Outcomes of medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia receiving clozapine only or antipsychotic combinations

Variation of Clozapine Use for Treatment of Schizophrenia: Evidence from Pennsylvania Medicaid and Dually Eligible Enrollees

While clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, it remains underutilized across the United States, warranting a more comprehensive understanding of variation in use at the county level, as well as characterization of existing prescribing patterns. Here, we examined both Medicaid and Medicare databases to (1) characterize temporal and geographic variation in clozapine prescribing and, (2) identify patient-level characteristics associated with clozapine use. We included Medicaid and Fee for Service Medicare data in the state of Pennsylvania from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. We focused on individuals with continuous enrollment, schizophrenia diagnosis, and multiple antipsychotic trials. Geographic variation was examined across counties of Pennsylvania. Regression models were constructed to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with clozapine use. Out of 8,255 individuals who may benefit from clozapine, 642 received treatment. We observed high medication burden, overall, including multiple antipsychotic trials. We also identified variation in clozapine use across regions in Pennsylvania with a disproportionate number of prescribers in urban areas and several counties with no identified clozapine prescribers. Finally, demographic, and clinical determinants of clozapine use were observed including less use in people identified as non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or with a substance use disorder. In addition, greater medical comorbidity was associated with increased clozapine use. Our work leveraged both Medicaid and Medicare data to characterize and surveil clozapine prescribing. Our findings support efforts monitor disparities and opportunities for the optimization of clozapine within municipalities to enhance clinical outcomes.

Real-World Evidence of Antipsychotic Monotherapy Versus Polypharmacy in the Treatment of Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

It is still not well known whether antipsychotic monotherapy versus polypharmacy differs in terms of efficacy in the emergency department (ED) utilization, presentation with agitation/aggression, and rehospitalization in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) patients. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of antipsychotic monotherapy and polypharmacy for these outcomes in the real world.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

The study was conducted with electronic health records of 669 SSD patients admitted to the ED. Patients were evaluated in 4 groups according to antipsychotic use at the first admission to ED: antipsychotic noncompliance for more than 90 days, antipsychotic noncompliance for 15 to 90 days, antipsychotic monotherapy, and polypharmacy. All patients followed up for at least 1 year after index admission. The primary outcomes determined an association between antipsychotic monotherapy versus polypharmacy and all-cause psychiatric hospitalization between the groups after index admission in the SSD.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

The groups, including patients with antipsychotic noncompliance, had higher ED visits, more hospitalizations, and more admissions with agitation/aggression compared with antipsychotic monotherapy or polypharmacy. However, no differences were found between monotherapy and polypharmacy groups regarding these outcomes. In addition, there was no difference in the risk of hospitalization in monotherapy antipsychotic users compared with polypharmacy users. Patients discharged with monotherapy or polypharmacy also had similar rehospitalization rates at follow-up.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

There is no positive evidence that recommending polypharmacy over antipsychotic monotherapy is superior with regard to the resulting frequency of ED visits, ED admissions with agitation/aggression, hospitalization, and rehospitalization. In this context, antipsychotic monotherapy may be preferred over polypharmacy in patients who are not resistant to treatment.

Informing individualized multi-scale neural signatures of clozapine response in patients with treatment-refractory schizophrenia

