Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia: opportunities, limitations, and trial design alternatives

Pharmacological management of neurocognitive impairment in schizophrenia: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment are among the core features of schizophrenia, experienced by up to 75% of patients. Available treatment options for schizophrenia including dopamine antagonists and traditional antipsychotic medications have not been shown to confer significant benefits on cognitive deficits. Contrary to the focus on management of positive symptoms in schizophrenia, cognitive abilities are main predictor of independent living skills, functional abilities, employment, engagement in relapse prevention, and patients' subjective sense of well-being and quality of life. This review aims to provide a summary of recent literature on pharmacological options for the treatment of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of studies from 2011 to 2021 across four electronic databases including PubMed, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and Embase. Human studies using a pharmacological treatment for cognitive impairment in schizophrenia were included.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight eligible publications, representing 11 pharmacological classes, were included in this review. Major limitations involved small sample size, methodological limitations as well as heterogeneity of participants and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall evidence remains inconclusive for any pharmacological classes studied for the treatment of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Methodological limitations in a majority of the studies rendered their findings preliminary. We further discuss possible explanations for these findings that could guide future research.

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia in adults with acute schizophrenia: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia is severely distressing. We aimed to investigate relationships between antipsychotic doses and akathisia risk. We searched for randomised controlled trials that investigated monotherapy of 17 antipsychotics in adults with acute schizophrenia until 06 March 2022. The primary outcome was the number of participants with akathisia, which was analysed with odds ratios (ORs). We applied one-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analyses using restricted cubic splines to model the dose-response relationships. We included 98 studies (343 dose arms, 34,225 participants), most of which were short-term and had low-to-moderate risk of bias. We obtained data on all antipsychotics except clozapine and zotepine. In patients with acute exacerbations of chronic schizophrenia, from moderate to high certainty of evidence, our analysis showed that sertindole and quetiapine carried negligible risks for akathisia across examined doses (flat curves), while most of the other antipsychotics had their risks increase initially with increasing doses and then either plateaued (hyperbolic curves) or continued to rise (monotonic curves), with maximum ORs ranging from 1.76 with 95% Confidence Intervals [1.24, 2.52] for risperidone at 5.4 mg/day to OR 11.92 [5.18, 27.43] for lurasidone at 240 mg/day. We found limited or no data on akathisia risk in patients with predominant negative symptoms, first-episode schizophrenia, or elderly patients. In conclusion, liability of akathisia varies between antipsychotics and is dose-related. The dose-response curves for akathisia in most antipsychotics are either monotonic or hyperbolic, indicating that higher doses carry a greater or equal risk compared to lower doses.

Clinical Outcome Assessment Instruments in Schizophrenia: A Scoping Literature Review with a Focus on the Potential of Patient-reported Outcomes

Objective

The complexity inherent in the treatment of schizophrenia results in a multitude of outcome assessments being employed when conducting clinical trials. Subjective outcome assessments and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) to evaluate clinical meaningfulness have gained traction; however, the extent of application in evaluation of treatments for schizophrenia is unknown. A scoping review was conducted to assess the availability of published psychometric evaluations, including MCIDs, for clinical outcome assessments used to evaluate treatments for schizophrenia.

Method of Research

Key databases (PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO®, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) were searched for studies on schizophrenia published from 2010 to 2020. Secondary sources (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROLABELS™, FDA.gov) were also reviewed. Clinical outcome assessments were organized by type (patient-reported outcomes [PROs], clinician-reported outcomes [ClinROs], observer-reported outcomes [ObsROs]) and further classified by intended use (generic, mental health, schizophrenia). Reliability and internal consistency were evaluated using Cronbach's α. External validity was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Across 140 studies, 66 clinical outcome assessments were identified. MCIDs were reported for eight of the 66 studies. Of these, two were PROs (generic) and six were ClinROs/ObsROs (three mental health-specific, three schizophrenia-specific). Reliability was good across generic, mental health-specific, and schizophrenia-specific categories, whereas external validity was strong mainly for schizophrenia-specific PROs. Overall, ClinROs/ObsROs that focused on mental health had good reliability and strong external validity.

Conclusion

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical outcome assessments used in schizophrenia research during the past ten years. Results highlight the heterogeneity of existing outcomes and a growing interest in PROs for schizophrenia.

Ulotaront: a TAAR1/5-HT1A agonist in clinical development for the treatment of schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Current antipsychotics are postsynaptic dopamine-2(D₂) receptor blockers, which often, but not always, effectively improve acute psychotic symptoms and prevent relapse in schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders, but are associated with various side effects, including parkinsonism, akathisia, sedation/somnolence, and cardiometabolic alterations. Furthermore, the efficacy of current antipsychotics for negative and cognitive symptoms in schizophrenia is limited. Ulotaront is a novel trace-amine-associated receptor-1(TAAR1) agonist with serotonin-1A receptor agonist activity, and without postsynaptic D2-receptor antagonism. Phase 2 clinical data for ulotaront in patients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia are promising regarding the potential improvement in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms.

AREAS COVERED

An overview of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ulotaront is given. Summary of clinical efficacy and safety/tolerability from Phase 1/2-trials, and of ongoing Phase 3-trials, is also given.

EXPERT OPINION

Ulotaront is a promising agent for the treatment of schizophrenia with an apparent benign safety profile, which might provide a much-needed new and different treatment option for various domains of schizophrenia. Data from larger Phase 3-trials, including for relapse prevention, schizophrenia subdomains, and in adolescents, are awaited. If ongoing Phase 3-trials in adults are successful, further research on combination regimens with existing antipsychotics, and in treatment-resistant schizophrenia as well as in mood disorders would be desirable.

Changing the Antipsychotic in Early Nonimprovers to Amisulpride or Olanzapine: Randomized, Double-Blind Trial in Patients With Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Meta-analyses have shown that the majority of patients with schizophrenia who have not improved after 2 weeks of treatment with an antipsychotic drug are unlikely to fully respond later. We hypothesized that switching to another antipsychotic with a different receptor binding profile is an effective strategy in such a situation.

