CLEAR - clozapine in early psychosis: study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of clozapine vs other antipsychotics for young people with treatment resistant schizophrenia in real world settings

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug with unique efficacy, and it is the only recommended treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS: failure to respond to at least two different antipsychotics). However, clozapine is also associated with a range of adverse effects which restrict its use, including blood dyscrasias, for which haematological monitoring is required. As treatment resistance is recognised earlier in the illness, the question of whether clozapine should be prescribed in children and young people is increasingly important. However, most research to date has been in older, chronic patients, and evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of clozapine in people under age 25 is lacking. The CLEAR (CLozapine in EARly psychosis) trial will assess whether clozapine is more effective than treatment as usual (TAU), at the level of clinical symptoms, patient rated outcomes, quality of life and cost-effectiveness in people below 25 years of age. Additionally, a nested biomarker study will investigate the mechanisms of action of clozapine compared to TAU.

METHODS AND DESIGN

This is the protocol of a multi-centre, open label, blind-rated, randomised controlled effectiveness trial of clozapine vs TAU (any other oral antipsychotic monotherapy licenced in the British National Formulary) for 12 weeks in 260 children and young people with TRS (12-24 years old).

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The primary outcome is the change in blind-rated Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores at 12 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include blind-rated Clinical Global Impression, patient-rated outcomes, quality of life, adverse effects, and treatment adherence. Patients will be followed up for 12 months and will be invited to give consent for longer term follow-up using clinical records and potential re-contact for further research. For mechanism of action, change in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers and peripheral inflammatory markers will be measured over 12 weeks.

DISCUSSION

The CLEAR trial will contribute knowledge on clozapine effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness compared to standard antipsychotics in young people with TRS, and the results may guide future clinical treatment recommendation for early psychosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Number: 37176025, IRAS Number: 1004947.

TRIAL STATUS

In set-up. Protocol version 4.0 01/08/23. Current up to date protocol available here: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR131175# /.

Clozapine augmentation with long-acting antipsychotic injections: A case series and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of patients with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant psychosis remain symptomatic despite an optimal trial with the gold standard treatment, clozapine. Emerging evidence suggests the clinical utility of long-acting injections (LAI) in such clinical scenarios. In this study, we aimed to describe clozapine augmentation with LAIs in an inner London hospital and explore the literature on the clinical effectiveness of this treatment modality.

METHODS

Patients prescribed clozapine, who were commenced on a LAI between 2007 and 2023 by the United Kingdom's largest mental health trust, were identified from electronic patient records. First, routine clinical data were used to describe the use, effectiveness, and safety of this augmentation strategy. Second, we conducted a literature search up to 1st June 2023 to identify published studies describing clinical outcomes after clozapine augmentation with a LAI. Clinical outcomes were collated and presented in a table, including hospitalisation rates and quantitative clinical assessments using validated scales.

RESULTS

Of the 1248 patients prescribed clozapine in SLaM, three patients (0.2%) received augmentation with the following LAIs: olanzapine embonate, paliperidone palmitate and pipotiazine palmitate. This treatment strategy was clinically effective and generally well tolerated in all three cases. Twelve published studies between 2010 and 2022 were included in the review. Eight distinct LAIs were reported (4 first and 4 second generation antipsychotics), with risperidone and paliperidone most widely studied. All the identified studies were observational including mirror-image studies, case series and case reports. Duration of follow up varied from 3 months to 3 years. There was evidence that the use of LAIs with clozapine can significantly reduce clinical symptoms, hospitalisation rates and bed days. No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary evidence suggests clinical utility of LAIs in alleviating residual symptoms and subsequently reducing hospitalisation rates in patients optimised on clozapine treatment. The current study warrants further investigations including a randomised controlled study to establish the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and place in therapy of this treatment modality.

The lived experience of clozapine discontinuation in patients and carers following suspected clozapine-induced neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is the treatment of choice in refractory psychosis. In most countries, clozapine must be stopped indefinitely if white blood cells fall below a defined threshold during routine monitoring. Despite evidence of severe adverse consequences of clozapine discontinuation, published accounts on the lived experiences and perspectives of patients and carers are scarce.

