other antipsychotic agents in randomized clinical trials. Longer-term data showed that improvements in remission rates and response rates favoured aripiprazole over haloperidol, although, the time to failure to maintain a response was not significantly different between the treatment arms. On the other hand, improvements in positive and negative symptom scores mostly favoured olanzapine over aripiprazole, although, the time to all-cause treatment discontinuation was not significantly different between the two treatments. Several open-label, switching trials showed that aripiprazole provided continued control of symptoms in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Using a variety of efficacy outcomes or quality-of-life scores, longer-term treatment generally favoured patients switched to receive aripiprazole compared with standard-of-care oral antipsychotics. Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia. In particular, its use seems to be associated with a lower incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol and fewer weight-gain issues than olanzapine. Aripiprazole also showed a favourable cardiovascular tolerability profile and its use was associated with a reduced risk of metabolic syndrome than placebo or olanzapine. As a consequence, aripiprazole may provide a more cost-effective treatment option compared with other atypical antipsychotics. In conclusion, oral aripiprazole provides an effective and well tolerated treatment alternative for the acute and long-term management of patients with schizophrenia.

Role of aripiprazole in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

About one third of patients with schizophrenia respond unsatisfactorily to antipsychotic treatment and are termed "treatment-resistant". Clozapine is still the gold standard in these cases. However, 40%-70% of patients do not improve sufficiently on clozapine either. In the search for more efficacious strategies for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, drugs with different pharmacological profiles seem to raise new hopes, but are they valid? The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence for aripiprazole as a potential strategy in monotherapy or combination therapy for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The evidence for aripiprazole monotherapy and for the combination of aripiprazole with psychotropics other than clozapine is scant, and no recommendation can be made on the basis of the currently available data. More effort has been made in describing combinations of aripiprazole and clozapine. Most of the open-label and case studies as well as case reports have shown positive effects of this combination on overall psychopathology and to some extent on negative symptoms. Several reports describe the possibility of dose reduction for clozapine in combination with aripiprazole, a strategy that might help so-called "treatment-intolerant" patients. The findings of four randomized controlled trials with respect to changes in psychopathology seem less conclusive. The most commonly found beneficial effects are better metabolic outcomes and indicators of the possibility of reducing the clozapine dose. However, other side effects, such as akathisia, are repeatedly reported. Further, none of the studies report longer-term outcomes. In the absence of alternatives, polypharmacy is a common strategy in clinical practice. Combining aripiprazole with clozapine in clozapine-resistant or clozapine-intolerant patients seems to be worthy of further investigation from the pharmacological and clinical points of view.

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.