STUDY DESIGN

In total, 327 inpatients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomized to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) or amisulpride (200-800 mg/day). Those patients who had not reached at least 25% Positive-and-Negative-Syndrome-Scale (PANSS) total score reduction from baseline after 2 weeks (the "non-improvers") were rerandomized double-blind to either staying on the same compound ("stayers") or to switching to the other antipsychotic ("switchers") for another 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of patients in symptomatic remission between the combined "switchers" and the "stayers" after 8 weeks of treatment, analyzed by logistic regression.

STUDY RESULTS

A total of 142 nonimprovers were rerandomized at week two. 25 (45.5 %) of the 'stayers' compared to 41 (68.3 %) of the "switchers" reached remission at endpoint (p = .006). Differences in secondary efficacy outcomes were not significant, except for the PANSS negative subscore and the Clinical-Global-Impression-Scale. "Switchers" and "stayers" did not differ in safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching "non-improvers" from amisulpride to olanzapine or vice-versa increased remission rates and was safe. The superiority in the primary outcome was, however, not paralleled by significant differences in most secondary efficacy outcomes and the effect was only apparent at the last visit making replications of longer duration necessary.

Representation and Outcomes of Individuals With Schizophrenia Seen in Everyday Practice Who Are Ineligible for Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Most evidence about efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders relies on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, owing to their strict eligibility criteria, RCTs represent only a part of the real-world population (ie, unselected patients seen in everyday clinical practice), which may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the proportion of real-world individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who would be ineligible for participation in RCTs, and to explore whether clinical outcomes differ between eligible and ineligible individuals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study applied eligibility criteria typically used in RCTs for relapse prevention in schizophrenia spectrum disorders to real-world populations. Individuals with diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum disorders recorded in national patient registries in Finland and Sweden were identified. Individuals who had used antipsychotics continuously for 12 weeks in outpatient care were selected. Individuals were followed up for up to 1 year while they were receiving maintenance treatment with any second-generation antipsychotic (excluding clozapine). Follow-up was censored at treatment discontinuation, initiation of add-on antipsychotics, death, and end of database linkage.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportions of RCT-ineligible individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders owing to any and specific RCT exclusion criteria. The risk of hospitalization due to psychosis within 1-year follow-up in ineligible vs eligible persons were compared using hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age in the Finnish cohort (n = 17 801) was 47.5 (13.8) years and 8972 (50.4%) were women; the mean (SD) age in the Swedish cohort (n = 7458) was 44.8 (12.5) years and 3344 (44.8%) were women. A total of 20 060 individuals (79%) with schizophrenia spectrum disorders would be ineligible for RCTs (Finnish cohort: 14 221 of 17 801 [79.9%]; Swedish cohort: 5839 of 7458 [78.3%]). Most frequent reasons for ineligibility were serious somatic comorbidities and concomitant antidepressant/mood stabilizer use. Risks of hospitalization due to psychosis was higher among ineligible than eligible individuals (Finnish cohort: 18.4% vs 17.2%; HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]; Swedish cohort: 20.1% vs 14.8%; HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.92]). The largest risks of hospitalization due to psychosis were observed in individuals ineligible owing to treatment resistance, tardive dyskinesia, and history of suicide attempts. Finally, with more ineligibility criteria met, larger risks of hospitalization due to psychosis were observed in both countries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

RCTs may represent only about a fifth of real-world individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Underrepresented (ineligible) patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders have moderately higher risks of admission due to psychosis while receiving maintenance treatment than RCT-eligible patients. These findings set the stage for future studies targeting real-world populations currently not represented by RCTs.

Effect of long-acting injectable antipsychotics on hospitalizations and global functioning in schizophrenia: a naturalistic mirror-image study

BACKGROUND

Partial adherence to antipsychotics is the most common cause of relapses and rehospitalization in patients with schizophrenia (SZ), leading to higher health care costs and psychosocial disability. The use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics may improve therapeutic continuity and adherence to treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of switching from oral antipsychotics (OAs) to long-acting antipsychotics.

METHODS

This 1-year mirror-image study evaluated the effect of switching from OAs to LAIs on the reduction of psychiatric hospitalizations and the improvement of global functioning in patients with schizophrenia. Differences in outcomes between second-generation (SGA) LAIs and first-generation (FGA) LAIs were also analyzed.

RESULTS

In all, 166 patients were included: 32.5% treated by FGA-LAIs and 67.5% by SGA-LAIs. There was an overall reduction of 71% in the average number of hospital admissions and an overall improvement of 29.3% in the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score between the previous 12 months and the 12 months following the switching to LAIs. Patients who switched to SGA-LAIs had no significant differences in hospitalization occurrences but a significant improvement in GAF scores when compared with patients who switched to FGA-LAIs.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that using LAIs could be the most adequate treatment choice for SZ patients with a high risk of relapse and low adherence rate. Patients with poorer social functioning may be ideal candidates for SGA-LAIs treatment. Our findings may be of particular interest from a clinical and health care management perspective.

Initiation of quarterly palmitate paliperidone in French clinical practice: results from the observational, cross-sectional OPTIMUS study

PURPOSE

Long-term antipsychotic treatment is key to a positive clinical outcome in schizophrenia. Recent guidelines recommend the prescription of long-acting antipsychotic formulations (LAIs) as early as the first episode in patients with schizophrenia. The OPTIMUS study evaluated real-world use of a new three-monthly paliperidone palmitate formulation (PP3M) in France.

METHODS

For this observational cross-sectional study, all French psychiatrists were invited to enrol patients who had initiated PP3M in the previous 4 months. Snapshot data were collected at a routine consultation, without any modification of clinical practice.