METHOD

We completed semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 4) and family carers (n = 4) on experiences of clozapine cessation following suspected drug-induced neutropenia. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The two overarching themes comprised:(i) stress of clozapine below threshold neutrophil results and (ii) patient and carer priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a suggested need for evidence-based pharmacological and psychological approaches to support patients and carers after clozapine cessation. Such approaches will minimise the potentially negative physical and emotional sequela in the aftermath of a below threshold neutrophil result and reduce the likelihood of experiencing additional health and social inequalities after clozapine discontinuation.

What are the barriers and facilitators of clozapine use in early psychosis? A survey of UK early intervention clinicians

Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-resistant psychosis, but evidence points to substantial underuse, especially within early intervention psychosis (EIP) services. We explored clinicians' views on perceived barriers and facilitators to offering patients clozapine within EIP services. A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to clinicians practising in EIP services across England. A mixed methods approach was used to assess barriers to clozapine, and attitudes and opinions concerning clozapine underutilisation. Based on the barriers identified in the literature, clinicians were asked to rate each one (scale:1-7) based on importance, with a higher score indicating higher importance. Clinicians were also asked open-ended questions on barriers to clozapine and how access can be improved in EIP services. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed thematically. One hundred and nineteen EIP clinicians from 35 services in England completed the survey. In total, 37% (n = 45) of clinicians perceived that clozapine was under-prescribed in their EIP service. The most important barrier to utilising clozapine were patient concerns with side effects, followed by monitoring requirements and clinician concerns with side effects. Thematic analysis identified 17 perceived barriers, which were grouped into three major themes: administrative (5 subthemes), clinician-related (6 subthemes), and patient-related (6 subthemes). Perceived facilitators to improving clozapine use were greater training, improved resources, and optimised monitoring. The main barriers to clozapine in EIP services, as identified by clinicians, are patient concerns regarding side effects and monitoring requirements. Identified facilitators for improved clozapine use include clinician training, improved resources, guidelines, and point-of-care testing.

Clinical impact of reducing the frequency of clozapine monitoring: controlled mirror-image cohort study

BACKGROUND

To minimise infection during COVID-19, the clozapine haematological monitoring interval was extended from 4-weekly to 12-weekly intervals in South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.

AIMS

To investigate the impact of this temporary policy change on clinical and safety outcomes.

METHOD

All patients who received clozapine treatment with extended (12-weekly) monitoring in a large London National Health Service trust were included in a 1-year mirror-image study. A comparison group was selected with standard monitoring. The proportion of participants with mild to severe neutropenia and the proportion of participants attending the emergency department for clozapine-induced severe neutropenia treatment during the follow-up period were compared. Psychiatric hospital admission rates, clozapine dose and concomitant psychotropic medication in the 1 year before and the 1 year after extended monitoring were compared. All-cause clozapine discontinuation at 1-year follow-up was examined.

RESULTS

Of 569 participants, 459 received clozapine with extended monitoring and 110 controls continued as normal. The total person-years were 458 in the intervention group and 109 in the control group, with a median follow-up time of 1 year in both groups. During follow-up, two participants (0.4%) recorded mild to moderate neutropenia in the intervention group and one (0.9%) in the control group. There was no difference in the incidence of haematological events between the two groups (IRR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.02-28.15, P = 0.29). All neutropenia cases in the intervention group were mild, co-occurring during COVID-19 infection. The median number of admissions per patient during the pre-mirror period remained unchanged (0, IQR = 0) during the post-mirror period. There was one death in the control group, secondary to COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that the incidence of severe neutropenia was increased in those receiving extended monitoring.

