Time course of improvement with antipsychotic medication in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Effectiveness of antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia in a real world retrospective observational study in Ethiopia

Antipsychotic medications have become the cornerstone of treatment for schizophrenia. The antipsychotic drugs are high-affinity antagonists of dopamine D2 receptors that are most effective against psychotic symptoms, but antipsychotic drugs can have side effects that overshadow their advantages, like sedation, extrapyramidal symptoms, and weight gain, which are often experienced as adverse effects. In our country, the relative effectiveness of antipsychotic medication as well as their tolerance in schizophrenia patients is not fully addressed. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of antipsychotic medication and associated factors in schizophrenia patients at the psychiatry clinic. An institutional-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative data of patients with schizophrenia disorder based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) that initiated or changed to a new antipsychotic treatment by clinicians assessments from April 1, 2023, to March 1, 2024 at university of Gondar specialized hospital. The effectiveness of prescribed antipsychotic medication was evaluated using the Clinical Global Impressions-Schizophrenia scale (CGI-SCH), inclusive of subscales for positive, negative, depressive, and cognitive symptoms. A total of 608 patients were receiving antipsychotic medications as follows: 118 patients (19.4%) were prescribed haloperidol, 88 patients (14.5%) were taking chlorpromazine, 48 patients (7.9%) received fluphenazine (decanoate), 126 patients (20.7%) were on risperidone, and 228 patients (37.5%) were treating with olanzapine. In total, 64.8% of patients show improvement in the prescribed medications within one year of treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimate 35.2%) for haloperidol, 31 (26.3%) for chlorpromazine, 30 (34.1%) for Fluphenazine, 19 (39.6%) for risperidone, 51 (40.5%), and 83 (36.4%) for olanzapine. Effectiveness was assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I); the overall improvements like negative, positive, depressive, and cognitive symptoms were significantly higher for olanzapine, followed by haloperidol (p < .001). Good adherence (AHR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.5-0.78), history of relapse (AHR = 1.43; 95% CI 1.13-1.82), unemployment (AHR = 1.4; 95% CI 1.06-1.85), and history of suicidal ideation (AHR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.24-2.58) were significant predictors of symptoms improvement. The study found olanzapine is more effective in improving schizophrenia symptoms than other antipsychotic drugs. Medication adherence, symptom relapse, and suicidal thoughts significantly impacted antipsychotic effectiveness in individuals with schizophrenia disorder.

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.

Subcortical volume reduction and cortical thinning 3 months after switching to clozapine in treatment resistant schizophrenia

The neurobiological effects of clozapine are under characterised. We examined the effects clozapine treatment on subcortical volume and cortical thickness and investigated whether macrostructural changes were linked to alterations in glutamate or N-acetylaspartate (NAA). Data were acquired in 24 patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia before and 12 weeks after switching to clozapine. During clozapine treatment we observed reductions in caudate and putamen volume, lateral ventricle enlargement (P < 0.001), and reductions in thickness of the left inferior temporal cortex, left caudal middle frontal cortex, and the right temporal pole. Reductions in right caudate volume were associated with local reductions in NAA (P = 0.002). None of the morphometric changes were associated with changes in glutamate levels. These results indicate that clozapine treatment is associated with subcortical volume loss and cortical thinning and that at least some of these effects are linked to changes in neuronal or metabolic integrity.

Pharmacological treatment algorithms for the acute phase, agitation, and maintenance phase of first-episode schizophrenia: Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology treatment algorithms

OBJECTIVE

There are only a few treatment algorithms for first-episode schizophrenia. Moreover, all the algorithms apply to acute treatment, but not maintenance treatment. Therefore, we aimed to develop acute and maintenance treatment algorithms for first-episode schizophrenia.

METHODS

The algorithm committee of the Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology developed pharmacological treatment algorithms for the acute phase, agitation, and maintenance phase of first-episode schizophrenia.

RESULTS

The acute treatment algorithm focuses on drug-naïve patients with first-episode schizophrenia who are not old or very agitated and recommends first-line treatment with aripiprazole, second- or third-line treatment with risperidone/paliperidone or olanzapine, and fourth-line treatment with clozapine. Long-acting injection of the current antipsychotic agent can be used for poor medication adherence or based on patient preference. The agitation treatment algorithm recommends first-line treatment with lorazepam and second- or third-line treatment with quetiapine or levomepromazine and clearly instructs that the medication used for agitation should be reduced and then discontinued after remission of agitation. The maintenance treatment algorithm recommends the gradual reduction of antipsychotics to the minimum effective dose after remission of positive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that our unique algorithms will be used broadly and will contribute to minimizing patients' burden related to antipsychotic treatment.