RESULTS

This population of 350 patients with schizophrenia started on PP3M predominantly included single men, living independently with a diagnosis of schizophrenia for a median of 9.3 years. Demographic characteristics were broadly comparable to those reported in other studies on LAIs. Investigators cited treatment simplification (96.9%) and patient comfort (93.3%) as the most common reasons for switching to PP3M; enhancing adherence was mentioned less often (61.1%) with most patients previously considered as adherent, and a majority of them expressing a positive attitude to their treatment. One-third of patients accepted the psychiatrist's proposal to initiate PP3M treatment without any discussion, and relatives were involved in the therapeutic decision-making process in only 23.7% of cases. After initiation, few changes were seen in professional follow-up frequency or concomitant pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities except for a decrease in antipsychotic polytherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

PP3M is mostly prescribed in adherent patients with fairly stable schizophrenia, and the longer dosing interval does not substantially affect patient care.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy for the Management of Schizophrenia: Evidence and Recommendations

Schizophrenia is a debilitating illness with a lifetime prevalence estimate of 0.6% and consists of symptoms from the positive, negative, and cognitive domains. Social support, therapy, psychoeducation, and overall case management are very important aspects of the treatment of schizophrenia. However, as abnormalities in neurotransmission are one of the key findings of schizophrenia pathology, pharmacotherapies are cornerstones of the management of schizophrenia. Antipsychotics have been used as the primary pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia. These agents often have a good effect on reducing positive symptoms, but may not markedly improve negative symptoms or cognitive defects. However, at least 20% of individuals with schizophrenia do not experience a substantial response from monotherapy with antipsychotics. Further, despite evolving treatment protocols and advances in early recognition of the disorder, 70% of patients with schizophrenia require long-term, even lifetime, medication to control their symptoms and do not achieve complete recovery. To address these shortcomings, clinicians and research scientists have explored different combinations of treatments, polypharmacy, to improve the treatment of patients. Antipsychotic polypharmacy has been shown to cause more side effects than monotherapy, which is the main reason why most treatment guidelines caution against it. Antipsychotic monotherapy should be strived for and clozapine should be tried at the latest if two monotherapy trials with other antipsychotics have failed and no absolute contraindications exist. If residual symptoms exist despite trials of adequate dose and duration, other reasons that may reduce treatment effect should be ruled out. Long-acting injectables or blood concentration measurements should be considered to affirm compliance and proper serum levels. Antipsychotic polypharmacy should be considered and discussed with patients from whom the aforementioned procedures do not produce a satisfactory treatment result. In some cases, antipsychotic polypharmacy may produce better results than other forms of treatment augmentation, such as benzodiazepines. In particular, combining aripiprazole with clozapine may be effective in reducing treatment side effects or residual symptoms, and this is likely to hold true for combining other partial dopamine D₂ agonists with clozapine as well, although currently scant data exist. More research is needed, both in controlled but also real-world settings, to define optimal antipsychotic polypharmacy and/or other psychotropic treatment augmentation strategies for specific patient groups and situations.

Experimental Serotonergic Agents for the Treatment of Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia remains one of the most chronic and highly disabling mental disorder. To date, the pathomechanism of schizophrenia is not fully understood and current treatments are characterized by some limitations. First- and second-generation antipsychotics have shown clinical efficacy in treating positive symptoms, while are poorly effective on both negative symptoms and cognitive deficits. Moreover, they can involve many metabolic and neurological side effects, leading to low therapeutic compliance. Many evidence suggested that serotonin may play a complex role in the neurobiology of schizophrenia. Therefore, new drugs targeting 5-HT receptors (5-HTRs) have become an important area of research in schizophrenia in the hope that treatment efficacy may be improved without inducing side effects observed with currently available antipsychotics. Research using the main database sources was conducted to obtain an overview of preclinical and clinical pharmacological 5-HTR-targeted therapies in patients with schizophrenia. We identified 17 experimental serotonergic agents, under study for their potential use in schizophrenia treatment. Particularly, AVN-211, LuAF-35700 and Brilaroxazine are currently under clinical development. Moreover, some compounds showed some pro-cognitive and antipsychotic-like properties in animal models, while other agents showed contradictory effects in improving symptoms and were removed from the development program. Although some serotonergic drugs seem promising for improving the treatment of schizophrenia, further studies regarding the pathophysiological mechanisms of schizophrenia and novel compounds as well as high-quality trials are necessary in order to improve schizophrenia outcomes.

Clinical Validity of Subjective Clinical Prognosis in First Episode Psychosis Schizophrenia Patients: An Analysis of Data from the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST) Study

PURPOSE

This study examined the validity of subjective clinical prognosis (SCP), a commonly used clinical tool, in first episode psychosis patients included in the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST) study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study comprised 455 patients from the EUFEST trial (mean age 25.92, SD=5.45; 188 (41.31%) women, 267 (58.69%) men). SCP was classified into three mutually exclusive groups: "good prognosis" (GP) (n=265), "average prognosis" (AP) (n=131), and "poor prognosis" (PP) (n=59). The validity of the SCP was assessed by investigating the differences between the SCP groups and completer or responder status of the patients, during 1 year of the trial.

RESULTS

The proportion of completers was significantly higher in the GP group (64.4%) compared to the AP group (25.6%) (OR=1.62, 95% CI=1.062-2.476, p<0.031) and the PP group (10%) (OR=2.17, 95% CI=1.226-3.853, p<0.009) throughout the whole duration of the trial. In what concerns responsiveness, a significantly higher number of responders were registered in the GP group compared to the AP and the PP groups in the first three months of treatment, but this outcome did not persist afterwards.

CONCLUSION

In terms of its predictive value at first episode schizophrenic patients, SCP seems to be reliable for treatment completion, but has a limited utility in what concerns responsiveness to treatment. This finding suggests the necessity of creating a prediction model potentially including, besides SCP, other measurement-based variables.