Anterior cingulate glutamate metabolites as a predictor of antipsychotic response in first episode psychosis: data from the STRATA collaboration

Elevated brain glutamate has been implicated in non-response to antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia. Biomarkers that can accurately predict antipsychotic non-response from the first episode of psychosis (FEP) could allow stratification of patients; for example, patients predicted not to respond to standard antipsychotics could be fast-tracked to clozapine. Using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS), we examined the ability of glutamate and Glx (glutamate plus glutamine) in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and caudate to predict response to antipsychotic treatment. A total of 89 minimally medicated patients with FEP not meeting symptomatic criteria for remission were recruited across two study sites. 1H-MRS and clinical data were acquired at baseline, 2 and 6 weeks. Response was defined as >20% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score from baseline to 6 weeks. In the ACC, baseline glutamate and Glx were higher in Non-Responders and significantly predicted response (P < 0.02; n = 42). Overall accuracy was greatest for ACC Glx (69%) and increased to 75% when symptom severity at baseline was included in the model. Glutamate metabolites in the caudate were not associated with response, and there was no significant change in glutamate metabolites over time in either region. These results add to the evidence linking elevations in ACC glutamate metabolites to a poor antipsychotic response. They indicate that glutamate may have utility in predicting response during early treatment of first episode psychosis. Improvements in accuracy may be made by combining glutamate measures with other response biomarkers.

Cognitive function and treatment response trajectories in first-episode schizophrenia: evidence from a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This prospective cohort study tested for associations between baseline cognitive performance in individuals early within their first episode and antipsychotic treatment of psychosis. We hypothesised that poorer cognitive functioning at the initial assessment would be associated with poorer antipsychotic response following the subsequent 6 weeks.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort .

SETTING

National Health Service users with a first-episode schizophrenia diagnosis, recently starting antipsychotic medication, recruited from two UK sites (King's College London, UK and University of Manchester, UK). Participants attended three study visits following screening.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-nine participants were recruited, with 46 included in the main analysis. Participants required to be within the first 2 years of illness onset, had received minimal antipsychotic treatment, have the capacity to provide consent, and be able to read and write in English. Participants were excluded if they met remission criteria or showed mild to no symptoms.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Antipsychotic response was determined at 6 weeks using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), with cognitive performance assessed at each visit using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS). The groups identified (responders and non-responders) from trajectory analyses, as well as from >20% PANSS criteria, were compared on baseline BACS performance.

RESULTS

Trajectory analyses identified 84.78% of the sample as treatment responsive, and the remaining 15.22% as treatment non-responsive. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions observed no significant relationship between baseline BACS on subscale and total performance (BACS t-score: OR=0.98, p=0.620, Cohen's d=0.218) and antipsychotic response at 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation identified two clear trajectories of treatment response in the first 6 weeks of antipsychotic treatment. Responder and non-responder groups did not significantly differ on performance on the BACS, suggesting that larger samples may be required or that an association between cognitive performance and antipsychotic response is not observable in the first 2 years of illness onset.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

REC: 17/NI/0209.

Relaxation of the criteria for entry to the UK Clozapine Central Non-Rechallenge Database: a modelling study

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is uniquely effective in treatment-resistant psychosis. In the UK, patients must discontinue clozapine indefinitely if they are placed on the Central Non-Rechallenge Database (CNRD) after their haematological parameters fall below particular thresholds. Under exceptional circumstances, patients can be rechallenged on clozapine under an off-licence agreement. In the USA in 2015, restrictive practice was discontinued to allow greater flexibility for clozapine maintenance. The absolute neutrophil count leading to treatment interruption was lowered from less than 1·5 × 10⁹/L to less than 1·0 × 10⁹/L and platelet and white cell count monitoring were ceased. We aimed to investigate the implications of a similar policy change on clozapine use in the UK.

METHODS

This was a modelling study of all patients registered on the UK CNRD. First, we determined the proportion of patients placed on the database in the UK who would have had to discontinue clozapine treatment under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria. Second, we compared the haematological characteristics of patients who did or did not meet FDA criteria for discontinuing clozapine, including the time to registration from clozapine initiation and the proportion of cases of severe neutropenia at registration. Third, we investigated the success rates of clozapine re-challenge for patients that had been placed on the CNRD. Successful rechallenge was defined as no recurrence of CNRD registration.