Antipsychotic treatment strategies for acute phase and treatment resistance in schizophrenia: A systematic review of the guidelines and algorithms

BACKGROUND

To summarize the current state of knowledge on antipsychotic treatment strategies for the acute phase and treatment resistance in schizophrenia, we conducted a systematic review of guidelines and algorithms.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify clinical guidelines and algorithms on this topic using MEDLINE and Embase. We extracted information on recommendations for antipsychotic treatment strategies, including those for non-response (i.e., increasing antipsychotic dose and switching to another antipsychotic) and treatment resistance.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 17 guidelines/algorithms in various countries that were published after 2011. With respect to antipsychotic dose, most of the guidelines (N = 10/11) agreed starting with a low dose or the lowest licensed/effective dose and then titrating the dose upwards. Regarding antipsychotic treatment strategies for non-response, all of the guidelines (N = 9/9) recommended increasing antipsychotic dose towards the upper end of its approved dose range. Five guidelines suggested for increasing beyond the therapeutic dose range in exceptional cases, while overall 10 guidelines including them were negative about such strategy. The vast majority of guidelines (N = 16/17) recommended switching to another antipsychotic for non-response; however, some guidelines mentioned the lack of evidence for these strategies other than the use of clozapine. All the guidelines (N = 17/17) endorsed initiating clozapine after failure to respond to 2 different antipsychotics. Four guidelines endorsed an early use of clozapine, yet as the third antipsychotic.

CONCLUSION

The currently available guidelines and algorithms recommended increasing antipsychotic dose and switching to another antipsychotic, particularly clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, during the acute phase of schizophrenia for non-response.

Schizophrenia: Antipsychotics and drug development

The introduction of chlorpromazine and the work that ensued provided the foundation to reposition schizophrenia as a biological illness. The present paper follows the evolution of antipsychotics and their shift from 'typical' to 'atypical'. Atypicality is reviewed in reference to its original definition, clozapine's role, and developments that now leave the concept's utility in question. In a similar fashion, drug development is reviewed in the context of the illness' multiple symptom domains, as well as differences captured by clinical staging and phenotyping. Collectively, the evidence argues for a more nuanced approach to drug development that aligns with the illness' heterogeneity and complexity. Just as 'atypical' as a descriptor for antipsychotics may be outdated, it may be time to set aside the notion of developing drugs that treat 'schizophrenia'.

A Repeated Time-to-Positive Symptoms Improvement among Malaysian Patients with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Treated with Clozapine

Clozapine remains the drug of choice for resistant schizophrenia. However, its dose-response relationship is still controversial. The current investigation aimed to develop a repeated time-to-positive symptoms improvement following the onset of clozapine treatment in Malaysian schizophrenia spectrum disorder patients. Data from patients’ medical records in the Psychiatric Clinic, Penang General Hospital, were retrospectively analyzed. Several parametric survival models were evaluated using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling software (NONMEM 7.3.0). Kaplan–Meier-visual predictive check (KM-VPC) and sampling-importance resampling (SIR) methods were used to validate the final model. A total of 116 patients were included in the study, with a mean follow-up of 306 weeks. Weibull hazard function best fitted the data. The hazard of positive symptoms improvement decreased 4% for every one-year increase in age over the median of 41 years (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.96; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), (0.93–0.98)). However, patients receiving a second atypical antipsychotic agent had four-folds higher hazard (aHR, 4.01; 95% CI, (1.97–7.17)). The hazard increased 2% (aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, (1.01–1.03)) for every 1 g increase in the clozapine six months cumulative dose over the median of 34 g. The developed model provides essential information on the hazard of positive symptoms improvement after the first clozapine dose administration, including modifiable predictors of high clinical importance.

Clinical outcomes after clozapine discontinuation in responders versus nonresponders: a retrospective chart review

No studies have compared clinical outcomes after discontinuation of clozapine between patients who responded to clozapine and those who did not. Therefore, we examined 1-year clinical outcomes after clozapine discontinuation in responders and nonresponders. We reviewed data on patients who discontinued clozapine and retrospectively followed them for 1 year. Clinical information was collected from medical records starting at the initiation of clozapine administration, at discontinuation and at 1 year after discontinuation. In addition, clinical status was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression - Severity (CGI-S) and Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) scales. We classified the patients into clozapine responder and nonresponder groups according to the CGI-I score. Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in this study. Olanzapine was the most common antipsychotic prescribed after clozapine discontinuation in both the responder and nonresponder groups. The mean CGI-S score significantly increased 1 year after clozapine discontinuation in the responder group and significantly decreased in the nonresponder group; there was a significant difference in changes in the CGI-S scores between the groups. The difference remained significant after controlling for clozapine dose and duration of treatment. The findings suggest that clinicians may consider continuing and discontinuing clozapine treatment for patients who responded to clozapine and those who did not, respectively.

