Rationale and design of an independent randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of aripiprazole or haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Hispidulin attenuates the social withdrawal in isolated disrupted-in-schizophrenia-1 mutant and chronic phencyclidine-treated mice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Hispidulin is a flavonoid isolated from Clerodendrum inerme that was found to inhibit intractable motor tics. Previously, we found that hispidulin attenuates hyperlocomotion and the disrupted prepulse inhibition induced by methamphetamine and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, two phenotypes of schizophrenia resembling positive symptoms. Hispidulin can inhibit COMT, a dopamine-metabolizing enzyme in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) that is important for social interaction. Here, we investigated whether hispidulin would affect social withdrawal, one of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

We examined whether acute administration of hispidulin would attenuate social withdrawal in two mice models, juvenile isolated disrupted-in-schizophrenia-1 mutant (mutDISC1) mice and chronic phencyclidine (PCP)-treated naïve mice.

KEY RESULTS

In chronic PCP-treated mice, hispidulin (10 mg·kg^-1 , i.p.) attenuated social withdrawal similar to that observed with dopamine D₁ receptor antagonist (SCH-23390, 0.02 mg·kg^-1 , i.p.) and was mimicked by the selective COMT inhibitor, OR-486 (10 mg·kg^-1 , i.p.). Hispidulin increased extracellular dopamine levels in the PFC of chronic PCP-treated mice. In isolated mutDISC1 mice, hispidulin also reversed social withdrawal. In both models, intra-PFC microinjection of a D₁ agonist (SKF-81297: 10 nmol/mouse/bilateral) reversed the impairment of Ser⁸⁹⁷ phosphorylation at the GluN1 subunit of NMDA receptors, suggesting the association between GluN1 Ser⁸⁹⁷ -phosphorylation and D₁ activation in the PFC exits in both models.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Hispidulin attenuated social withdrawal by activating D₁ receptors indirectly through elevated dopamine levels in the PFC by COMT inhibition. This nature of hispidulin suggests that it a potential novel therapeutic candidate for the treatment of negative symptoms in 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.

NOX2 As a Target for Drug Development: Indications, Possible Complications, and Progress

SIGNIFICANCE

NOX2 is important for host defense, and yet is implicated in a large number of diseases in which inflammation plays a role in pathogenesis. These include acute and chronic lung inflammatory diseases, stroke, traumatic brain injury, and neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases.

RECENT ADVANCES

Recent drug development programs have targeted several NOX isoforms that are implicated in a variety of diseases. The focus has been primarily on NOX4 and NOX1 rather than on NOX2, due, in part, to concerns about possible immunosuppressive side effects. Nevertheless, NOX2 clearly contributes to the pathogenesis of many inflammatory diseases, and its inhibition is predicted to provide a novel therapeutic approach.

CRITICAL ISSUES

Possible side effects that might arise from targeting NOX2 are discussed, including the possibility that such inhibition will contribute to increased infections and/or autoimmune disorders. The state of the field with regard to existing NOX2 inhibitors and targeted development of novel inhibitors is also summarized.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

NOX2 inhibitors show particular promise for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, both acute and chronic. Theoretical side effects include pro-inflammatory and autoimmune complications and should be considered in any therapeutic program, but in our opinion, available data do not indicate that they are sufficiently likely to eliminate NOX2 as a drug target, particularly when weighed against the seriousness of many NOX2-related indications. Model studies demonstrating efficacy with minimal side effects are needed to encourage future development of NOX2 inhibitors as therapeutic agents.

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.

Adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs: survey of doctors' versus patients' perspective

AIMS

Almost no data are available on whether patients and doctors have similar or dissimilar opinions on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects. The aim of this survey is to compare doctors' versus patients' perspective on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects in a sample of patients under the care of the South-Verona mental health services.

METHODS

All patients exposed to antipsychotic drugs during a census period of 6 months were identified. For each included subject, socio-demographic, clinical and treatment data were extracted. Patients' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects was measured by means of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS). The LUNSERS was similarly employed to measure doctors' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects.