Clozapine is currently the only antipsychotic with demonstrated efficacy in treatment-refractory schizophrenia (TRS). However, response to clozapine differs widely between TRS patients, and there are no available clinical or neural predictive indicators that could be used to increase or accelerate the use of clozapine in patients who stand to benefit. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the neuropharmacology of clozapine contributes to its therapeutic effects. Identifying the mechanisms underlying clozapine's therapeutic effects across domains of symptomatology could be crucial for development of new optimized therapies for TRS. Here, we present results from a prospective neuroimaging study that quantitatively related heterogeneous patterns of clinical clozapine response to neural functional connectivity at baseline. We show that we can reliably capture specific dimensions of clozapine clinical response by quantifying the full variation across item-level clinical scales, and that these dimensions can be mapped to neural features that are sensitive to clozapine-induced symptom change. Thus, these features may act as "failure modes" that can provide an early indication of treatment (non-)responsiveness. Lastly, we related the response-relevant neural maps to spatial expression profiles of genes coding for receptors implicated in clozapine's pharmacology, demonstrating that distinct dimensions of clozapine symptom-informed neural features may be associated with specific receptor targets. Collectively, this study informs prognostic neuro-behavioral measures for clozapine as a more optimal treatment for selected patients with TRS. We provide support for the identification of neuro-behavioral targets linked to pharmacological efficacy that can be further developed to inform optimal early treatment decisions in schizophrenia.

Ethnic disparities in clozapine prescription for service-users with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a systematic review

Clozapine is the only licenced medication for treating treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Previous studies have suggested unequal rates of clozapine treatment by ethnicity among individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. One previous review has investigated this topic but was restricted to studies from the USA. This current review aims to synthesise the international literature regarding ethnic disparities in clozapine prescription amongst individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. We searched CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO and Open Grey and reviewed studies reporting on the proportion of service-users prescribed clozapine separately for different ethnic groups, in individuals with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or any schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. A narrative synthesis was conducted to integrate information from included studies. The review was registered in PROSPERO (Number: CRD42020221731). From 24 studies, there is strong, consistent evidence that Black and Hispanic service-users in the UK and the USA are significantly less likely to receive clozapine than White/Caucasian service-users after controlling for multiple demographic and clinical potential confounders. In New Zealand, Māori service-users were reported to be more likely to receive clozapine than those of White/European ethnicity. There is mixed evidence regarding Asian service-users in the UK. The mentioned disparities were observed in studies with TRS and non-TRS cohorts. The results imply that access to clozapine treatment varies among ethnic groups. These findings raise an ethical concern as they suggest a compromise of the standards of care in schizophrenia treatment practices. Interventions are needed to reduce clozapine prescribing disparities among ethnic communities.

Systematic Review of Real-World Treatment Patterns of Oral Antipsychotics and Associated Economic Burden in Patients with Schizophrenia in the United States

Background

Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder associated with substantial morbidity and mortality affecting 0.25–1.6% of adults in the USA. Antipsychotic treatment is the standard of care for schizophrenia, but real-world treatment patterns and associated costs have not been systematically reviewed.

Objective

We conducted a systematic review to summarize treatment patterns and associated costs related to oral antipsychotic treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the USA.

Data Sources

We searched Medline (via PubMed) and Embase to identify relevant observational studies published from January 1, 2008, to June 1, 2018; costs were converted to 2018 US dollars.

Study Eligibility

Observational, real-world studies reporting on patterns of treatment and/or associated costs for adult patients with schizophrenia treated with oral antipsychotics in the USA were included.

Results

Eighty-one studies were identified. Frequently prescribed oral second-generation antipsychotics were olanzapine (up to 50.9%), risperidone (up to 40.0%), and quetiapine (up to 30.7%). Suboptimal adherence was common across studies. Antipsychotic switching occurred in about half of patients, while antipsychotic combination therapy occurred in nearly 30%; all were associated with increased medication-related costs. Mean annual direct medical costs differed by treatment, with reported costs of $17,115 to $26,138 for patients treated with olanzapine, $18,395 for risperidone, and $17,656 to $28,101 for quetiapine.

Limitations

This systematic review is limited by the variations in definitions of schizophrenia-related clinical terms used between studies and by the inclusion of studies focused on only the US health care system.

Conclusions

In the treatment of schizophrenia, suboptimal adherence, antipsychotic switching, and antipsychotic augmentation were all associated with high costs of care in comparison to patients who were adherent and did not require antipsychotic switching or augmentation. These findings illustrate the need for the development of new treatments that address efficacy and adherence challenges of currently available therapies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02232-z.