The relationship between plasma clozapine concentration and clinical outcome: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

There is no report that statistically evaluates the therapeutic reference (350-600 ng/ml) and adverse drug reaction (ADR) range (>1000 ng/ml) of clozapine (CLZ) recommended by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie (AGNP) consensus guidelines in an isolated and large sampling study.

METHODS

We administered CLZ to 131 Japanese patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia in a multicenter cross-sectional study. Plasma CLZ concentrations were assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography using trough sampling. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and severe dose-dependent ADR (sedation, myoclonus, and seizures) were analyzed statistically after adjusting for possible confounders.

RESULTS

The daily CLZ dosage showed a moderately positive relationship with the plasma concentration (r = 0.49, p < 0.001). Every 100 ng/ml increase in plasma CLZ concentration improved the total BPRS score 1.95% (95% CI: 0.89-3.01, p < 0.001) and the odds ratio (OR) 1.38 (95% CI: 1.14-1.66, p = 0.001) for BPRS response. Compared with concentrations below 350 ng/ml CLZ, 350-600 ng/ml (11.12%; 95% CI: 2.52-19.72, p = 0.012) and 600-1000 ng/ml (11.05%; 95% CI: 2.40-19.71, p = 0.013) showed significant improvement in the total BPRS score. Dosages above 1000 ng/ml showed greater improvement (25.36%; 95% CI: 13.08-37.64, p < 0.001) of the total BPRS score but more severe ADRs than dosages below 1000 ng/ml (OR: 31.72; 95% CI: 1.04-968.81, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

The AGNP therapeutic reference range (350-600 ng/ml) is useful, and a dose above 1000 ng/ml is potentially more effective but carries the risk of severe ADRs in the central nervous system.

Clozapine re-challenge and initiation following neutropenia: a review and case series of 14 patients in a high-secure forensic hospital

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine remains the most effective intervention for treatment resistant schizophrenia; however, its use is prohibited following neutropenias. We review neutrophil biology as applied to clozapine and describe the strategies to initiate clozapine following neutropenia used in a case series of 14 consecutive patients rechallenged in a United Kingdom (UK) high-secure psychiatric hospital. We examine outcomes including the use of seclusion and transfer.

METHODS

A case series of 14 male patients with treatment resistant schizophrenia treated with clozapine despite previous episodes of neutropenia between 2006 and 2015 is presented. Data were collected during 2015 and 2019. Using this routinely collected clinical data, we describe the patient characteristics, causes of neutropenia, the strategies used for rechallenging with clozapine and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Previous neutropenias were the result of benign ethnic neutropenia, clozapine, other medications and autoimmune-related. Our risk mitigation strategies included: granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), lithium and watch-and-wait. There were no serious adverse events; at follow up half of the patient's had improved sufficiently to transfer them to conditions of lesser security. There were dramatic reductions in the use of seclusion.

CONCLUSION

Even in this extreme group, clozapine can be safely and effectively re/initiated following neutropenias, resulting in marked benefits for patients. This requires careful planning based on an understanding of neutrophil biology and the aetiology of the specific episode of neutropenia.

Clozapine rechallenge and initiation despite neutropenia- a practical, step-by-step guide

Clozapine remains the only drug treatment likely to benefit patients with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Its use is complicated by an increased risk of neutropenia and so there are stringent monitoring requirements and restrictions in those with previous neutropenia from any cause or from clozapine in particular. Despite these difficulties clozapine may yet be used following neutropenia, albeit with caution. Having had involvement with 14 cases of clozapine use in these circumstances we set out our approach to the assessment of risks and benefits, risk mitigation and monitoring with a practical guide.

Lurasidone Improves Psychopathology and Cognition in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

In addition to clozapine, other atypical antipsychotic drugs pharmacologically similar to clozapine, for example, olanzapine, risperidone, and melperone, are also effective in a similar proportion of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) patients, ~40%. The major goal of this study was to compare 2 doses of lurasidone, another atypical antipsychotic drug, and time to improvement in psychopathology and cognition during a 6-month trial in TRS patients.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

The diagnosis of TRS was based on clinical history and lack of improvement in psychopathology during a 6-week open trial of lurasidone 80 mg/d (phase 1). This was followed by a randomized, double-blind, 24-week trial of lurasidone, comparing 80- and 240-mg/d doses (phase 2).

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Significant non-dose-related improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Total and subscales and in 2 of 7 cognitive domains, speed of processing and executive function, were noted. Twenty-eight (41.8%) of 67 patients in the combined sample improved ≥20% in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Total. Of the 28 responders, 19 (67.9%) first reached ≥20% improvement between weeks 6 and 24 during phase 2, including some who had previously failed to respond to clozapine.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Improvement with lurasidone is comparable with those previously reported for clozapine, melperone, olanzapine, and risperidone in TRS patients. In addition, this study demonstrated that 80 mg/d lurasidone, an effective and tolerable dose for non-TRS patients, was also effective in TRS patients but required longer duration of treatment. Direct comparison of lurasidone with clozapine in TRS patients is indicated.