FINDINGS

Between May 2, 2002 and March 1, 2021, 3731 patients were placed on the CNRD, with a mean age of 47 years (SD 15), including 1420 (38%) women and 2311 (62%) men, of whom 3089 (83%) were White, 360 (10%) were Black, 190 (5%) were Asian, and 92 (2%) were classified as other. 566 (15%) of 3731 patients met the equivalent criteria for clozapine discontinuation under the FDA guidelines. The median time to CNRD registration from clozapine initiation was 1·6 years (IQR 0·2-4·9). Data for 519 rechallenged patients were examined; 419 (81%) were successful. Clozapine rechallenge success rates were broadly similar between individuals who did not meet the US CNRD registration criteria (36 [78%] of 46) and those who did meet the criteria (383 [81%] of 473).

INTERPRETATION

Implementing the revised FDA monitoring criteria in the UK would substantially reduce clozapine discontinuation for haematological reasons, which would greatly improve the mental health outcomes of these patients without having a major effect on their physical health.

FUNDING

None.

A retrospective case notes review of the effectiveness and tolerability of metoclopramide in the treatment of clozapine-induced hypersalivation (CIH)

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to explore the long-term effectiveness and tolerability of metoclopramide in the treatment of CIH.

METHOD

This study is a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients prescribed metoclopramide for CIH at the South London & Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Foundation Trust.

RESULTS

Of the 96 patients identified, 14 patients were eligible for inclusion in our study. Five patients continued treatment with a mean duration of 27 months (SD = 17.8), and one patient continued until transfer with a duration of 3 months. Eight patients discontinued treatment after a mean duration of 8 months.

CONCLUSION

Metoclopramide may be an effective and tolerated drug in CIH, but more data is required to establish its place in the pharmacotherapy of this condition.

Evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptability of the long-acting oral antipsychotic penfluridol: Illustrative case series

AIM

In this study, we sought to determine clinical outcomes at 1 year for patients prescribed penfluridol in an inner London National Health Service Trust. Using noninterventional data, we describe the use, effectiveness and safety of this treatment modality.

RESULTS

We retrospectively followed up 17 patients prescribed penfluridol as part of routine clinical practice. All patients took penfluridol once weekly. Of these patients, 12 (70.6%) were considered treatment resistant. The average duration of illness for this cohort was 10 years (SD = 6.7). At 1 year, nine (53%) patients remained on treatment. Median survival time was not reached at 1-year follow-up; mean time on penfluridol was 251 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 184-318). The mean number of admissions to hospital in the year following penfluridol initiation was 0.6 compared with 0.8, 1 year before initiation (p = 0.465). The median number of bed days 1 year before penfluridol initiation was 24, whereas in the year following penfluridol initiation, it was 0 (p = 0.514).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although penfluridol is unlicensed in the United Kingdom, limited data suggest that this long-acting oral therapy has the potential to be used safely and effectively for the treatment of psychotic disorders. However, more data are required to establish the place of penfluridol and other potential long-acting oral antipsychotic formulations in the treatment of psychotic disorders.

Incident infection during the first year of treatment - A comparison of clozapine and paliperidone palmitate long-acting injection

BACKGROUND

To examine the risk of infection in patients prescribed clozapine compared with patients prescribed paliperidone palmitate long-acting injection (PPLAI).

METHOD

A retrospective, 1-year, cohort study conducted on events occurring in eligible patients beginning treatment for the first time with clozapine or PPLAI between June 2017 and June 2019 in a UK mental health trust providing in-patient and out-patient services.

RESULTS

The study included 64 patients starting clozapine and 120 patients starting PPLAI. Incidence of infection was greater in clozapine starters than in PPLAI starters (28% vs 6%; p = 0.001; adjusted odds ratio 5.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.15-15.76, p = 0.001). Infectious episodes in clozapine patients were not related to changes in neutrophil counts. Incident infection in the clozapine group was highest in the first 3 months of treatment. The most commonly reported infection in the clozapine group was chest infection; however, the majority of infections were non-chest-related.