Discontinuation rates during long-term, second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injection treatment: A systematic review

AIM

The aim of this review was to analyze the discontinuation rates during long-term treatment with second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injection (SGA-LAI) in adults with either schizophrenia spectrum or bipolar disorders.

METHODS

A systematic search (PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library) of studies published in English (1 January 2001-12 October 2018) identified 1214 abstracts, which were analyzed independently by the author and two colleagues. Studies were retrieved and reviewed if they reported primary data on the discontinuation rate before the study end during treatment lasting ≥36 weeks. Data were extracted from 51 articles meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

In all head-to-head comparisons, and studies on patients with schizophrenia spectrum or bipolar disorders, the discontinuation rate before the study end in patients treated with SGA-LAI was, at best, similar to that recorded in patients treated with first-generation antipsychotics in either oral or LAI formulations or with oral SGA. In particular, in most of the SGA-LAI long-term studies, the rate of premature dropout was higher than 50%.

CONCLUSION

Reviewed data suggest that SGA-LAI show no clear superiority over less expensive drugs (including first-generation antipsychotic LAI and oral antipsychotic formulations) in reducing the risk of premature antipsychotic discontinuation. Thus, alternative strategies should be considered to improve medication persistence and lower discontinuation rates in patients with severe psychiatric disorders. Planning tailored, individualized, and integrated approaches (including frequent clinical evaluations, and behavioral or other flexible techniques adaptable to different settings and patients) may be an effective intervention for improving patient adherence in long-term pharmacological treatment regimens.

One-year mirror-image study of the impact of olanzapine long-acting injection on healthcare resource utilization and costs in severe schizophrenia

Olanzapine long-acting injections (OLAIs) are often prescribed to patients with severe schizophrenia who are typically excluded from randomized clinical trials. To date, no mirror-image study has examined the impact of OLAIs on healthcare resource utilizations in these patients. We conducted a retrospective, one-year mirror-image study of OLAIs on 40 patients with severe schizophrenic disorder. Illness severity was defined by failure to respond to two sequential antipsychotics. Outcomes included: (i) healthcare resource utilizations via hospitalization admissions, bed days, outpatient visits, and inpatient service costs computations (ii) clinical efficacy through changes in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and in the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia Scale (CGI-SCH), and (iii) adverse effects. After one year, OLAIs were associated with significant decreases of 65.7%, 86.2% and 86.2% in hospitalization admissions, bed days, and inpatient service costs respectively. A significant mean change of -0.47 and -0.63 was determined the BPRS and the CGI-SCH scores, respectively. There were no significant differences in the number of outpatient visits and adverse effects, except for post-injection sedation/delirium syndrome whose incidence was 0.30% per injection. This mirror-image study provides the first evidence that prescribing OLAIs reduces in a cost-effective manner average bed days and hospital admissions in patients with severe schizophrenia.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Long-acting Injectable and Oral Second-generation Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting injectable (LAI) and oral second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in treating schizophrenia by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, as well as five Korean databases, were systemically searched to identify studies published from 2000 to 16 April 2015, which compared the efficacy and safety of LAI and oral SGAs. Using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses were conducted. In addition, the GRADE (the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was applied to explicitly assess the quality of the evidence. A total of 30 studies including 17 RCTs and 13 observational studies were selected. The group treated with LAI SGAs was characterized by significantly lower relapse rates, longer times to relapse and fewer hospital days, but also by a higher occurrence of extrapyramidal syndrome and prolactin-related symptoms than that in the group treated with oral SGAs. Our findings demonstrate that there is moderate to high level of evidence suggesting that in the treatment of schizophrenia, LAI SGAs have higher efficacy and are associated with higher rates of extrapyramidal syndrome and prolactin-related symptoms. Additionally, the use of LAI SGAs should be combined with appropriate measures to reduce dopamine D2 antagonism-related symptoms.

The acute efficacy of antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a review of recent meta-analyses

Schizophrenia is the eighth leading cause of disability worldwide in people aged 15-44 years. Before antidopaminergic antipsychotics were introduced in the 1950s, no effective medications existed for the treatment of schizophrenia. This review summarizes key meta-analytic findings regarding antipsychotic efficacy in the acute treatment of schizophrenia, including clozapine in treatment-resistant patients. In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials conducted in multi-episode schizophrenia, antipsychotics outperformed placebo regarding total symptoms, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, depressive symptoms, quality of life and social functioning. Amongst these outcomes, the standardized mean difference for overall symptoms was largest, that is, 0.47 (95% credible interval = 0.42-0.51), approaching a medium effect size, being reduced to 0.38 when publication bias and small-trial effects were accounted for. A comparison of two meta-analyses indicated that first-episode patients, compared with multi-episode patients, were more likely to have at least minimal treatment response [⩾20% Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score reduction: 81% versus 51%] and good response (⩾50% PANSS/BPRS score reduction: 52% versus 23%). In multi-episode schizophrenia, no response or worsening after 2 weeks of a therapeutic antipsychotic dose was highly predictive of not achieving a good response at endpoint (median treatment = 6 weeks: specificity = 86%; positive predictive value = 90%), suggesting a change in treatment should be considered in such cases. In first-episode psychosis, adequately dosed antipsychotic treatment trials for more than 2 weeks are recommended before using no response or worsening as a decision point for aborting a given antipsychotic. In clearly defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine generally outperformed other antipsychotics, especially when dosed appropriately (target = 3-6 months' duration; trough clozapine level ⩾350-400 μg/L) with a response rate (⩾20% PANSS/BPRS) of 33% by 3 months of treatment. High antipsychotic doses and psychotropic combinations are unlikely to be superior to standard doses of antipsychotic monotherapy. Acute antipsychotic efficacy in schizophrenia depends on the targeted symptom domain (greater efficacy: total and positive symptoms, lesser efficacy: negative symptoms, depressive symptoms, social functioning and quality of life). Greater antipsychotic efficacy is associated with higher total baseline symptom severity, treatment-naïveté/first-episode status, shorter illness duration, and trials that are nonindustry sponsored and that have a lower placebo effect. The heterogeneity of antipsychotic response across individuals and key symptom domains, the considerable degree of nonresponse/treatment resistance in multi-episode patients, and the adverse effect potential of antipsychotics are major limitations, underscoring the need to develop new medications for the treatment of schizophrenia. Drug development should include matching patient subgroups, which are identified by means of clinical and biomarker variables, to mechanisms of action of novel medications, targeting specific symptom domains, and investigating mechanisms of action other than dopaminergic blockade.