Assessing the robustness of direct meta-analysis in the presence of heterogeneity

Aim: To assess robustness of findings in recent systematic reviews of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients in the presence of heterogeneity. Methods: Relative efficacy was measured in seven direct comparisons of mean difference (MD) in average positive and negative syndrome scale total score and comparisons between conventional meta-analysis results and four alternate meta-analytic strategies using the difference in MD (ΔMD). Results: MDs in positive and negative syndrome scale total score were smaller in the conventional meta-analyses than those for three of the four analytic strategies. Such differences were small (all ΔMD <4). No considerable differences in effect size were observed in the limit meta-analysis comparison (|ΔMD| <1). Conclusion: The analyses validated the systematic review results and demonstrate the value of confirmatory sensitivity analysis.

Biological Predictors of Clozapine Response: A Systematic Review

Background: Clozapine is the recommended antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) but there is significant variability between patients in the degree to which clozapine will improve symptoms. The biological basis of this variability is unknown. Although clozapine has efficacy in TRS, it can elicit adverse effects and initiation is often delayed. Identification of predictive biomarkers of clozapine response may aid initiation of clozapine treatment, as well as understanding of its mechanism of action. In this article we systematically review prospective or genetic studies of biological predictors of response to clozapine. Methods: We searched the PubMed database until 20th January 2018 for studies investigating "clozapine" AND ("response" OR "outcome") AND "schizophrenia." Inclusion required that studies examined a biological variable in relation to symptomatic response to clozapine. For all studies except genetic-studies, inclusion required that biological variables were measured before clozapine initiation. Results: Ninety-eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review, including neuroimaging, blood-based, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-based, and genetic predictors. The majority (70) are genetic studies, collectively investigating 379 different gene variants, however only three genetic variants (DRD3 Ser9Gly, HTR2A His452Tyr, and C825T GNB3) have independently replicated significant findings. Of the non-genetic variables, the most consistent predictors of a good response to clozapine are higher prefrontal cortical structural integrity and activity, and a lower ratio of the dopamine and serotonin metabolites, homovanillic acid (HVA): 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in CSF. Conclusions: Recommendations include that future studies should ensure adequate clozapine trial length and clozapine plasma concentrations, and may include multivariate models to increase predictive accuracy.

When should governments increase the supply of psychiatric beds?

Low numbers of hospital-based psychiatric beds create problems for people with severe mental illness (SMI), when they face extended emergency department (ED) waits, higher thresholds for admission to an acute bed, and short revolving-door stays with high rates of rehospitalisation. Limited access to inpatient treatment has been associated with higher suicide risk, premature mortality, homelessness, violent crime and incarceration. Ultimately, people with SMI can be transinstitutionalised to the criminal justice system. In the USA, for example, prisons have replaced mental hospitals as the largest institutions housing people with SMI. There is no international consensus on the safe minimum numbers of acute, forensic and rehabilitation beds needed to reduce these risks. As a consequence, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have wide variations in the mix of hospital beds with an average of 71 beds per 100 000 population. Policymakers face difficult choices with few studies to guide decisions on supplying beds. The UK Royal College of Psychiatrists offered a policy framework, which was adapted for Australia. The government of the State of South Australia increased the supplies of crisis, acute and forensic beds to meet a mandatory target to safely reduce mental health boarding in the EDs.

A precision medicine approach for psychiatric disease based on repeated symptom scores

For psychiatric diseases, rich information exists in the serial measurement of mental health symptom scores. We present a precision medicine framework for using the trajectories of multiple symptoms to make personalized predictions about future symptoms and related psychiatric events. Our approach fits a Bayesian hierarchical model that estimates a population-average trajectory for all symptoms and individual deviations from the average trajectory, then fits a second model that uses individual symptom trajectories to estimate the risk of experiencing an event. The fitted models are used to make clinically relevant predictions for new individuals. We demonstrate this approach on data from a study of antipsychotic therapy for schizophrenia, predicting future scores for positive, negative, and general symptoms, and the risk of treatment failure in 522 schizophrenic patients with observations over 8 weeks. While precision medicine has focused largely on genetic and molecular data, the complementary approach we present illustrates that innovative analytic methods for existing data can extend its reach more broadly. The systematic use of repeated measurements of psychiatric symptoms offers the promise of precision medicine in the field of mental health.

