Treatment persistence and hospitalization rates among patients with schizophrenia: a quasi-experiment to evaluate a patient information program

The effect of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications compared with oral antipsychotic medications among people with schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medications may be an important modality of reducing costs, improving symptoms, and fostering quality of life outcomes for those with schizophrenia. Our objective was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of LAIs compared with oral antipsychotics on medication adherence, symptom remission/relapse, rehospitalization, outpatient visits, emergency department visits, healthcare costs, and social functioning. We performed a systematic search of PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus databases to examine studies meeting inclusion criteria prior to August 30th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies among people with schizophrenia with at least 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall effect sizes and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with random-effects modeling. We found 75 articles meeting our inclusion criteria, including 341 730 individuals with schizophrenia. Systematic review results indicated that LAIs compared with orals improved medication adherence (25/29 studies), symptom remission/relapse (10/18 studies), rehospitalizations (26/49 studies), emergency department visits (9/17 studies), medical costs (11/15 studies), and social functioning (5/9 studies); however, LAIs also increased outpatient visits (7/16 studies) and pharmacy costs (10/10 studies). Meta-analytic results of studies with similar outcome measures did not find differences between LAIs and orals in respect to outcomes, except lowering emergency department visits and increasing pharmacy costs. The differences between the results of the narrative synthesis and the meta-analyses were possibly because of the low availability of studies with similar outcomes in the pooled analyses. Our overall results suggest that LAIs are at least comparable to orals in supporting important healthcare outcomes for those with schizophrenia. These findings support clinical practice in encouraging providers to prescribe LAIs when indicated.

The Willingness of Community Psychiatric Management Physicians to Preferentially Recommend Long-Acting Injections in Beijing

Background: Severe mental disorders (SMD) impose a heavy burden on individuals, society, and the country. Under the background of deinstitutionalization, more and more patients return to the community, and the community psychiatric management physicians (CPMP) play an essential role in this process. Long-acting injection (LAI) is an important way to improve compliance and reduce re-hospitalization. Some districts in Beijing have implemented the policy of free LAI. This article aims to find out the willingness of CPMP to preferentially recommend LAI and provide suggestions for follow-up promotion.

Methods: All CPMP in 16 districts of Beijing were surveyed. A self-made electronic questionnaire was used to investigate the willingness to recommend LAI in priority. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square test, and logistic regression were used to analyze the data.

Results: The willingness of CPMP to preferentially recommend LAI is up to 80%. Participants aged 40–49, female, with higher self-evaluation of psychiatric management knowledge, managing patients who have used LAI in the past, and working in communities with the free LAI policy have higher willingness to recommend LAI in priority.

Conclusion: CPMP in Beijing have a positive attitude toward LAI, and most of them have the willingness to recommend LAI to the patients in priority. The recommendation willingness is the basis of prescription decision-making. Therefore, the coverage of free LAI policy should be further expanded in the future to improve the recommendation willingness and thus improve the injection rate of LAI.

Adherence and persistence to long-acting injectable dopamine receptor blocking agent therapy in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess adherence and persistence to long-acting injectable dopamine receptor blocking agents (LAI DRBAs) in published observational cohort studies conducted in the United States. Adherence rate (proportion of days covered ≥80%) and persistence rate (no gap in therapy ≥60 days) to LAI DRBAs were examined in 26 articles for qualitative review and 8 articles for quantitative review. There was significant variability in adherence and persistence rates to LAI DRBAs in the reported observational cohort studies. The mean adherence and persistence rates to LAI DRBAs in the included studies were 36% (8-66%) and 56% (32-80%), respectively. The use of LAI DRBAs showed cumulative benefit of achieving adherence 1.40 times higher compared to oral agents. The persistence rate was measured by number of patients having no more than 60 days gap in therapy at follow-up, and the cumulative benefit of being persistently on the therapy was 1.65 times higher among the LAI agents-exposed group compared to the oral agents-exposed group. The use of LAI DRBAs confers benefit in adherence and persistence compared to oral DRBA formulations.

Prevalence and Impact of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Latin America: a Prospective, Observational Study

Approximately one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The TRAL study will evaluate the prevalence and impact of TRD among patients with MDD in four Latin American countries. In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, patients with MDD were recruited from 33 reference sites in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina. Patients were assessed for TRD, defined as failure to respond to ≥ 2 antidepressant medications of adequate dose and duration. Demographics, previous/current treatments, depressive symptoms, functioning, healthcare resource utilization, and work impairment were also collected and evaluated using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, Fisher exact test, t-test for independent samples, or the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test, as appropriate. 1475 patients with MDD were included in the analysis (mean age, 45.6 years; 78% women); 89% were receiving relevant psychiatric treatment. 429 patients met criteria for TRD, and a numerically higher proportion of patients with TRD was present in public versus private sites of care (31% vs 27%). The mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score was 25.0 among all MDD patients and was significantly higher for patients with TRD versus non-TRD (29.4 vs 23.3; P < 0.0001). Patients with TRD, versus those with non-TRD, were significantly more likely to be older, have a longer disease duration, have more comorbidities, be symptomatic, have a higher median number of psychiatric consultations, and report greater work impairment. Patients with TRD have a disproportionate burden of disease compared to those with non-TRD. Appropriate treatment for TRD is a substantial unmet need in Latin America. https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03207282, 07/02/2017.