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.

Early improvement in PANSS-30, PANSS-8, and PANSS-6 scores predicts ultimate response and remission during acute treatment of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

PANSS-8 and PANSS-6 are derived from the 30-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-30). We investigate whether PANSS-8 or PANSS-6 is a reliable, valid, sensitive to change measure, and scalable, and whether early improvement using them can predict response/remission.

METHOD

Data were from 3 trials for 270 schizophrenia inpatients receiving antipsychotics. Internal consistency, validity, sensitivity to change, and scalability using PANSS-30, PANSS-8, and PANSS-6 at each assessment were examined. Early improvement was defined as at least 20% reduction of PANSS-30, PANSS-8, or PANSS-6 scores at week 2. Response was defined as at least 40% reduction of PANSS-30 and remission as a score of PANSS-8 ≤ 3 on each item at endpoint. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine which rating scale had better discriminative capacity.

RESULTS

PANSS-8 and PANSS-6 showed acceptable internal consistency, were highly correlated with PANSS-30, and had sensitivity to change. PANSS-8 and PANSS-6 were scalable at each assessment, except for PANSS-6 at baseline. Early improvement using PANSS-8 or PANSS-6 had comparable predictive values with that of PANSS-30 for response/remission.

CONCLUSION

PANSS-8 and PANSS-6 are clinically useful measures. Early improvement, regardless of whether PANSS-30, PANSS-8, or PANSS-6 is used, is a statistically significant predictor of response/remission.

Bridging the Measurement Gap Between Research and Clinical Care in Schizophrenia: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-6 (PANSS-6) and Other Assessments Based on the Simplified Negative and Positive Symptoms Interview (SNAPSI)

There is currently a "measurement gap" between research and clinical care in schizophrenia. The main reason behind this gap is that the most widely used rating scale in schizophrenia research, the 30-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), takes so long to administer that it is rarely used in clinical practice. This compromises the translation of research findings into clinical care and vice versa. The aim of this paper is to discuss how this measurement gap can be closed. Specifically, the main points of discussion are 1) the practical problems associated with using the full 30-item PANSS in clinical practice; 2) how the brief, six-item version of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-6) was derived empirically from the full 30-item PANSS and what the initial results obtained with PANSS-6 entail; and 3) how PANSS-6 ratings, guided by the newly developed, 15-25-minute, stand-alone Simplified Negative and Positive Symptoms Interview (SNAPSI), might help bridge the measurement gap between research and clinical care in schizophrenia. The full 30-item PANSS is often used in research studies, but is too time consuming to allow for routine clinical use. Recent studies suggest that the much briefer PANSS-6 is a psychometrically valid measure of core positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia and that the scale is sensitive to symptom improvement following pharmacological treatment. SNAPSI is a brief interview that yields the information needed to rate PANSS-6 (and other brief rating scales). We believe that PANSS-6 ratings guided by SNAPSI will help bridge the measurement gap between research and clinical care in schizophrenia.

Transdiagnostic Clinical Global Impression Scoring for Routine Clinical Settings

Although there is great interest in the improving the ability to track patients' change over time in routine clinical care settings, no standardized transdiagnostic measure is currently available for busy clinicians to apply. The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales are simple measures widely used as outcomes in psychiatric clinical trials. However, the CGI suffers from poorly defined scoring anchors. Efforts to improve the anchors by enhancing the anchor descriptions have proven useful but are limited by being disease-specific, thereby acting as a barrier to the routine clinical adoption of the CGI. To inform the development of more broadly applicable CGI scoring anchors, we surveyed 24 clinical trial investigators, asking them to rank-order seven elements that inform their CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scoring. Symptom severity emerged as the most important element in determining CGI-S scores; the functional status of the patient emerged as a second element. Less importance was given to self-report symptom scores, staff observations, or side effects. Relative rankings of the elements' importance did not differ by investigators' experience nor time usually spent with patients. We integrated these results with published illness-specific CGI anchors to develop the Transdiagnostic CGI (T-CGI), which employs standardized scoring anchors applicable across psychiatric illnesses. Pending validity and reliability evaluations, the T-CGI may prove well-suited for inclusion in routine clinical settings and for incorporation into electronic medical records as a simple and useful measure of treatment efficacy.

Clinical trial methodology to assess the efficacy/effectiveness of long-acting antipsychotics: Randomized controlled trials vs naturalistic studies

Schizophrenia presents unique difficulties in clinical trial design associated with the condition's variable presentation and clinical course, and multiple features influencing affect, cognition, volition and perception. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are explanatory studies using a carefully selected patient population, predefined assessment intervals and, generally, symptom-focused endpoints. Naturalistic studies are pragmatic, with no active intervention, and outcomes that are generally those used in clinical practice (e.g. hospitalization, relapse rate). Both naturalistic studies and RCTs have pros and cons, making it difficult for physicians in clinical practice to apply research findings to their own treatment decisions. The choice of clinical trial design can have a significant impact on the comparative effectiveness or efficacy of drugs. This is particularly true for studies comparing long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics with oral antipsychotics in schizophrenia, in which RCTs generally show no benefit for LAIs over oral drugs, whereas observational studies do. The more pragmatic the study design, the more likely it is to show a benefit for LAIs versus oral therapy. This article reviews the pros and cons of different study types, using published examples. Criteria are outlined to help physicians design appropriate prospective studies in schizophrenia including the relevant pragmatic and/or explanatory features, as required.