RESULTS

During the recruitment period, 243 patients taking antipsychotic drugs were enrolled. The correlation between the total LUNSERS score reported by patients and doctors was very low (correlation coefficient 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.30). On average, patients perceived more adverse effects and with a significant higher distress than doctors. Multivariate analyses found no factors simultaneously associated with both patient and doctor ratings of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that doctors, researchers and health care providers should increasingly consider patient and doctor perspectives as two complementary dimensions that may provide different insights in the evaluation of antipsychotic drugs. Integrating different points of view may represent a way to develop a better therapeutic alliance that might decrease the likelihood of nonadherence.

Effects of antipsychotics on the behavioral deficits in human dominant-negative DISC1 transgenic mice with neonatal polyI:C treatment

Interactions of environmental and genetic factors may play a role in the pathoetiology of schizophrenia. We have recently developed a novel animal model of mental disorders such as schizophrenia by inducing abnormal immune response during the perinatal period in mice with overexpression of the human dominant-negative form of disrupted-in-schizophrenia 1 (DN-DISC1). In the present study, we investigated the effects of antipsychotics on the behavioral deficits in this animal model for mental disorders with gene-environment interaction. Neonatal DN-DISC1 transgenic (DN-DISC1 tg) mice were repeatedly injected with polyriboinosinic-polyribocytidylic acid (polyI:C) for 5 days from postnatal days 2 to 6. The behavioral analyses were performed in adulthood. Clozapine (3mg/kg) or haloperidol (1mg/kg) was administered orally once a day from 1 week before starting a series of behavioral experiments and continued until the end of the study. Cognitive impairment in polyI:C-treated DN-DISC1 tg mice was improved by repeated administration of clozapine while haloperidol had no effect. Both antipsychotics suppressed the augmentation of MK-801-induced hyperactivity in the model mice. Neither clozapine nor haloperidol ameliorated the impairments of social behaviors in polyI:C-treated DN-DISC1 tg mice. These results suggest that the polyI:C-treated DN-DISC tg mice are quite unique as an animal model for mental disorders. Furthermore, this mouse model may be useful for the screening of potential antipsychotic compounds that could be more effective than clozapine in ameliorating negative symptoms and cognitive impairment in schizophrenia.

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

This multisite study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole versus combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia who do not have an optimal response to clozapine. Patients continued to take clozapine and were randomly assigned to receive daily augmentation with aripiprazole or haloperidol. Physicians prescribed the allocated treatments according to usual clinical care. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included severity of symptoms on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and antipsychotic subjective tolerability on the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale. A total of 106 patients with schizophrenia were randomly assigned to treatment. After 3 months, we found no difference in the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment between the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (13.2% vs 15.1%, P = 0.780). The 3-month change of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (-5.9 vs -4.4 points, P = 0.523), whereas the 3-month decrease of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale total score was significantly higher in the aripiprazole group than in the haloperidol group (-7.4 vs -2.0 points, P = 0.006). These results suggest that augmentation of clozapine with aripiprazole offers no benefit with regard to treatment withdrawal and overall symptoms in schizophrenia compared with augmentation with haloperidol. However, an advantage in the perception of adverse effects with aripiprazole treatment may be meaningful for patients.

Add-on of aripiprazole improves outcome in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia

