Health-related quality of life in patients treated with atypical antipsychotics

Comparative effectiveness of clozapine and non-clozapine atypical antipsychotics provided by the Brazilian National Health System in adults with schizophrenia

Introduction

Currently, 21 million people live with the disease, mostly in low to middle-income countries. We aimed to assess the survival of patients with schizophrenia using clozapine compared with non-clozapine atypical antipsychotics provided by the Brazilian National Health System using real-world data.

Materials and methods

This is an open retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia to whom atypical antipsychotics were dispensed by the Brazilian National Health System between 2000 and 2015, based on deterministic-probabilistic pairing of administrative data records. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the cumulative probability of survival and the Cox proportional hazards model was adjusted to assess the risk factors for survival via the hazard ratio (HR).

Result

Participants were 375,352 adults with schizophrenia, with an overall survival rate of 76.0% (95%CI 75.0-76.0) at the end of the cohort. Multivariate analysis indicated a greater risk of death for men (HR=1.30; 95%CI 1.27-1.32), older adults (HR=17.05; 95%CI 16.52-17.60), and in the Southeast region of Brazil (HR=1.20; 95%CI 1.17-1.23). Patients who used non-clozapine atypical antipsychotics had a 21% greater risk of death when compared to those taking clozapine (HR=1.21; 95%CI 1.14-1.29). Additionally, a history of hospitalization for pneumonia (HR=2.17; 95%CI 2.11-2.23) was the main clinical variable associated with increased risk of death, followed by hospitalization for lung cancer (HR=1.82; 95%CI 1.58-2.08), cardiovascular diseases (HR=1.44; 95%CI 1.40-1.49) and any type of neoplasia (HR=1.29; 95%CI 1.19-1.40).

Discussion

This is the first published Brazilian cohort study that evaluated survival in people with schizophrenia, highlighting the impact of atypical antipsychotics. In this real-world analysis, the use of clozapine had a protective effect on survival when compared to olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone.

Antipsychotic-induced movement disorders: integrative review

Objective: To identify movement disorders induced by antipsychotics. Methods: We selected clinical trials from MEDLINE and LILACS databases without publication date restriction. Studies of antipsychotics as a pharmacological intervention, compared or not to other interventions were included (combined treatments were not included). The primary outcome was movement disorders. Two independent reviewers analyzed the studies and summarized them in an electronic spreadsheet. We assessed the quality of the selected studies using the PEDro scale. Results: Five studies were included in this review. In these studies, it was possible to identify the main psychiatric symptoms and their severity, as well as dyskinetic movements. When a reduction in dyskinetic movements was observed in treatments with both atypical and typical antipsychotics, there were adverse effects. Those included excessive sedation, loss of body mass, vomiting, and leukocytopenia. Conclusion: This study verified the findings in literature on the effects of antipsychotics, including the type of medication, dosage, and form of administration, as well as instruments used to assess the outcome related to movement disorders. It was not possible to determine the best therapeutic dose for managing the disorders due to the significant distinction in dosages and medications. All five studies had some effect related to the drug use or its withdrawal.

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

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