Multisite prediction of 4-week and 52-week treatment outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis: a machine learning approach

BACKGROUND

At present, no tools exist to estimate objectively the risk of poor treatment outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis. Such tools could improve treatment by informing clinical decision-making before the commencement of treatment. We tested whether such a tool could be successfully built and validated using routinely available, patient-reportable information.

METHODS

By applying machine learning to data from 334 patients in the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number, ISRCTN68736636), we developed a tool to predict poor versus good treatment outcome (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] score ≥65 vs GAF <65, respectively) after 4 weeks and 52 weeks of treatment. To enable the unbiased estimation of the predictive system's generalisability to new patients, we used repeated nested cross-validation to prevent information leaking between patients used for training and validating the models. In pursuit of everyday clinical applicability, we retrained the 4-week outcome predictor with only the top ten predictors of the pooled prediction system and then tested this tool in 108 independent patients with 4-week outcome labels. Discontinuation and readmission to hospital events in patients with predicted poor versus good outcomes were assessed with Kaplan-Meier log-rank analyses, whereas generalised linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the GAF-based predictions against several clinically meaningful outcome indicators, including treatment adherence, symptom remission, and quality of life.

FINDINGS

The generalisability of our outcome predictions were estimated with cross-validation (test-fold balanced accuracy [BAC] of 75·0% for 4-week outcomes and 73·8% for and 52-week outcomes), and leave-site-out validation across 44 European sites (BAC of 72·1% for 4-week outcomes and 71·1% for 52-week outcomes). We identified a smaller group of ten predictors still providing a BAC of 71·7% in 108 patients never used for model discovery. Unemployment, poor education, functional deficits, and unmet psychosocial needs predicted both endpoints, whereas previous depressive episodes, male sex, and suicidality additionally predicted poor 1-year outcomes. 52-week predictions identified patients at risk for symptom persistence, non-adherence to treatment, readmission to hospital and poor quality of life. Specifically among these patients, amisulpride and olanzapine showed superior efficacy versus haloperidol, quetiapine, and ziprasidone.

INTERPRETATION

Our results suggest that prognostic models operating on brief, patient-reportable pre-treatment data might provide useful insight into individualised outcome trajectories, optimising treatment selection, and targeted clinical trial designs. To embed these tools into real-world care, replication is needed in external first-episode samples with overlapping variables, which are not available in the field at present.

FUNDING

The European Group for Research in Schizophrenia.

A Meta-analytic Review of Non-specific Effects in Randomized Controlled Trials of Cognitive Remediation for Schizophrenia

Cognitive remediation (CR) has been found to improve cognitive performance among adults with schizophrenia in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, improvements in cognitive performance are often observed in the control groups of RCTs as well. There has been no comprehensive examination of change in control groups for CR, which may inform trial methodology and improve our understanding of measured outcomes for cognitive remediation. In this meta-analysis, we calculated pre-post change in cognitive test performance within control groups of RCTs in 32 CR trials (n = 794 participants) published between 1970 and 2011, and examined the association between pre-post change and sample size, duration of treatment, type of control group, and participants' age, intelligence, duration of illness, and psychiatric symptoms. Results showed that control groups in CR trials showed small effect size changes (Cohen's d = 0.12 ± 0.16) in cognitive test performance over the trial duration. Study characteristics associated with pre-post change included participant age and sample size. These findings suggest attention to change in control groups may help improve detection of cognitive remediation effects for schizophrenia.

Trends in the access to and the use of antipsychotic medications and psychotropic co-treatments in Asian patients with schizophrenia

To date, antipsychotics remain the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia and related disorders although other psychotropic medications and non-pharmaceutical interventions have been used adjunctively in some patients and settings. Regular surveys on access to and prescription patterns of psychotropic medications in clinical practice are an important and efficient way of examining the use and time trends of treatments in a given population and region. Unlike developed Western countries, Asian countries have not fully undergone deinstitutionalisation of the severely and chronically mentally ill, and community-based mental health services are still under-developed. As a result, a large number of psychiatric patients still receive treatments in psychiatric hospitals. Moreover, there have been very limited studies examining access to and prescription patterns of psychotropic medications for schizophrenia patients in Asian countries. In this paper, we focus on the only international project on the use of psychotropic medications in schizophrenia patients in selected East and Southeast Asian countries/territories summarising its major findings. Most of the first- and second-generation antipsychotics (FGAs and SGAs) are available in Asian countries, but the access to psychotropic medications is largely affected by socio-cultural and historical contexts, health insurance schemes, health care policy, medication cost and consumers' preference across different countries/territories. Overall, the proportional use of FGAs, high dose antipsychotic treatment and antipsychotic polypharmacy have decreased, while the use of SGAs and antidepressants have increased and the utilisation of benzodiazepines and mood stabilisers has remained relatively stable over time. However, within these general trends, there is great inter-country variation regarding the psychotropic prescribing patterns and trends in Asian schizophrenia patients that also seems to differ from data in many Western countries.

Glutamatergic agents for schizophrenia: current evidence and perspectives

Suboptimal outcomes in schizophrenia are a consequence of lacking insight into the etiology, biomarkers and treatment-relevant subgroups, the therapeutic restriction to dopaminergic-modulating antipsychotics that fail to significantly improve negative and cognitive symptoms, non-adherence, and, in the case of treatment-resistance, the underutilization of clozapine. Evidence suggests additional, extra-dopaminergic abnormalities in amino acid neurotransmission, particularly the glutamatergic system. Antidopaminergic antipsychotics modulate this system on several levels, as do mood stabilizers, including lamotrigine, topiramate and pregabaline. Recently, agonists at metabotropic glutamate receptors and glycine uptake inhibitors failed in large placebo-controlled trials for schizophrenia. Problems to overcome for successfully leveraging glutamatergic agents for schizophrenia are patient selection, focus on positive symptoms and late disease stages, and dose-response relationships. Because glutamate guides processes of brain development and maturation, clinical research should focus on the at-risk mental state or first-episode psychosis, address cognition and negative symptoms and use monotherapy designs in parallel to augmentation strategies.