Although clozapine proved effective in treating 30-50% of the cases of resistant schizophrenia, its clinical use is hampered by significant side effects. To overcome this problem, augmentation with other atypical antipsychotics has been attempted, with conflicting results. A clozapine-aripiprazole combination showed interesting properties, due to the favourable complementary pharmacodynamic receptor profile and to the negligible metabolic interactions. In this retrospective case series, we investigated the change in BPRS scores and metabolic features like BMI, fasting glucose, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, functional outcome HoNOS Rome and PSP scores after aripiprazole augmentation in 16 persons with treatment-resistant schizophrenia who were already treated with clozapine. The results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in metabolic indices, psychopathology and functional outcome measures from baseline to endpoint (6weeks) after augmentation with aripiprazole. Statistically significant correlations were observed between psychopathological and behavioural measures at baseline and at endpoint. Linear regression analysis defined a tripartite model, in which item HoNOS Rome 11, measuring autonomy in everyday life, explained nearly half of functional outcome PSP score predictive variance, together with BPRS total psychopathology score and HoNOS Rome total social functioning score. Adequately conducted randomised double-blind studies should provide further specific data highlighting the role of a clozapine-aripiprazole combination in improving functional outcome of persons with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

What is a clinical trial protocol?

Trial protocols are documents that describe the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations and aspects related to the organization of clinical trials. Trial protocols provide the background and rationale for conducting a study, highlighting specific research questions that are addressed, and taking into consideration ethical issues. Trial protocols must meet a standard that adheres to the principles of Good Clinical Practice, and are used to obtain ethics approval by local Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards.

Augmentation of clozapine with aripiprazole in severe psychotic bipolar and schizoaffective disorders: a pilot study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the augmentation of clozapine with aripiprazole in patients with treatment-resistant schizoaffective and psychotic bipolar disorders in a retrospective manner. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions between the two drugs were also investigated.

PATIENTS

Three men and 4 women (median age 36 and 40 years, respectively) who had mean scores at BPRS and CGI-Severity of 59.1+/-12.0 and 5.4+/-0.5, respectively, were treated with clozapine (mean dose 292.9+/-220.7 mg/day). Patients received an adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole (mean dose 6.8 +/- 3.7 mg/day). Clozapine, norclozapine and aripiprazole plasma levels were measured by means of a high performance liquid chromatograpy with UV detection.

RESULTS

Total scores at BPRS decreased significantly (from 59.1+/-12.0 to 51.1+/-15.6, p=0.007) after aripirazole augmentation. In particular, the factors "thought disorder" (from 10.4+/-4.4 to 9.0+/-4.5, p=.047) and "anergia" (from 10.0+/-2.7 to 8.0+/-2.4, p=.018) significantly improved. Concomitant administration of aripiprazole and clozapine did not result in an increase in side effects over the period of treatment. Dose-normalized plasma levels of both clozapine and norclozapine and the clozapine/norclozapine metabolic ratio in all patients did not vary as well.

CONCLUSION

The augmentation of clozapine with aripirazole was safe and effective in severe psychotic schizoaffective and bipolar disorders which failed to respond to atypical antipsychotics. A possible pharmacokinetic interaction between clozapine and aripiprazole does not account for the improved clinical benefit obtained after aripiprazole augmentation.

Polypharmacy in schizophrenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although most guidelines recommend monotherapy in schizophrenia, the combined application of multiple psychotropic agents is very common, especially in treatment-refractory cases. We review the empirical basis supporting these attempts and their relevance for clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Polypharmacy intends to address different aspects of treatment resistance, most importantly insufficient response of psychotic positive and negative symptoms, but also cognitive disturbances, affective comorbidity, obsessive-compulsive syndromes and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs. This review summarizes the current state of evidence of combined antipsychotic treatment strategies and the augmentation of antipsychotics with mood stabilizers, antidepressants and experimental substances.

SUMMARY

In general, rigorous data on combination therapy in schizophrenia are rare and further randomized controlled trials, naturalistic trials and head-to-head-trials are necessary. Some evidence supports a combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants for negative symptoms and comorbid major depressive episodes. The add-on of lithium and mood stabilizers lacks compelling evidence, but might be beneficial for specific subgroups. For treatment-resistant cognitive symptoms, antipsychotic medication should be combined with cognitive remediation, as no pharmacological add-on strategy has gained convincing evidence so far. Treatment-emergent positive and/or negative symptoms under clozapine monotherapy might benefit from adding a second atypical substance.