Schizophrenia is a debilitating mental disorder that affects up to 1.6% of adults in the USA. Antipsychotic medications reduce symptoms of the disease, but many patients with schizophrenia are not fully adherent or choose to discontinue treatment entirely, increasing their risk of hospitalization. In others, efforts to achieve better symptom control or to avoid intolerable side effects may result in switching antipsychotic medications or adding additional medications, leading to higher medical treatment costs. The magnitude of these cost increases is unclear. This study sought to assess medical costs associated with antipsychotic treatment adherence, switching, and adding additional antipsychotics. We reviewed 81 studies published from January 2008 through June 2018 examining treatment adherence in patients with schizophrenia. We calculated rates of adherence, switching, and adding antipsychotics, as well as associated medical costs. Overall adherence to antipsychotic treatment was less than 50%, with up to 50% of patients switching medications and up to 29% adding an additional antipsychotic medication to their current treatment. Patients who were not treatment adherent incurred annual medical costs of $10,316 compared with $5723 in patients who were adherent. The costs of immediate or delayed switching of antipsychotic medications ranged from $21,922 to $28,232, while costs of adding an additional antipsychotic ranged from $24,045 to $29,344. These data suggest that suboptimal medication adherence, along with high rates of patient discontinuation and medication switching, lead to higher treatment costs in the management of patients with schizophrenia.

Polypharmacotherapy in Psychiatry: Global Insights from a Rapid Online Survey of Psychiatrists

In recent years, an increase in the problem of polypharmacotherapy in psychiatric patients has been observed, including the widespread problem of groups of people taking new psychoactive substances. One reason for this problem may be the poor knowledge of pharmacological interactions in psychiatry. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions and knowledge of psychiatrists from around the world on various aspects related to polypharmacotherapy. A total of 1335 psychiatrists from six continents were included in the study. The respondents’ opinion on the problem of hepatotoxicity in psychiatry was also examined. The greatest discrepancy among psychiatrists from different continents in the answers given concerned the definition of polypharmacotherapy (p < 0.001) and the approach to hepatotoxicity (p < 0.001). It is noteworthy that only about 20% of the psychiatrists surveyed (p < 0.001) believe that polypharmacotherapy is associated with a higher rate of patients’ hospitalisations. The most commonly used type of polypharmacy by psychiatrists was antidepressants and antipsychotics. Most of them also stated that polypharmacy was associated with reduced patient compliance with the doctor’s recommendations related to taking medications due to the increased complexity of the therapy. The continent that diversified the analysed questions to the greatest extent was Africa. Future educational activities for trainee psychiatrists should include more discussion of polypharmacotherapy in psychiatry.

Cost of the Illness of Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Mirror Image Study Comparing Clozapine With Other Antipsychotics

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the cost of illness in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) during 3 months before starting clozapine and for the initial 3 months of treatment with clozapine.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

Fifty-two patients with TRS were evaluated for the cost of illness (direct, indirect, and provider cost) by using a structured questionnaire for the period of 3 months before starting clozapine and then at the end of the 3 months of clozapine therapy.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Total treatment cost for the period of 3 months before starting clozapine was Indian rupees (INR) 40,372 (560.72 US dollars), and the total treatment cost for the first 3 months of clozapine therapy was INR 40,553 (563.23 US dollars). At both the assessments, indirect cost formed the main bulk of the total cost, with no significant difference in the indirect cost. The total direct treatment cost reduced from INR 13,931.6 (193.49 US dollars) to INR 8756 (121.61 US dollars), and the difference between the 2 assessments was statistically significant, with an advantage for clozapine. Overall, after starting clozapine, the total direct cost reduced from 34.5% to 21.6%, and the total indirect cost reduced from 54.3% to 40.2%. After starting clozapine, total provider cost increased from 11.2% to 38.2% of the totalcost.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with clozapine is not associated with a significant increase in the overall treatment cost, in the short term. However, there is a significant reduction in direct treatment costs.