Methodological issues associated with preclinical drug development and increased placebo effects in schizophrenia clinical trials

Recent failures to detect efficacy in clinical trials investigating pharmacological treatments for schizophrenia raise concerns regarding the potential contribution of methodological shortcomings to this research. This review provides an examination of two key methodological issues currently suspected of playing a role in hampering schizophrenia drug development; 1) limitations on the translational utility of preclinical development models, and 2) methodological challenges posed by increased placebo effects. Recommendations for strategies to address these methodological issues are addressed.

Treatment of early non-response in patients with schizophrenia: assessing the efficacy of antipsychotic dose escalation

BACKGROUND

Early non-response to antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia has been shown in multiple studies to predict poor response at short-term trial endpoint. Therefore, strategies to address the challenge of non-improvement early in the course of treatment are needed. A novel trial design was developed to assess the potential utility of antipsychotic dose escalation in patients with an inadequate initial treatment response. This design was embedded in a study intended to assess the efficacy of low dose lurasidone in patients with schizophrenia. The purpose of this report is to describe the background, rationale and design of this study that included a novel method for the assessment of the potential for dose-response in early non-responding patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this 6-week, international, multicenter, double-blind trial, eligible adults with acute schizophrenia were randomized to receive fixed doses of lurasidone 20 mg/day, 80 mg/day (active control), or placebo in a 1:2:1 ratio. Patients initially randomized to lurasidone 80 mg/day who did not have a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score improvement ≥ 20% at Week 2 were re-randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either lurasidone 80 mg/day or lurasidone 160 mg/day for the remainder of the trial. All other groups remained on their initially assigned treatment. The formal primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose lurasidone (20 mg/day) compared to placebo; secondary objectives included evaluating the efficacy of lurasidone 80 mg/day versus 160 mg/day in early non-responders, and evaluating the efficacy of lurasidone in all subjects initially randomized to 80 mg/day versus placebo.

DISCUSSION

Since a lack of early improvement predicts poor response to short-term antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia, several treatment strategies have been proposed to enhance treatment outcome in early non-responders. A novel clinical trial design involving a placebo arm and re-randomization of early non-responders to increased or maintained antipsychotic dose was developed. The study design described in this report provides a robust method to assess the value of antipsychotic dose escalation in patients with schizophrenia who demonstrate poor initial treatment response.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01821378; initial registration March 22, 2013.

The role of long-acting injectable antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a critical appraisal

Despite their widespread use, long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics (APs) are often regarded with some negativity because of the assumption of punishment, control and insufficient evolution towards psychosocial development of patients. However, LAI APs have proved effective in schizophrenia and other severe psychotic disorders because they assure stable blood levels, leading to a reduction of the risk of relapse. Therapeutic opportunities have also arisen after introduction of newer, second-generation LAI APs in recent years. Newer LAI APs are more readily dosed optimally, may be better tolerated and are better suited to integrated rehabilitation programmes. This review outlines the older and newer LAI APs available for the treatment of schizophrenia, with considerations of past and present pharmacological and therapeutic issues. Traditional, evidence-based approaches to systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials are of limited utility in this area so this paper's blending of experimental trials with observational research is particularly appropriate and effective.

Long-acting injectable vs oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

While long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are hoped to reduce high relapse rates in schizophrenia, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenged the benefits of LAIs over oral antipsychotics (OAPs).

METHODS

Systematic review/meta-analysis of RCTs that lasted ≥ 6 months comparing LAIs and OAPs. Primary outcome was study-defined relapse at the longest time point; secondary outcomes included relapse at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, drug inefficacy (ie, relapse + discontinuation due to inefficacy), hospitalization, and nonadherence.

RESULTS

Across 21 RCTs (n = 5176), LAIs were similar to OAPs for relapse prevention at the longest time point (studies = 21, n = 4950, relative risk [RR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.08, P = .35). The finding was confirmed restricting the analysis to outpatient studies lasting ≥ 1 year (studies = 12, RR = 0.93, 95% CI:0.71-1.07, P = .31). However, studies using first-generation antipsychotic (FGA)-LAIs (studies = 10, RR = 0.82, 95% CI:0.69-0.97, P = .02) and those published ≤ 1991 (consisting exclusively of all 8 fluphenazine-LAI studies; RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.96, P = 0.02) were superior to OAPs regarding the primary outcome. Pooled LAIs also did not separate from OAPs regarding any secondary outcomes. Again, studies using FGA-LAIs and those published ≤ 1991 were associated with LAI superiority over OAPs, eg, hospitalization and drug inefficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

In RCTs, which are less representative of real-world patients than naturalistic studies, pooled LAIs did not reduce relapse compared with OAPs in schizophrenia patients. The exceptions were FGA-LAIs, mostly consisting of fluphenazine-LAI studies, which were all conducted through 1991. Because this finding is vulnerable to a cohort bias, studies comparing FGA-LAI vs second-generation antipsychotics-LAI and LAI vs OAP RCTs in real-world patients are needed.

Is the ongoing use of placebo in relapse-prevention clinical trials in schizophrenia justified?

BACKGROUND

Placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) continue to be required or recommended by regulatory authorities for the licensing of new drugs for schizophrenia, despite ongoing concerns regarding the risks to trial participants.

METHODS

In this article we consider the scientific and ethical pros and cons associated with use of placebo in RCTs in schizophrenia, systematically review the published relapse-prevention placebo-controlled RCTs with second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in schizophrenia, and examine the risks associated with these trials.