CONCLUSION

Patients starting clozapine showed a substantially increased likelihood of infection compared with patients starting PPLAI.

Clozapine augmentation with cariprazine for negative symptoms: a case series and literature review

Only about 50% of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia respond to clozapine, and many more patients continue to experience ongoing and prominent negative symptoms. These negative symptoms, for which there are limited pharmacological options, may represent the greatest barrier to functional recovery. Cariprazine is a novel antipsychotic drug that is a partial agonist at dopamine D₂ and D₃ receptors with preferential binding to the D₃ receptor, antagonism of 5HT_2B receptors, and partial agonism at 5HT_1A receptors. Cariprazine is currently licenced for the treatment of schizophrenia in Europe and the United States and has also been approved for bipolar disorder in the United States. There is a limited body of evidence to suggest clinical effectiveness as an augmentation strategy for negative symptoms in those treated with clozapine. In this case series, we present five cases of successful treatment of negative symptoms by clozapine combined with cariprazine in treatment-resistant psychosis.

Vortioxetine as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The evidence for safe and effective interventions to treat the negative and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

Vortioxetine is a novel antidepressant that has been used as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of psychosis; however, its effectiveness in clinical practice is relatively unknown. In this study, we aimed to determine the potential clinical effectiveness and safety and tolerability of vortioxetine in psychosis.

DESIGN

This is a non-interventional, retrospective study on the add-on use of vortioxetine in a group of people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in a large UK NHS mental health trust.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness of vortioxetine was retrospectively assessed through the Clinical Global Impression - Severity (CGI-S) scale at 3 months. Safety and tolerability were evaluated through treatment discontinuation rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, and clinical reasons were evaluated at the primary endpoint of 3 months.

RESULTS

Data were available for 40 subjects with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder-prescribed vortioxetine treatment; 30 (75%) remained on treatment at 3 months. At CGI-S assessment, 15 of the 35 evaluated subjects reported at least a 1-point improvement, from 5 at baseline to 4 after 3 months of treatment. Twenty-six (65%) remained on treatment at 1-year follow-up. The main reasons for those discontinuing treatment were inadequate response (10%) and manic switch (7.5%), while one subject refused treatment. Tolerability to treatment was good, and 36 subjects (90%) reported no adverse events specific to vortioxetine treatment.

CONCLUSION

Schizophrenia is a complex illness, and there is insufficient treatment response in many individuals. A significant proportion of whom may require adjunctive treatments depending on the nature of the residual symptoms. Vortioxetine could be a potentially safe and effective option in such people, but further controlled studies are required.

Clozapine for treatment resistance in early psychosis: a survey of UK clinicians' training, knowledge and confidence

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is the only medication licenced for patients with psychosis that is resistant to conventional antipsychotic treatment. However, despite its effectiveness, it remains widely underutilised. One contributory factor for this may be clinicians' lack of confidence around the management of clozapine.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a survey of clinicians working in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services to determine their training needs for clozapine management in EIP services.

METHODS

An electronic survey was made available to all clinicians working in EIP services in England. The survey assessed confidence and training needs regarding managing clozapine in patients with treatment-resistant psychosis. Quantitative data were analysed using total mean scores and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

In all, 192 (27%) of approximately 700 clinicians from 35 EIP services completed the survey. Approximately half (54%) had not received training on treatment with clozapine. Experience of training was higher in prescribers than non-prescribers, and among medical than non-medical clinicians. Previous training was associated with significantly higher confidence in offering clozapine and managing treatment-resistant psychosis (p < 0.001). Confidence levels with managing treatment-resistant psychosis and clozapine were relatively high (mean = 4 out of 5, SD = 1). Respondents were most confident about monitoring mental health response to treatment (mean = 5, SD = 1). Participants were least confident about how to discontinue clozapine treatment safely (mean = 3, SD = 1).