The Role of Board-Certified Psychiatric Pharmacists in Expanding Access to Care and Improving Patient Outcomes

Although approximately 20% of adults in the United States experience a mental health condition annually, there continues to be a gap in the provision of care because of a shortage of behavioral health providers. The National Council for Behavioral Health Medical Director Institute has recommended that the number of board-certified psychiatric pharmacists (BCPPs), who are clinical pharmacists with advanced specialized training and experience in the treatment of patients with psychiatric and substance use disorders, be expanded to help meet this need. Although BCPPs currently assist in expanding care access, improving medication-related outcomes, and reducing health care costs by working collaboratively with physicians and other health care providers, BCPPs are often underutilized. This lack of utilization results in lost opportunity to better address the needs of persons with psychiatric or substance use disorders and to meet these needs in a timely manner. Here, the authors bring attention to five key areas-opioid use disorder, antipsychotic use among children, long-acting injectable antipsychotics, clozapine use, and transitions of care and care coordination-in which BCPPs, along with other pharmacists, provide evidence-based care and could be more extensively used as a collaborative solution to the mental health and substance use disorder crisis in the United States.

Does antipsychotic combination therapy reduce the risk of hospitalization in schizophrenia?

INTRODUCTION

: Despite treatment with antipsychotic medication, approximately 1/3 of individuals with schizophrenia will fail to have an adequate response. To treat these patients, a commonly utilized approach is antipsychotic combination therapy. Antipsychotic combination therapy is controversial with mixed efficacy and tolerability results. It is also unclear if antipsychotic combination therapy reduces or increases the risk of psychiatric hospitalization.

AREAS COVERED

: The authors review the prevalence, efficacy and tolerability concerns, and rationale behind antipsychotic combination therapy. Evidence comparing antipsychotic monotherapy vs polypharmacy using hospitalization as an outcome measure is summarized.

EXPERT OPINION

: Psychiatric rehospitalization is a useful measure of treatment effectiveness, incorporating aspects of treatment efficacy and tolerability. The evidence comparing the impact of antipsychotic monotherapy vs combination therapy on rehospitalization is mixed. Evidence is primarily retrospective in nature, and there is high heterogeneity between studies, which could partially explain the mixed results. There is likely a subset of patients for whom antipsychotic combination therapy reduces the risk of hospitalization greater than antipsychotic monotherapy. Patients should be treated individually taking into account their specific pattern of response.

Systematic review of racial disparities in clozapine prescribing

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of published evidence on clozapine prescribing disparities across racial and ethnic categories, estimate the size of these disparities, and assess possible causes to inform future monitoring and intervention.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science) were searched for directly relevant studies. Three independent reviewers selected studies: (1) of US samples; (2) directly addressed ethnic and/or racial disparities in prescribing of antipsychotic medications; (3) identified specific ethnic and/or racial groups (e.g. White, Blacks, Hispanics, non-Hispanic etc.); (4) reported clozapine prescription rates and (5) reported relevant covariates (i.e. gender, age, co-morbidities etc.).

FINDINGS

16 studies met our eligibility criteria. All studies reported clozapine underutilization in ethnic and racial minority patients when compared to their white counterparts. These findings remained consistent despite different time periods, designs, data set types, and after controlling for relevant covariates such as: length of hospital stay, institutional setting, and disease severity.

CONCLUSION

The reasons for underutilization of clozapine in minority patients remain unclear. Various contributors can be categorized as: clinician-related factors (e.g. prescriber lack of experience), patient-related factors (e.g. distrust or suspicion of clinician), and institution-related factors (e.g. state operated facilities). Direct examination of these factors can help inform efforts to reduce clozapine prescription disparities.

The association between primary care quality and health-care use, costs and outcomes for people with serious mental illness: a retrospective observational study

Background

Serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses, is linked with high disease burden, poor outcomes, high treatment costs and lower life expectancy. In the UK, most people with serious mental illness are treated in primary care by general practitioners, who are financially incentivised to meet quality targets for patients with chronic conditions, including serious mental illness, under the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The Quality and Outcomes Framework, however, omits important aspects of quality.

