Search

Background and Purpose: Clozapine is an effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but its discontinuation leads to discontinuation syndrome/catatonia complicated by benzodiazepine-resistance and rhabdomyolysis., Experimental Approach: This study determined time-dependent effects of exposure and subsequent discontinuation of clozapine on expression of connexin43, 5-HT receptors, intracellular L-β-aminoisobutyrate (L-BAIBA) and 2nd-messengers and signalling of AMPK, PP2A and Akt in cultured astrocytes and rat frontal cortex., Key Results: Intracellular L-BAIBA levels increased during clozapine exposure but immediately recovered after discontinuation. Both exposure to clozapine and L-BAIBA increased connexin43 and signalling of AMPK/Akt time-dependently, but reduced PP2A signalling, 5-HT receptor expression and IP3 level. These changes recovered within 2 weeks after discontinuation, while 5-HT receptors and IP3 transiently increased during the recovery process. L-BAIBA activated AMPK signalling, leading to attenuated PP2A signalling. Astroglial D-serine release was increased by clozapine exposure but continued to increase within 1 week after discontinuation via activation of IP3 receptor function., Conclusion and Implications: Clozapine discontinuation restored PP2A signalling due to decreased L-BAIBA, increased 5-HT receptor expression via probably enhanced 5-HT receptor recycling, but increased astroglial D-serine release persisted by transiently activated IP3 receptors via transiently increased IP3 level. Decreased L-BAIBA caused by clozapine discontinuation is, at least partially, involved in the transiently increased 5-HT receptor and astroglial D-serine release., (© 2024 The Author(s). British Journal of Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Introduction: Bipolar disorder is a recurrent mental health disorder with a prevalence rate of 1.4%. On average, there can be a delay of 9.5 years from the initial presentation of symptoms to a confirmed diagnosis. Individuals living with bipolar disorder have a reduced life expectancy. There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating bipolar disorder. The ASCEnD clinical trial will test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the aripiprazole/sertraline combination in comparison with quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar depression (individuals who suffer from depressive episodes in bipolar disorder) and will include a nested qualitative study., Methods: The qualitative study will use semi-structured interviews to explore pilot trial participants' and clinicians' perspectives on recruitment procedures, the acceptability of the intervention, the management of bipolar disorder and attitudes to medication combinations., Conclusion: Findings will inform recruitment strategies and optimise training for the participating sites in the ASCEnD full trial. They will also help to illuminate the lived experience of people with bipolar disorder and the clinicians who work with people with bipolar disorder. The discussion will explore perspectives on the delay in diagnosis, having a diagnosis, the impact of living with bipolar disorder and attitudes to treatment, including drug combinations., Patient or Public Contribution: A Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) has been convened with the support of the McPin Foundation, which will contribute to the ASCEnD trial and its nested qualitative study to provide input on the design and delivery of the trial and qualitative study, analysis of qualitative data and dissemination of findings., (© 2024 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Pediatric drug dosing is challenged by the heterogeneity of developing physiology and ethical considerations surrounding a vulnerable population. Often, pediatric drug dosing leverages findings from the adult population; however, recent regulatory efforts have motivated drug sponsors to pursue pediatric-specific programs to meet an unmet medical need and improve pediatric drug labeling. This paradigm is further complicated by the pathophysiological implications of obesity on drug distribution and metabolism and the roles that body composition and body size play in drug dosing. Therefore, we sought to understand the landscape of pediatric drug dosing by characterizing the dosing strategies from drug products recently approved for pediatric indications identified using FDA Drug Databases and analyze the impact of body size descriptors (age, body surface area, weight) on drug pharmacokinetics for several selected antipsychotics approved in pediatric patients. Our review of these pediatric databases revealed a dependence on body size-guided dosing, with 68% of dosing in pediatric drug labelings being dependent on knowing either the age, body surface area, or weight of the patient to guide dosing for pediatric patients. This dependence on body size-guided dosing drives the need for special consideration when dosing a drug in overweight and obese patients. Exploratory pharmacokinetic analyses in antipsychotics illustrate possible effects of drug exposure when applying different dosing strategies for this class of drugs. Future efforts should aim to further understand the pediatric drug dosing and obesity paradigm across pediatric age ranges and drug classes to optimize drug development and clinical care for this patient population., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2024 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