One-year symptom trajectories in patients with stable schizophrenia maintained on antipsychotics versus placebo: meta-analysis

BackgroundAs definitions of relapse differ substantially between studies, in investigations involving data aggregation, total scores on clinical rating scales provide a more generalisable outcome.AimsTo compare total symptom trajectories for antipsychotic versus placebo treatment over a 1-year period of maintenance treatment in schizophrenia.MethodRandomised controlled trials with antipsychotic and placebo treatment arms in patients with stable schizophrenia that reported Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total scores at more than one time point were included. Meta-regression analyses were employed using a mixed model.ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 2826 patients were included. Meta-regression analyses revealed significant interactions between group and time (PS<0.0001); both standardised total scores and per cent score changes remained almost unchanged in patients continuing antipsychotic treatment, whereas symptoms continuously worsened over time in those switching to placebo treatment.ConclusionsWhen considering long-term antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia, clinicians must balance symptomatic and functional outcomes.

The critical treatment window of clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: Secondary analysis of an observational study

Previous studies have suggested that a delay in initiating clozapine is one of the predictors of outcomes in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). However, whether there is a critical treatment window of clozapine in TRS and the duration of that window remain unclear. We conducted a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study using a retrospective chart review of 105 patients with TRS who were treated with clozapine. We included 90 patients who remained on clozapine for at least 3 months. The delay in initiating clozapine was an independent contributor to symptomatic improvement based on treatment with clozapine by multiple linear regression analysis. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (area under the curve: 0.78) confirmed 2.8 years was the best predictive cut-off value of delay in initiating clozapine for responses in patients treated with clozapine (sensitivity: 0.66, specificity: 0.84). In patients with a delay in initiating clozapine of ≤2.8 years and a delay in initiating clozapine of >2.8 years, the response rates were 81.6% and 30.8% (risk ratio=2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.80, 3.63), respectively. Clinicians should reduce the delay in initiating clozapine to less than 3 years to improve symptomatic outcomes in TRS and to prevent clozapine-resistant schizophrenia.

Financial incentives for improving adherence to maintenance treatment in patients with psychotic disorders (Money for Medication): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Provision of financial incentives is a promising intervention for improving adherence in patients taking antipsychotic medication. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of this intervention for improving adherence to antipsychotic depot medication in patients with psychotic disorders, irrespective of their previous compliance.

METHODS

We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at three mental health-care institutions in secondary psychiatric care services in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, had been prescribed antipsychotic depot medication or had an indication to start using depot medication, and were participating in outpatient treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with a block size of four, to receive 12 months of either treatment as usual plus a financial reward for each depot of medication received (€30 per month if fully compliant; intervention group) or treatment as usual alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by treatment site and suspected prognostic factors: sex, comorbid substance-use disorder (absent vs present), and compliance with antipsychotic medication in the 4 months before baseline (<50% vs ≥50%). Patients, clinicians, interviewers, and research assistants were masked to group allocation before, but not after, group assignment. The primary outcome was the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), defined as the number of depots of antipsychotic medication received divided by the total number of depots of antipsychotic medication prescribed during the 12 month intervention period. Patients were followed up for 6 months, during which time no monetary rewards were offered for taking antipsychotic medication. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2350.

FINDINGS

Between May 21, 2010, and Oct 15, 2014, we randomly assigned 169 patients to the intervention group (n=84) or the control group (n=85). Primary outcome data were available for 155 (92%) patients. At baseline, the mean MPR was 76·0% (SD 28·2%) in the intervention group versus 77·9% (28·5%) in the control group. At 12 months, the mean MPR was higher in the intervention group (94·3% [SD 11·3%]) than in the control group (80·3% [19·1%]), with an adjusted difference of 14·9% (95% CI 8·9-20·9%; p<0·0001). This difference was maintained throughout the 6 month follow-up period: mean MPR of 86·6% (SD 22·2%) in the intervention group versus 76·0% (22·7%) in the control group (adjusted difference 6·5%, 95% CI 2·0-10·9; p=0·047).

INTERPRETATION

Financial incentives are an effective way of improving adherence to antipsychotic depot medication among patients with psychotic disorders. Further research is needed to study the long-term effects of this intervention.

FUNDING

Dual Diagnosis Center.

Experience of Psychotropic Medication -An Interview Study of Persons with Psychosis

Psychotropic drugs, particularly antipsychotic types, are a cornerstone of the treatment of people with psychosis. Despite numerous studies showing that drug treatment with psychotropic drugs initially alleviates psychiatric symptoms, the proportion of people with mental health problems and symptoms that do not follow doctors' prescriptions, thus exhibiting so-called non-adherence, is considerable. Non-adherence is predominantly seen as a clinical feature and as a patient characteristic that is especially due to patients' poor understanding that they are ill. There is also a widespread notion that non-adherence is of great disadvantage to the patient. This article is based on interviews with 19 persons diagnosed with psychosis. It challenges the notion of patients being either adherent or non-adherent to the doctor's orders. The findings show that persons with psychosis are active agents when it comes to adjusting medication. The interviewees created their own strategies to gain power over treatment with psychotropic drugs. The most common strategies were to adjust the doses or take breaks of varying lengths from the medication. These deviations from prescriptions were important to conceal, not only from their own psychiatrists, but from all psychiatric staff.