Objectives

We examined whether or not better quality of primary care for people with serious mental illness improved a range of outcomes.

Design and setting

We used administrative data from English primary care practices that contribute to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency attendances, Office for National Statistics mortality data and community mental health records in the Mental Health Minimum Data Set. We used survival analysis to estimate whether or not selected quality indicators affect the time until patients experience an outcome.

Participants

Four cohorts of people with serious mental illness, depending on the outcomes examined and inclusion criteria.

Interventions

Quality of care was measured with (1) Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators (care plans and annual physical reviews) and (2) non-Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators identified through a systematic review (antipsychotic polypharmacy and continuity of care provided by general practitioners).

Main outcome measures

Several outcomes were examined: emergency admissions for serious mental illness and ambulatory care sensitive conditions; all unplanned admissions; accident and emergency attendances; mortality; re-entry into specialist mental health services; and costs attributed to primary, secondary and community mental health care.

Results

Care plans were associated with lower risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.80), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.75), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.83), and lower overall health-care (£53), primary care (£9), hospital (£26) and mental health-care costs (£12). Annual reviews were associated with reduced risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.85), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.84), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.87), and lower overall health-care (£34), primary care (£9) and mental health-care costs (£30). Higher general practitioner continuity was associated with lower risk of accident and emergency presentation (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.97) and ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.92), but not with serious mental illness admission. High continuity was associated with lower primary care costs (£3). Antipsychotic polypharmacy was not statistically significantly associated with the risk of unplanned admission, death or accident and emergency presentation. None of the quality measures was statistically significantly associated with risk of re-entry into specialist mental health care.

Limitations

There is risk of bias from unobserved factors. To mitigate this, we controlled for observed patient characteristics at baseline and adjusted for the influence of time-invariant unobserved patient differences.

Conclusions

Better performance on Quality and Outcomes Framework measures and continuity of care are associated with better outcomes and lower resource utilisation, and could generate moderate cost savings.

Future work

Future research should examine the impact of primary care quality on measures that capture broader aspects of health and functioning.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Association With Hospitalization and All-Cause Discontinuation Among Patients With Schizophrenia on Clozapine vs Other Oral Second-Generation Antipsychotics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies

IMPORTANCE

Recent meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing clozapine with nonclozapine second-generation antipsychotics (NC-SGAs) in schizophrenia have challenged clozapine's superiority in treatment-resistant patients. However, patients in RCTs are not necessarily generalizable to those in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare various outcomes of clozapine vs oral NC-SGAs in cohort studies.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL without language restriction from database inception until December 17, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Nonrandomized cohort studies reporting effectiveness and/or safety outcomes comparing clozapine with NC-SGAs in schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent investigators assessed studies and extracted data. Using a random-effects model, the study calculated risk ratio (RR) unadjusted for covariates and follow-up duration, number needed to treat/number needed to harm (NNT/NNH) for dichotomous data, and standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included all effectiveness and safety outcomes reported in at least 3 analyzable studies.