Long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of randomised, cohort, and pre-post studies

BACKGROUND

Evidence of comparative benefits of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia has been inconsistent across study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative benefits of LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in three study designs to inform clinical decision making.

METHODS

We did a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LAIs versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia covering three study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and pre-post studies. Our literature search was without language restrictions, in MEDLINE and PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, for studies published from database inception up to a last search on March 13, 2020. We also searched for unpublished studies and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included studies lasting at least 6 months that targeted adults with schizophrenia and related disorders (>80% of participants). Studies on penfluridol (neither an LAI or daily oral antipsychotic), case reports, and case series with fewer than 20 patients were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted study-level data and resolved disagreement by consensus, or via a third investigator. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional information as needed. For our primary outcome we meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for hospitalisation or relapse with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics by a random-effects model, with hospitalisation used preferentially over relapse. As secondary analyses, we reversed the preferential order to relapse over hospitalisation, and assessed hospitalisation risk and relapse risk individually. Other secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable data, classed by relevance to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, and analysed by study design. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as pooled RR and continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD). The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019142094).

FINDINGS

We identified 14 687 records, of which 137 studies (397 319 patients) met the inclusion criteria (32 RCTs [23·4%; 8577 patients], 65 cohort studies [47·4%; 377 447 patients], and 40 pre-post studies [29·2%; 11 295 patients]) and were analysed. The quality of studies in terms of risk of bias varied across study designs and within each study design from low to high. LAIs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation or relapse than oral antipsychotics in each of the three study designs (RCTs: 29 studies, 7833 patients, RR 0·88 [95% CI 0·79-0·99], p=0·033; cohort studies: 44 studies, 106 136 patients, RR 0·92 [0·88-0·98], p=0·0044; pre-post studies: 28 studies, 17 876 patients, RR 0·44 [0·39-0·51], p<0·0001). This association was maintained across the study designs when we reversed the preferential order to risk of relapse over hospitalisation, and in individual analysis of hospitalisation risk. The association was maintained only in pre-post studies for relapse risk alone. In all other outcomes related to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 (18·3%) of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 (76·8%) comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 (4·9%) comparisons when analysed by study design. Significant heterogeneity was observed across all three study designs. Publication biases were apparent in cohort and pre-post studies, but effect sizes were similar after trim-and-fill analyses.

INTERPRETATION

Although study designs have strengths and weaknesses, including potential low quality of observational studies, we consistently identified significant benefit with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in preventing hospitalisation or relapse, in settings ranging from restricted research (RCTs) to real-word application (cohort and pre-post studies). Our findings suggest that increased clinical use of LAIs could improve outcomes in schizophrenia.

FUNDING

None.

TRANSLATIONS

For the Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portugese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Rehospitalization Risk of Receptor-Affinity Profile in Antipsychotic Drug Treatment: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using a Japanese Employment-Based Health Insurance Database

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine whether there is a difference in the risk of rehospitalization when antipsychotics are classified into two groups treated using drugs with a higher or lower affinity to H1 or α1 receptors than to D2 receptors (histamine H1 receptors, adrenaline α1 receptors [HA] high- and HA low-affinity drug group, respectively) based on affinity to receptors related to sedation using a nationwide insurance claims database in Japan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified eligible patients by the following two criteria: (i) hospitalization due to schizophrenia (International Classification of Disease [ICD]-10 code: F20 or F25) in psychiatric wards between January 1st, 2005 and August 31st, 2017, and (ii) administration of HA high- or HA low-affinity drugs in the next month after discharge from the earliest hospitalization due to schizophrenia (index month). The primary endpoint was rehospitalization due to schizophrenia. The secondary endpoints were (i) involuntary rehospitalization, (ii) concomitant use of anxiolytics/hypnotics, mood stabilizers, and antiparkinsonian drugs, (iii) all-cause death, and (iv) medication discontinuation. Propensity score (PS) matching analysis was applied, and the hazard ratio (HR) of the event rate in the HA high-affinity drug group relative to the HA low-affinity drug group was calculated using Cox's proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Two thousand nine hundred and forty patients were identified as eligible patients. Among PS-matched patients (819 in each group), the HR in the HA high-affinity drug group compared with the HA low-affinity drug group was 1.018 (0.822-1.260, P = 0.870). Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was observed in the rehospitalization risk due to schizophrenia associated with HA high-affinity antipsychotic drugs. Although this study was a retrospective PS-matched cohort study, the possibility of masking of the rehospitalization risk cannot be excluded because more than 80% of the patients were administered an anxiolytic/hypnotic at the time of admission.