Rate and predictors of non-response to first-line antipsychotic treatment in first-episode schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were to (i) estimate the rate of non-response to first-line treatment in first-episode schizophrenia, (ii) evaluate other outcomes associated with symptom non-response and (iii) identify demographic, baseline clinical and early treatment response predictors of non-response.

METHODS

This was a single-site, longitudinal cohort study assessing the effects of treatment with flupenthixol decanoate according to a standardised protocol over 12 months in patients with schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizo-affective disorders.

RESULTS

Of 126 patients who received at least one dose of study medication, 84 (67%) completed the study. Fifteen (12%) met our predefined criteria for non-response. Non-responders were younger and at baseline had more prominent disorganised symptoms, poorer social and occupational functioning, poorer quality of life for psychological, social and environmental domains, more prominent neurological soft signs (NSS) and lower body mass index. At endpoint, the non-responders were characterised by higher levels of symptomatology in all domains, poorer functional outcome, poorer quality of life and greater cognitive impairments. They also had more prominent NSS and lower body mass index. The strongest predictors of non-response were more prominent baseline NSS and poor early (7 weeks) treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

Results are consistent with a lower rate of refractoriness to treatment in first-episode schizophrenia compared with multi-episode samples.

Intramuscular long-acting paliperidone palmitate in acute patients with schizophrenia unsuccessfully treated with oral antipsychotics

In this prospective multicentre, open-label, 6-month study (Paliperidone Palmitate Flexible Dosing in Schizophrenia [PALMFlexS]), tolerability, safety and treatment response with paliperidone palmitate (PP) were explored in patients with acute symptoms of schizophrenia following switching from previously unsuccessful treatment with oral antipsychotics. This pragmatic study was conducted in a large, more representative sample of the general schizophrenia population compared to randomized controlled pivotal trials, to specifically mimic real-world clinical situations. After initiation on Day 1 and Day 8, patients received PP once monthly at flexible doses (50-150mgeq.) intramuscularly. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the percentage of patients achieving ≥30% improvement in PANSS total score from baseline (BL) to last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) endpoint (EP). Safety and tolerability assessments included Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS) total score and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Overall, 212 patients received PP at least once after switching from oral antipsychotics, primarily due to lack of efficacy (45.8%). Significant improvements from BL in mean (SD) PANSS total score were observed from Day 8 onwards (BL to LOCF EP: -31.0 [29.0]; p<0.0001). At endpoint, two-thirds (66.7%) and 43.5% of patients achieved a ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in mean PANSS total score, respectively. PP was associated with significant improvements across secondary measures of symptom severity, subjective well-being, medication satisfaction, illness-related disorders of activity and participation, and patient functioning (p<0.0001; BL to LOCF EP). PP was generally well tolerated, with significant reductions in ESRS total score (p<0.0001) and mainly mild-to-moderate TEAEs. TEAEs reported in ≥5% of patients were injection-site pain (13.7%), insomnia (10.8%), psychotic disorder (10.4%), headache and anxiety (both 6.1%). The PALMFlexS study findings provide valuable pragmatic clinical data on PP treatment in patients with acute schizophrenia previously unsuccessfully treated with oral antipsychotics.

Symptom changes in five dimensions of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale in refractory psychosis

Refractory psychosis units currently have little information regarding which symptoms profiles should be expected to respond to treatment. In the current study, we provide this information using structural equation modeling of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) ratings at admission and discharge on a sample of 610 patients admitted to a treatment refractory psychosis program at a Canadian tertiary care unit between 1990 and 2011. The hypothesized five-dimensional structure of the PANSS fit the data well at both admission and discharge, and the latent variable scores are reported as a function of symptom dimension and diagnostic category. The results suggest that, overall, positive symptoms (POS) responded to treatment better than all other symptoms dimensions, but for the schizoaffective and bipolar groups, greater response on POS was observed relative to the schizophrenia and major depression groups. The major depression group showed the most improvement on negative symptoms and emotional distress, and the bipolar group showed the most improvement on disorganization. Schizophrenia was distinct from schizoaffective disorder in showing reduced treatment response on all symptom dimensions. These results can assist refractory psychosis units by providing information on how PANSS symptom dimensions respond to treatment and how this depends on diagnostic category.