RESULTS

Of 8446 hits, 68 articles from 63 individual cohort studies (n = 109 341) (60.3% male; mean [SD] age of 38.8 [6.5] years, illness duration of 11.0 [5.1] years, and study duration of 19.1 [23.3] months) were meta-analyzed. Compared with NC-SGAs, despite greater illness severity (17 studies [n = 38 766]; Hedges g, 0.222; 95% CI, 0.013-0.430; P = .04), clozapine was significantly associated with lower hospitalization risk (19 studies [n = 49 453]; RR, 0.817; 95% CI, 0.725-0.920; P = .001; NNT, 18; 95% CI, 12-40) and all-cause discontinuation (16 studies [n = 56 368]; RR, 0.732; 95% CI, 0.639-0.838; P < .001; NNT, 8; 95% CI, 6-12). Associations were statistically significant for comparisons with quetiapine fumarate and aripiprazole regarding hospitalization and all NC-SGAs, except aripiprazole, for all-cause discontinuation. Clozapine was also significantly associated with better outcomes regarding overall symptoms (SMD, -0.302; 95% CI, -0.572 to -0.032; P = .03) and Clinical Global Impressions scale severity (SMD, -1.182; 95% CI, -2.243 to -0.122; P = .03). Clozapine was significantly associated with increases in body weight (MD, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.31-3.08 kg; P = .02), body mass index (MD, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.24-1.68; P = .009), and type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.777; 95% CI, 1.229-2.570; P = .002; NNH, 27; 95% CI, 13-90).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In cohort studies, despite more severely ill patients being treated with clozapine, use of clozapine was associated with better key efficacy outcomes and higher cardiometabolic-related risk outcomes vs NC-SGAs.

Association Between Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Outcomes for People With Serious Mental Illness in England

OBJECTIVE

Although U.K. and international guidelines recommend monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy among patients with serious mental illness is common in clinical practice. However, empirical evidence on its effectiveness is scarce. Therefore, the authors estimated the effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy relative to monotherapy in terms of health care utilization and mortality.

METHODS

Primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics, and mortality data from the Office of National Statistics were linked to compile a cohort of patients with serious mental illness in England from 2000 to 2014. The antipsychotic prescribing profile of 17,255 adults who had at least one antipsychotic drug record during the period of observation was constructed from primary care medication records. Survival analysis models were estimated to identify the effect of antipsychotic polypharmacy on the time to first occurrence of each of three outcomes: unplanned hospital admissions (all cause), emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality.

RESULTS

Relative to monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not associated with increased risk of unplanned hospital admission (hazard ratio [HR]=1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98-1.32), ED visit (HR=0.95; 95% CI=0.80-1.14), or death (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.76-1.37). Relative to not receiving antipsychotic medication, monotherapy was associated with a reduced hazard of unplanned admissions to the hospital and ED visits, but it had no effect on mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results support current guidelines for antipsychotic monotherapy in routine clinical practice. However, they also suggest that when clinicians have deemed antipsychotic polypharmacy necessary, health care utilization and mortality are not affected.

Evaluation of Risk Factors for Antipsychotic Polypharmacy in Inpatient Psychiatry Units of a Community Hospital: A Retrospective Analysis

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) is a common practice while treating severe mental illness but the benefits of APP over antipsychotic monotherapy is controversial. This is a retrospective analysis comparing risk factors for people on APP and those on non-APP in inpatient psychiatry units. Two years data with 72 people in non-APP group and 82 people in APP group were analyzed quantitatively. The diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder (OR 11.5), schizophrenia (OR 4.65) and depression (OR 0.31), and history of > 2 psychiatric admissions (OR 3.2) and > 2 psychiatric emergency visits (OR 2.87) in 2 years were studied as potential risk factors for APP. Similarly, history of violence (OR 1.7) and history of substance abuse (OR 0.51) were also studied. Schizophrenia spectrum disorder, higher number of psychiatric hospitalizations, and psychiatric emergency visits were positively associated while depression and substance abuse were negatively associated with APP in our study.

Switching to antipsychotic monotherapy vs. staying on antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While recent meta-analyses have reported the superiority of antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) over antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) in schizophrenia, switching to APM can be beneficial in terms of side effects. To determine whether patients receiving APP should switch to APM or stay on APP, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining a switch from APP to APM vs. staying on APP were systematically selected from a previous meta-analysis comparing APP with APM in patients with schizophrenia. In addition, we conducted an updated systematic literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on study discontinuation, relapse, psychopathology, neurocognition, extrapyramidal symptoms, and body weight/body mass index (BMI) were extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 6 RCTs involving 341 patients were included. All studies examined a switch from 2 antipsychotic agents to a single agent. Clozapine-treated patients were included in 3 studies. There was a significant difference in study discontinuation due to all causes in favor of staying on APP (N = 6, n = 341, RR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.50-3.46, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in relapse, any psychopathology, neurocognition, extrapyramidal symptoms, or body weight/BMI between the 2 groups. The quality of evidence was low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that clinicians should closely monitor patient condition when switching to APM after receiving 2 antipsychotics. Given the low to very low overall quality of the evidence, the findings should be considered preliminary and inconclusive.