RESULTS

We identified 12 studies involving 2842 participants of which 968 received placebo. Relapse rates were 56% for placebo and 17.4% for active treatment groups. There is a lack of well-designed longitudinal studies investigating the psychosocial and biological consequences of exposure to placebo, to treatment discontinuation and to relapse in schizophrenia.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of such studies it is risky to assume that patients are not at risk of significant distress and long-term harm, and therefore it is difficult to justify the ongoing use of placebo in relapse-prevention RCTs in schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety of individual second-generation vs. first-generation antipsychotics in first-episode psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Because early treatment choice is critical in first-episode schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (FES), this meta-analysis compared efficacy and tolerability of individual second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in FES. We conducted systematic literature search (until 12 December 2010) and meta-analysis of acute, randomized trials with ≥1 FGA vs. SGA comparison; patients in their first episode of psychosis and diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders; available data for psychopathology change, treatment response, treatment discontinuation, adverse effects, or cognition. Across 13 trials (n = 2509), olanzapine (seven trials) and amisulpride (one trial) outperformed FGAs (haloperidol: 9/13 trials) in 9/13 and 8/13 efficacy outcomes, respectively, risperidone (eight trials) in 4/13, quetiapine (one trial) in 3/13 and clozapine (two trials) and ziprasidone (one trial) in 1/13, each. Compared to FGAs, extrapyramidal symptom (EPS)-related outcomes were less frequent with olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine, but weight gain was greater with clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone. Pooled SGAs were similar to FGAs regarding total psychopathology change, depression, treatment response and metabolic changes. SGAs significantly outperformed FGAs regarding lower treatment discontinuation, irrespective of cause, negative symptoms, global cognition and less EPS and akathisia, while SGAs increased weight more (p < 0.05-0.01). Results were not affected by FGA dose or publication bias, but industry-sponsored studies favoured SGAs more than federally funded studies. To summarize, in FES, olanzapine, amisulpride and, less so, risperidone and quetiapine showed superior efficacy, greater treatment persistence and less EPS than FGAs. However, weight increase with olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine and metabolic changes with olanzapine were greater. Additional FES studies including broader-based SGAs and FGAs are needed.

Amphetamine effects on MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery performance in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Cognitive deficits contribute strongly to functional disability in schizophrenia. The cost of identifying and testing candidate procognitive agents is substantial. Conceivably, candidate drugs might be first identified by positive effects on cognitive domains in sensitive subgroups of healthy subjects. Here, we examined whether the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) detected procognitive drug effects in subgroups of healthy individuals.

METHODS

The effects of 20 mg amphetamine (AMPH) on MCCB performance were tested in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of 60 healthy adults. AMPH effects were compared in subgroups of subjects characterized by low vs. high placebo MCCB scores, and by extreme values on personality subscales associated with schizophrenia-relevant biomarkers.

RESULTS

AMPH produced autonomic and subjective effects, but did not significantly change MCCB composite scores or individual domain scores across the inclusive sample of 60 subjects. AMPH-induced MCCB changes were significantly (inversely) related to placebo MCCB performance: among individuals with lower placebo scores, AMPH enhanced performance; while among individuals with higher placebo scores, it impaired performance. A potential impact of regression to the mean was assessed and could not be ruled out. Both placebo MCCB performance and AMPH effects on MCCB scores were significantly related to personality domains associated with schizophrenia-linked genetic- and/or neurophysiological substrates.

CONCLUSIONS

Among healthy adults, AMPH effects on MCCB performance were detected only among specific subgroups, and in specific cognitive domains. Strategies that utilize drug-induced changes in MCCB performance in healthy subjects to screen for candidate procognitive drugs should consider the use of "enriched" subgroups with specific neurocognitive or personality characteristics.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy: a comprehensive evaluation of relevant correlates of a long-standing clinical practice

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) is common in the treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The literature indicates that APP is related to patient, illness, and treatment variables that are proxy measures for greater illness acuity, severity, complexity, and chronicity. The largely unknown relative risks and benefits of APP need to be weighed against the known risks and benefits of clozapine for treatment-resistant patients. To inform evidence-based clinical practice, controlled, high-quality antipsychotic combination and discontinuation trials are necessary to determine the effectiveness, safety, and role of APP in the management of severely ill patients with insufficient response to antipsychotic monotherapy.

Quantifying clinical relevance in the treatment of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

To optimize the management of patients with schizophrenia, quantification of treatment effects is crucial. While in research studies, the use of quantitative assessments is ubiquitous, this is not the case in routine clinical practice, creating an important translational practice gap.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the relevance, methodology, reporting, and application of measurement-based approaches in the management of schizophrenia.

METHODS

We summarized methodological aspects in the assessment of therapeutic and adverse antipsychotic effects in schizophrenia, including definitions and methods of measurement-based assessments and factors that can interfere with the valid quantification of treatment effects. Finally, we proposed pragmatic and clinically meaningful ways to measure and report treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

Although rating scales are ubiquitous in schizophrenia research and provide the evidence base for treatment guidelines, time constraints and lack of familiarity with and/or training in validated assessment tools limit their routine clinical use. Simple but valid assessment instruments need to be developed and implemented to bridge this research-practice gap. In addition, results from research trials need to be communicated in clinically meaningful ways, including the reporting of effect sizes, numbers-needed-to-treat and -harm, confidence intervals, and absolute risk differences. Some important outcomes, such as treatment response, should be reported in escalating intervals using incrementally more stringent psychopathology improvements. Even with quantification, it remains challenging to weigh individual efficacy and adverse effect outcomes against one another and decide on the targeted or desired improvement or outcomes while also incorporating these in patient-centered and shared decision methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantification of treatment effects in schizophrenia is relevant for patient management, research, and the evaluation of health care systems. Beyond consensus about meaningful outcomes definitions, reporting strategies, pragmatic tool development and implementation, the discovery of novel treatment mechanisms and related biomarkers is hoped to advance measurement-based approaches in schizophrenia and thereby improve patient outcomes.