Pharmacotherapy of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a clinical perspective

A significant number of patients with schizophrenia do not respond adequately to an initial antipsychotic trial. As first step within a treatment algorithm for therapy-refractory schizophrenia 'pseudoresistance' should be ruled out (eg, re-evaluation of the diagnosis, comorbidities, compliance and adherence in terms of medication intake, adequate dose and treatment duration, and achievement of sufficient plasma levels). In case of treatment resistance, two strategies that are often used in clinical routine care contain dose increase of the current administered antipsychotic drug (dose escalation, high-dose treatment) and switch to another, new antipsychotic. Although the response rates for both options are generally rather low, we see from the evidence-based perspective a slight advantage of the switching strategy (preferably to an antipsychotic with a different receptor-binding profile) compared to a high-dose treatment. After treatment failures with at least two different antipsychotic drugs, a monotherapy with clozapine is considered to be the treatment option of first choice. At present, pharmacological combination and augmentation strategies cannot be regarded as a generally recommendable evidence-based treatment method. Antipsychotic monotherapy should be preferably sought. In case of combination treatment, it appears more appropriate to combine preferentially two antipsychotics with different receptor-binding profiles. Augmentation of antipsychotics with other agents should be used primarily to treat specific target symptoms.

Does early improvement predict response to the fast-dissociating D₂ receptor antagonist JNJ-37822681 in patients with acute schizophrenia?

Early predictability of sustained response to atypical antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia has important implications for clinical decision making. In order to investigate whether early onset of efficacy correlates with week-6 response for the selective fast-dissociating D2 receptor antagonist JNJ-37822681, we analysed data from a 12-week placebo- and active-controlled (olanzapine) study designed to evaluate efficacy and safety of JNJ-37822681. Factors, including baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, waist circumference, weight, body mass index group, number of previous hospitalisations, age at diagnosis, race, sex and age at study entry, and relative (%) change from baseline on day 3 (early improvement) in PANSS total score, were analysed using logistic regression models and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, to predict the week-6 efficacy response (≥ 30% improvement in PANSS total score). Results showed that week-6 response with JNJ-37822681 30 mg bid treatment could be reliably predicted by improvement in PANSS total score on day 3, the number of previous hospitalisations, and race (80% accuracy [ROC area under curve]). Early improvement (day 3) in PANSS score had the highest predictive value as a single factor across all JNJ-37822681 doses. At a specificity of 70%, sensitivity for predicting week-6 response was: 0.60, 0.64, and 0.74 in the 10-, 20-, and 30 mg bid JNJ-37822681 groups, respectively; 0.40 in olanzapine group. Early improvement in PANSS may be a simple and reliable way to predict sustained response with JNJ-37822681 in patients with acute schizophrenia.

Effects of clozapine on heart rate dynamics and their relationship with therapeutic response in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Previous studies have suggested the utility of nonlinear complexity measures of heart rate variability (HRV) in evaluating the regulatory capacity of the neuroautonomic system. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of clozapine on the nonlinear complexity measures of HRV in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia to find novel electrophysiological markers that indicate response to clozapine treatment. Forty patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia were evaluated during 8 weeks of clozapine monotherapy. For nonlinear complexity measures of HRV, the approximate entropy (ApEn) and sample entropy (SampEn) values were obtained. The response rate to clozapine was 37.5%. The results of multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that the ApEn and the SampEn values of HRV at week 8 were significantly higher in the responders than in the nonresponders. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance showed a significant group by time interaction effect in the ApEn and SampEn indices. The responder group showed an increasing pattern of change in these complexity measures after administration of clozapine, whereas the nonresponder group showed a decreasing pattern of change. These results suggest that the nonlinear dynamic complexity measures of HRV, which indicate the irregularity and complexity of the biosystem, may be useful in evaluating the therapeutic changes of neuroautonomic function in schizophrenia. The response to clozapine treatment is expected to be more favorable when the plasticity of the neuroautonomic system reflected in the nonlinear complexity measures is high.

An open-label study of algorithm-based treatment versus treatment-as-usual for patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The use of an algorithm may facilitate measurement-based treatment and result in more rational therapy. We conducted a 1-year, open-label study to compare various outcomes of algorithm-based treatment (ALGO) for schizophrenia versus treatment-as-usual (TAU), for which evidence has been very scarce.

METHODS

In ALGO, patients with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition) were treated with an algorithm consisting of a series of antipsychotic monotherapies that was guided by the total scores in the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS). When posttreatment PANSS total scores were above 70% of those at baseline in the first and second stages, or above 80% in the 3rd stage, patients proceeded to the next treatment stage with different antipsychotics. In contrast, TAU represented the best clinical judgment by treating psychiatrists.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (21 females, 39.0 ± 10.9 years-old) participated in this study. The baseline PANSS total score indicated the presence of severe psychopathology and was significantly higher in the ALGO group (n = 25; 106.9 ± 20.0) than in the TAU group (n = 17; 92.2 ± 18.3) (P = 0.021). As a result of treatment, there were no significant differences in the PANSS reduction rates, premature attrition rates, as well as in a variety of other clinical measures between the groups. Despite an effort to make each group unique in pharmacologic treatment, it was found that pharmacotherapy in the TAU group eventually became similar in quality to that of the ALGO group.