Psychiatric pharmacist's role in overcoming barriers to clozapine use and improving management

Clozapine is an antipsychotic that exhibits superior efficacy and effectiveness for those with schizophrenia and other serious mental illness. However, its side-effect profile and administrative burdens present challenges to its use. In the United States, the medication is grossly underused even though it may improve outcomes and reduce costs. Current barriers to use include lack of prescriber knowledge and confidence, negative prescriber attitudes, special monitoring requirements, administrative factors, lack of clozapine on formularies, lack of support and infrastructure to use the medication within many health systems, and inadequate understanding or acknowledgement of clozapine prescribing and risks by policy makers and payers. Approaches using interprofessional models of care, which include pharmacists specializing in psychiatric care, can help meet the needs of patients receiving clozapine. This article lays out the big picture of barriers to clozapine and how psychiatric pharmacists could play a role in improving access.

Characteristics of Medicaid Recipients Receiving Persistent Antipsychotic Polypharmacy

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) is a common strategy despite guidelines advising against this practice. This article seeks to quantify the prevalence and correlates of APP using Medicaid Analytic eXtract files from 2003 to 2004. Nineteen percent of Medicaid recipients who received an antipsychotic were treated with APP. Individuals who received APP were more likely to be white, male, disabled, between the ages of 18-29, diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, and diagnosed with a higher number of psychiatric conditions. Geographic variation in APP rates was also observed. Quality improvement initiatives may help reduce APP for medically vulnerable patients.

Is the risk of antipsychotic polypharmacy discontinuation dependent on the agents used?

This study assesses the risks and benefits of switching from two to one antipsychotic among participants on two non-clozapine oral antipsychotics, and among those on combinations involving either clozapine or an injectable antipsychotic. Ninety adult participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were assigned to stay on polypharmacy or to switch to monotherapy. Half of these participants were receiving combinations of non-clozapine oral antipsychotics and half were receiving combinations involving either clozapine or an injectable antipsychotic. Participants were assessed every 60 days for one year. We examined differences in symptom and side effect trajectories as a function of group assignment and time for both medication groups. Participants who switched from two to one non-clozapine oral antipsychotic experienced significant increases in symptoms relative to stay participants. They also saw significant side effect benefits. Switch participants on combinations involving clozapine or an injectable antipsychotic did not differ over time from stay participants on either symptom or side effect measures. It appears that patients on these combinations can be safely switched to monotherapy. While there may be symptom related risks associated with switching patients on combinations of non-clozapine oral antipsychotics, there are significant health related benefits. Clozapine or injectable antipsychotic monotherapy are recommended options.

A cross-sectional comparative study on the assessment of quality of life in psychiatric patients under remission treated with monotherapy and polypharmacy

CONTEXT

The concept of quality of life (QoL) is becoming an important measure of the impact of psychiatric disorders. It is natural that once patient achieves remission, QoL would improve, but very few studies are conducted under this phase. This study compares the differences in QoL in remitted patients with monotherapy and polypharmacy.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the QoL between psychiatric patients in remission treated with monotherapy and polypharmacy.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

It is a questionnaire based cross-sectional comparative study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included outpatients under remission who come for follow-up in psychiatric department. Semi-structured data collection form was used. Remission was confirmed using suitable scales, and QoL was assessed using the World Health Organization quality of life-Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) scale. Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) were applied to understand the overall improvement and functioning levels.

