Maintenance of response with atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: a post-hoc analysis of 5 double-blind, randomized clinical trials

What is the risk-benefit ratio of long-term antipsychotic treatment in people with schizophrenia?

The long-term benefit-to-risk ratio of sustained antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia has recently been questioned. In this paper, we critically examine the literature on the long-term efficacy and effectiveness of this treatment. We also review the evidence on the undesired effects, the impact on physical morbidity and mortality, as well as the neurobiological correlates of chronic exposure to antipsychotics. Finally, we summarize factors that affect the risk-benefit ratio. There is consistent evidence supporting the efficacy of antipsychotics in the short term and mid term following stabilization of acute psychotic symptoms. There is insufficient evidence supporting the notion that this effect changes in the long term. Most, but not all, of the long-term cohort studies find a decrease in efficacy during chronic treatment with antipsychotics. However, these results are inconclusive, given the extensive risk of bias, including increasing non-adherence. On the other hand, long-term studies based on national registries, which have lower risk of bias, find an advantage in terms of effectiveness during sustained antipsychotic treatment. Sustained antipsychotic treatment has been also consistently associated with lower mortality in people with schizophrenia compared to no antipsychotic treatment. Nevertheless, chronic antipsychotic use is associated with metabolic disturbance and tardive dyskinesia. The latter is the clearest undesired clinical consequence of brain functioning as a potential result of chronic antipsychotic exposure, likely from dopaminergic hypersensitivity, without otherwise clear evidence of other irreversible neurobiological changes. Adjunctive psychosocial interventions seem critical for achieving recovery. However, overall, the current literature does not support the safe reduction of antipsychotic dosages by 50% or more in stabilized individuals receiving adjunctive psychosocial interventions. In conclusion, the critical appraisal of the literature indicates that, although chronic antipsychotic use can be associated with undesirable neurologic and metabolic side effects, the evidence supporting its long-term efficacy and effectiveness, including impact on life expectancy, outweighs the evidence against this practice, overall indicating a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio. However, the finding that a minority of individuals diagnosed initially with schizophrenia appear to be relapse free for long periods, despite absence of sustained antipsychotic treatment, calls for further research on patient-level predictors of positive outcomes in people with an initial psychotic presentation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCE

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Cost-effectiveness of olanzapine long-acting injection in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the United States: a micro-simulation economic decision model

OBJECTIVE

To compare, from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States health care system, the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI, depot) with alternative antipsychotic agents including risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, haloperidol-LAI, and oral olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia who have been non-adherent or partially adherent with oral antipsychotics.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 1-year micro-simulation economic decision model was developed to simulate the dynamics of usual care of patients with schizophrenia who continue, discontinue, switch, or restart their medication. The model uses a range of clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation rates by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct health care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Key model outputs include annual total direct cost (US$) per treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness values per additional QALY gained.

RESULTS

Model results found that the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy was more effective (greater QALYs) and less costly than risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, and haloperidol-LAI. In addition, olanzapine-LAI was both more effective and more costly, with an estimated incremental cost/QALY of $26,824 compared to oral olanzapine. The base-case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine-LAI to remain within acceptable cost-effective ranges (<$50,000) in terms of incremental cost/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

This micro-simulation model finds the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy to result in better effectiveness and to be a cost-effective alternative compared to oral olanzapine and the LAI formulations of risperidone, paliperidone, and haloperidol in the treatment of non-adherent and partially adherent patients with schizophrenia in the United States. A key limitation is the assumption how LAI therapies compare to oral counterparts due to sparse head-to-head data. Further research is needed to verify baseline assumptions.