CONCLUSION

Most clinicians working in EIP have not received training on the use of clozapine. This may account, in part, for the underutilisation of clozapine in EIP services. The provision of training in the identification of treatment-resistant psychosis and the use of clozapine will likely improve the detection and management of treatment resistance in the early phase of psychosis.

Clozapine-induced myocarditis: electronic health register analysis of incidence, timing, clinical markers and diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is associated with increased risk of myocarditis. However, many common side-effects of clozapine overlap with the clinical manifestations of myocarditis. As a result, there is uncertainty about which signs, symptoms and investigations are important in distinguishing myocarditis from benign adverse effects of clozapine. Clarity on this issue is important, since missing a diagnosis of myocarditis or discontinuing clozapine unnecessarily may both have devastating consequences.

AIMS

To examine the clinical characteristics of clozapine-induced myocarditis and to identify which signs and symptoms distinguish true myocarditis from other clozapine adverse effects.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of the record database for 247 621 patients was performed. A natural language processing algorithm identified the instances of patients in which myocarditis was suspected. The anonymised case notes for the patients of each suspected instance were then manually examined, and those whose instances were ambiguous were referred for an independent assessment by up to three cardiologists. Patients with suspected instances were classified as having confirmed myocarditis, myocarditis ruled out or undetermined.

RESULTS

Of 254 instances in 228 patients with suspected myocarditis, 11.4% (n = 29 instances) were confirmed as probable myocarditis. Troponin and C-reactive protein (CRP) had excellent diagnostic value (area under the curve 0.975 and 0.896, respectively), whereas tachycardia was of little diagnostic value. All confirmed instances occurred within 42 days of clozapine initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Suspicion of myocarditis can lead to unnecessary discontinuation of clozapine. The 'critical period' for myocarditis emergence is the first 6 weeks, and clinical signs including tachycardia are of low specificity. Elevated CRP and troponin are the best markers for the need for further evaluation.

Reducing the Risk of Withdrawal Symptoms and Relapse Following Clozapine Discontinuation-Is It Feasible to Develop Evidence-Based Guidelines?

Clozapine is the only antipsychotic that is effective in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, in certain clinical situations, such as the emergence of serious adverse effects, it is necessary to discontinue clozapine. Stopping clozapine treatment poses a particular challenge due to the risk of psychotic relapse, as well as the development of withdrawal symptoms. Despite these challenges for the clinician, there is currently no formal guidance on how to safely to discontinue clozapine. We assessed the feasibility of developing evidence-based recommendations for (1) minimizing the risk of withdrawal symptoms, (2) managing withdrawal phenomena, and (3) commencing alternatives treatment when clozapine is discontinued. We then evaluated the recommendations against the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II criteria. We produced 19 recommendations. The majority of these recommendation were evidence-based, although the strength of some recommendations was limited by a reliance of studies of medium to low quality. We discuss next steps in the refinement and validation of an evidence-based guideline for stopping clozapine and identify key outstanding questions.

Benign ethnic neutropenia: an analysis of prevalence, timing and identification accuracy in two large inner-city NHS hospitals

BACKGROUND

Benign ethnic neutropenia (BEN) is the most common cause of chronic neutropenia seen in individuals of African, Middle Eastern and West Indian descent. This phenotype is broadly defined by an absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) below 1.8 × 10⁹ cells/L in the absence of other causes, without an increased risk of infection. BEN has been implicated as a potential source of disparity in patients treated with clozapine, the antipsychotic of choice in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Our main objective was to examine the current level of BEN recognition in a cohort of patients treated with clozapine and the potential impact of unidentified BEN on the initiation and maintenance of clozapine treatment.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective analysis of patients registered with clozapine haematological monitoring systems in two large mental health trusts, chosen because they serve an ethnically diverse population. The first objective was to establish certified BEN prevalence in current users of clozapine. The second objective was to explore the stage of treatment at which BEN was identified. The third objective was to evaluate the extent of unrecognised BEN in patients registered on the Central Non-Rechallenge Database (CNRD), a database for patients whose haematological parameters fall below set thresholds when receiving clozapine treatment, meaning they cannot ordinarily be prescribed clozapine again.