RESULTS

Out of the total 100 patients enrolled in the study, fifty patients were on monotherapy and fifty patients on polypharmacy. The cost of medication was comparatively high for polypharmacy (Rs. 3568.92 [±348.54]) than monotherapy (Rs. 1936.56 [±252.07]). The QoL in physical, psychological, and social domains was significantly high in patients on polypharmacy rather than monotherapy when assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF scale. Ninety-six percent of monotherapy patients had CGI scores between 1.5 and 2.4 while 74% of polypharmacy patients had scores between 1.0 and 1.5. Ninety-six percent of monotherapy patients had <80 GAF scores while 92% of polypharmacy patients had >80.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with polypharmacy had better QoL and also clinical improvement and functioning levels were superior.

Semi-mechanistic computer simulation of psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia with a model of a humanized cortico-striatal-thalamocortical loop

Despite new insights into the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and clinical trials with highly selective drugs, no new therapeutic breakthroughs have been identified. We present a semi-mechanistic Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) computer model of a biophysically realistic cortical-striatal-thalamo-cortical loop. The model incorporates the direct, indirect and hyperdirect pathway of the basal ganglia and CNS drug targets that modulate neuronal firing, based on preclinical data about their localization and coupling to voltage-gated ion channels. Schizophrenia pathology is introduced using quantitative human imaging data on striatal hyperdopaminergic activity and cortical dysfunction. We identified an entropy measure of neuronal firing in the thalamus, related to the bandwidth of information processing that correlates well with reported historical clinical changes on PANSS Total with antipsychotics after introduction of their pharmacology (42 drug-dose combinations, r²=0.62). This entropy measure is further validated by predicting the clinical outcome of 28 other novel stand-alone interventions, 14 of them with non-dopamine D₂R pharmacology, in addition to 8 augmentation trials (correlation between actual and predicted clinical scores r²=0.61). The platform predicts that most combinations of antipsychotics have a lower efficacy over what can be achieved by either one; negative pharmacodynamical interactions are prominent for aripiprazole added to risperidone, haloperidol, quetiapine and paliperidone. The model also recapitulates the increased probability for psychotic breakdown in a supersensitive environment and the effect of ketamine in healthy volunteers. This QSP platform, combined with similar readouts for motor symptoms, negative symptoms and cognitive impairment has the potential to improve our understanding of drug effects in schizophrenia patients.

Antipsychotic Medication Prescribing Practices Among Adult Patients Discharged From State Psychiatric Inpatient Hospitals

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to explore antipsychotic medication prescribing practices in a sample of 86,034 patients discharged from state psychiatric inpatient hospitals and to find the prevalence of patients discharged with no antipsychotic medications, on antipsychotic monotherapy, and on antipsychotic polypharmacy. For patients discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy, the study explored the adjusted rates of antipsychotic polypharmacy, the reasons patients were discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy, the proportion of antipsychotic polypharmacy by mental health disorder, and the characteristics associated with being discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed all discharges for adult patients (18 to 64 y of age) from state psychiatric inpatient hospitals between January 1 and December 31, 2011. The relationship among variables was explored using χ, t test, and analysis of variance. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of antipsychotic polypharmacy.

RESULTS

The prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy was 12%. Of the discharged patients receiving at least 1 antipsychotic medication (adjusted rate), 18% were on antipsychotic polypharmacy. The strongest predictors of antipsychotic polypharmacy being prescribed were having a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a length of stay of 90 days or more. Patients were prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy primarily to reduce their symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic polypharmacy continues at a high enough rate to affect nearly 10,000 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia each year in state psychiatric inpatient hospitals. Further analysis of the clinical presentation of these patients may highlight particular aspects of the illness and its previous treatment that are contributing to practices outside the best-practice guideline. An increased understanding of trend data, patient characteristics, and national benchmarks provides an opportunity for decision-making that is sensitive to the patient's needs and cognizant of the hospital's accomplishments in adopting best practices.