CONCLUSION

While the results need to be carefully interpreted in light of a hard-to-distinguish treatment manner between the two groups and more studies are necessary, algorithm-based antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia compared well to treatment-as-usual in this study.

Management of schizophrenia in late life with antipsychotic medications: a qualitative review

Although patients with schizophrenia are reported to have excess mortality compared with the general population, many affected patients will nonetheless survive and continue to have the disorder in later life. Consequently, geriatric schizophrenia will be a significant public health concern in the years to come, and evidence-based treatment of schizophrenia in older patients is becoming an urgent issue. However, there has been a paucity of comparative data to guide selection of antipsychotics for schizophrenia in late life. The primary aim of this review was to synthesize the available evidence on management of late-life schizophrenia with antipsychotic medications; a secondary aim was to evaluate treatment resistance in this population. Accordingly, PubMed and EMBASE were searched using the keywords 'antipsychotics', 'age' and 'schizophrenia' to identify psychopharmacological studies of antipsychotics in late-life schizophrenia (last search 30 April 2011). The literature search identified 23 prospective studies of use of antipsychotics for schizophrenia in older patients (generally age ≥65 years), including eight double-blind trials. The sample size was smaller than 40 patients for 52% of the studies. Two of the double-blind studies were post hoc analyses and one was a placebo-controlled trial. In the largest double-blind study, olanzapine (n = 88, median dose 10 mg/day) and risperidone (n = 87, median dose 2 mg/day) were compared in patients not resistant to these therapies, with similar effects. There have also been several open-label trials of these two agents that have shown efficacy and tolerability in non-resistant patients. Evidence on other antipsychotics has been scarce and less robust. The gold standard for treatment-resistant schizophrenia is clozapine. However, almost all of the studies of clozapine to date have effectively excluded older patients with schizophrenia. Only one small study has evaluated clozapine (n = 24, mean dose 300 mg/day) in comparison with chlorpromazine (n = 18, mean dose 600 mg/day) in a difficult-to-treat older population; the investigators reported that both treatments were similarly efficacious. Furthermore, there has been little compelling evidence in favour of or against augmentation of antipsychotics with other psychotropic medications in the older age group. Treatment of non-resistant, late-life schizophrenia with olanzapine and risperidone appears to be supported by the available evidence. However, data on geriatric patients with schizophrenia are generally scarce, particularly for treatment-resistant subpopulations, underscoring the need for more research in this important area.

Defining treatment-resistant schizophrenia and response to antipsychotics: a review and recommendation

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) has been defined mainly by severity of (positive) symptoms and response to antipsychotics derived from a relative change in the representative scales (most frequently ≥ 20% decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale: PANSS), but these definitions have not necessarily been consistent. Integrating past evidence and real-world practicability, we propose that TRS be defined by at least two failed adequate trials with different antipsychotics (at chlorpromazine-equivalent doses of ≥ 600mg/day for ≥ 6 consecutive weeks) that could be retrospective or preferably include prospective failure to respond to one or more antipsychotic trials. In addition, our proposed criteria require both a score of ≥ 4 on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity and a score of ≤ 49 on the Functional Assessment for Comprehensive Treatment of Schizophrenia (FACT-Sz) or ≤ 50 on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scales to define TRS. Once TRS is established, we propose that subsequent treatment response be defined based on a CGI-Change score of ≤ 2, a ≥ 20% decrease on the total PANSS or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores, and an increase of ≥ 20 points on the FACT-Sz or GAF. While these suggestions provide a pragmatic framework for TRS classification, they need to be tested in future trials.

Treatment resistant schizophrenia and response to antipsychotics: a review

BACKGROUND

There remains a lack of agreement regarding criteria for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and definition of response.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted to identify clinical studies of antipsychotics in TRS using PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO (last search 31 July 2011). Psychopharmacological studies with the number of participants of ≥ 40 were evaluated in terms of definitions for TRS and subsequent treatment response.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies of antipsychotics in TRS were reviewed. TRS has been defined mainly by severity in symptoms. Many studies based TRS with at least 2 failed adequate antipsychotic trials (at chlorpromazine equivalent doses of ≥ 1000 mg/day for ≥ 6 weeks), but some studies adopted prospective treatment arm to be certain of sample refractoriness. Treatment response has been defined by a relative change in the representative scales (most commonly ≥ 20% decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), but it sometimes included the absolute criteria such as post-treatment score of ≤ 35 in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or Clinical Global Impression-severity score of ≤ 3 (mild or less severe). Social functioning has not been a primary outcome measure in past pivotal trials, and other important domains of the illness such as cognition and subjective perspectives have not been incorporated into definitions of treatment resistance or response. However, adopting various assessment scales can be time-consuming and complicated, with an additional possibility of disagreement among raters.

CONCLUSION

Defining outcomes in schizophrenia is a challenging task. It is imperative that the field agrees on how this population is better defined and what constitutes treatment response.