RESULTS

The study population comprised of 2020 patients on the clozapine register. 111 patients were monitored under BEN criteria. BEN was mostly identified after a below threshold haematological result or clozapine rechallenge (68%) compared to at clozapine initiation (32%). Eight of the 18 (42%) black patients registered on the CNRD were classified as BEN after assessment by a haematologist. Of these 8 patients, none would have met CNRD criteria again if monitored with BEN criteria at clozapine initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that BEN remains an uncommonly recognised haematological phenotype. Improved timely identification of BEN will reduce unnecessary interruption or discontinuation of clozapine treatment. Our results suggest consideration should also be given to determining BEN status prior to initiating clozapine. Moreover, adoption of current FDA BEN monitoring criteria in the UK may further reduce clozapine discontinuation due to perceived neutropenia as drug toxicity, particularly in treatment-refractory schizophrenia patients.

There Is Life After the UK Clozapine Central Non-Rechallenge Database

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the United Kingdom, patients on clozapine whose hematological parameters fall below certain thresholds are placed on the Central Non-Rechallenge Database (CNRD), meaning that they cannot be prescribed clozapine again except under exceptional circumstances. This practice was discontinued in the United States in 2015 by expanding the hematological monitoring guidelines, allowing more patients to receive clozapine. Our objective was to investigate the implications this policy change would have on clozapine utilization in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective analysis of patients registered on the CNRD in a large mental health trust. The first objective was to compare the number of patients placed on the CNRD under the United Kingdom and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria. The second objective was to explore the hematological and clinical outcomes of CNRD patients. The third objective was to investigate the hematological outcomes of patients rechallenged on clozapine after nonrechallengeable status.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifteen patients were placed on CNRD from 2002 to 2019, of whom 7 (6%) met the equivalent criteria for clozapine discontinuation under the FDA guidelines. Clinical outcomes, as measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, were worse 3 months after clozapine cessation than on clozapine (t = -7.4862; P < .001). Sixty-two (54%) patients placed on CNRD were rechallenged. Fifty-nine of those (95%) were successfully rechallenged; 3 patients were placed back on CNRD, only one of which would have had to stop clozapine again under FDA criteria.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the updated FDA's monitoring criteria in the United Kingdom would significantly reduce clozapine discontinuation due to hematological reasons. The evidence suggests an urgent need for revising the UK clozapine monitoring guidelines to improve outcomes in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

An evaluation of the variation and underuse of clozapine in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is the only licensed treatment for treatment refractory schizophrenia. Despite this, it remains grossly underused relative to the prevalence of refractory schizophrenia. The extent of underuse and the degree of regional variation in prescribing in the United Kingdom is unknown. It is also unclear, how the UK compares with other European countries in rates of clozapine prescribing.

METHODS

We obtained data relating to all clozapine prescribing in the UK from the relevant clozapine registries. We examined regional variation in clozapine use across England, corrected for the known prevalence of severe mental illness (SMI). We also compared the UK rate of clozapine use per 100,000 population to that described in other European countries.

FINDINGS

There is substantial variation in clozapine prescribing across different regions of England and only about a third of potentially eligible patients were prescribed the drug in the UK. Clozapine prescribing rate in the UK was lower than in several European countries.

INTERPRETATION

There is clear regional inequity in access to the most effective treatment in refractory schizophrenia in England. Strategies to increase clozapine use, by overcoming both real and perceived barriers, are urgently necessary to reduce treatment inequity for patients with refractory schizophrenia.

Clozapine discontinuation withdrawal symptoms in schizophrenia

Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic used in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Whilst clozapine is highly effective, there are some clinical scenarios, such as the emergence of severe side effects, that necessitate its discontinuation. There is an emerging literature suggesting that discontinuing antipsychotics, in particular clozapine, can cause an array of withdrawal symptoms. We review the evidence for the existence of clozapine-induced withdrawal symptoms, and in particular focus on withdrawal-associated psychosis, cholinergic rebound, catatonia and serotonergic discontinuation symptoms. To date, there has been surprisingly little clinical guidance on how to minimise the likeliness of withdrawal symptoms in patients who are stopped on clozapine abruptly or gradually. We discuss the key outstanding questions in this area and why there is a need for guidance on the management of withdrawal symptoms associated with clozapine discontinuation.

A retrospective study of intramuscular clozapine prescription for treatment initiation and maintenance in treatment-resistant psychosis

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is uniquely effective in treatment-resistant psychosis but remains underutilised, partly owing to psychotic symptoms leading to non-adherence to oral medication. An intramuscular formulation is available in the UK but outcomes remain unexplored.

AIMS

This was a retrospective clinical effectiveness study of intramuscular clozapine prescription for treatment initiation and maintenance in treatment-resistant psychosis over a 3-year period.

METHOD

Successful initiation of oral clozapine after intramuscular prescription was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included all-cause clozapine discontinuation 2 years following initiation, and 1 year after discharge. Discontinuation rates were compared with a cohort prescribed only oral clozapine. Propensity scores were used to address confounding by indication.

RESULTS

Among 39 patients prescribed intramuscular clozapine, 19 received at least one injection, whereas 20 accepted oral clozapine when given an enforced choice between the two. Thirty-six (92%) patients successfully initiated oral clozapine after intramuscular prescription; three never transitioned to oral. Eight discontinued oral clozapine during the 2-year follow-up, compared with 83 out of 162 in the comparator group (discontinuation rates of 24% and 50%, respectively). Discontinuation rates at 1-year post-discharge were 21%, compared with 44% in the comparison group. Intramuscular clozapine prescription was associated with a non-significantly lower hazard of discontinuation 2 years after initiation (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-1.06) and 1 year after discharge (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.11-1.24). The only reported adverse event specific to the intramuscular formulation was injection site pain and swelling.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular clozapine prescription allowed transition to oral maintenance in an initially non-adherent cohort. Discontinuation rates were similar to patients only prescribed oral clozapine and comparable to existing literature.

Real-world effectiveness of admissions to a tertiary treatment-resistant psychosis service: 2-year mirror-image study

BACKGROUND

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia is a major disabling illness which often proves challenging to manage in a secondary care setting. The National Psychosis Unit (NPU) is a specialised tertiary in-patient facility that provides evidence-based, personalised, multidisciplinary interventions for complex treatment-resistant psychosis, in order to reduce the risk of readmission and long-term care costs.

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the long-term effectiveness of treatment at the NPU by considering naturalistic outcome measures.

METHOD

Using a mirror image design, we compared the numbers of psychiatric and general hospital admissions, in-patient days, acuity of placement, number of psychotropic medications and dose of antipsychotic medication prescribed before and following NPU admission. Data were obtained from the Clinical Records Interactive Search system, an anonymised database sourced from the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust electronic records, and by means of anonymous linkage to the Hospital Episode Statistics system.

RESULTS

Compared with the 2 years before NPU admission, patients had fewer mental health admissions (1.65 ± 1.44 v. 0.87 ± 0.99, z = 5.594, P < 0.0001) and less mental health bed usage (335.31 ± 272.67 v. 199.42 ± 261.96, z = 5.195 P < 0.0001) after NPU admission. Total in-patient days in physical health hospitals and total number of in-patient days were also significantly reduced (16.51 ± 85.77 v. 2.83 ± 17.38, z = 2.046, P = 0.0408; 351.82 ± 269.09 v. 202.25 ± 261.05, z = 5.621, P < 0.0001). The reduction in level of support required after treatment at the NPU was statistically significant (z = -8.099, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the long-term effectiveness of a tertiary service specialising in treatment-resistant psychosis.