A pharmacokinetic (PK) bridging approach was successfully employed to support the dosing regimen and approval of brexpiprazole in pediatric patients aged 13-17 years with schizophrenia. Brexpiprazole was approved in 2015 for the treatment of schizophrenia and the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder in adults based on efficacy and safety data from clinical trials. On January 13, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a general advice letter to sponsors highlighting the acceptance of efficacy extrapolation of certain atypical antipsychotics from adult patients to pediatric patients considering the similarity in disease and exposure-response relationships. Brexpiprazole is the first atypical antipsychotic approved in pediatrics using this approach. The PK data available from pediatric patients aged 13-17 years have shown high variability due to the limited number of PK evaluable subjects, which limits a robust estimation of differences between adult and pediatric patients. The PK model-based approach was thus utilized to evaluate the appropriateness of the dosing regimen by comparing PK exposures in pediatric patients aged 13-17 years with exposures achieved in adults at the approved doses. In addition to exposure matching, safety data from a long-term open-label clinical study in pediatric patients informed the safety profile in pediatric patients. This report illustrates the potential of leveraging previously collected efficacy, safety, and PK data in adult patients to make a regulatory decision in pediatric patients for the indication of schizophrenia., (© 2024, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

A ready-to-use (RTU) long-acting injectable (LAI) formulation of aripiprazole monohydrate for administration once every 2 months, available in 960 mg (Ari 2MRTU 960) or 720 mg doses, has been developed for the treatment of schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder. A previously developed and validated population pharmacokinetic model for characterizing aripiprazole plasma concentrations following administration of oral aripiprazole or aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) intramuscular injection was expanded to include the RTU LAI formulation of aripiprazole (Ari RTU LAI). Overall, 8899 aripiprazole pharmacokinetic samples from 1191 adults from 10 clinical trials were included in the final combined analysis data set. Aripiprazole plasma concentration-time profiles were simulated for various Ari RTU LAI initiation and maintenance scenarios in 1000 virtual patients. Diagnostic plots demonstrated that the final population pharmacokinetic model, which incorporated data for oral aripiprazole, AOM, and Ari RTU LAI, adequately described aripiprazole concentrations following Ari RTU LAI administration. Absorption of Ari RTU LAI was modeled by a parallel zero-order and lagged first-order process. Simulations across multiple scenarios were performed to inform dosing recommendations, including various treatment initiation regimens for a 2-monthly formulation of Ari RTU LAI in patients with or without prior stabilization on oral aripiprazole, and for patients switching from AOM. Additional simulations accounted for missed/delayed doses, cytochrome (CYP) 2D6 metabolizer status, and concomitant use of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 inhibitors. Overall, simulations across a variety of scenarios demonstrated an Ari RTU LAI pharmacokinetic exposure profile that was comparable to AOM, with a longer dosing interval., (© 2024 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Brexpiprazole is an oral antipsychotic agent indicated for use in patients with schizophrenia or as adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder. As obesity (body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2 ) has the potential to affect drug pharmacokinetics and is a common comorbidity of both schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, it is important to understand changes in brexpiprazole disposition in this population. This study uses a whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to compare the pharmacokinetics of brexpiprazole in obese and normal-weight (body mass index 18-25 kg/m 2 ) individuals known to be cytochrome P450 2D6 extensive metabolizers (EMs) and poor metabolizers (PMs). The physiologically based pharmacokinetic simulations demonstrated significant differences in the time to effective concentrations between obese and normal-weight individuals within metabolizer groups according to the label-recommended titration. Simulations using an alternative dosing strategy of 1 week of twice-daily dosing in obese EMs or 2 weeks of twice-daily dosing in obese poor metabolizers, followed by a return to once-daily dosing, yielded more consistent plasma concentrations between normal-weight and obese patients without exceeding the area under the plasma concentration-time curve observed in the normal-weight EMs. These alternative dosing strategies reduce the time to effective concentrations in obese patients and may improve clinical response to brexpiprazole., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

A combination of olanzapine and samidorphan was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder. Population pharmacokinetic models for olanzapine and samidorphan were developed using data from 11 clinical studies in healthy subjects or patients with schizophrenia. A 2-compartment disposition model with first-order absorption and elimination and a lag time for absorption adequately described concentration-time profiles of both olanzapine and samidorphan. Age, sex, race, smoking status, and body weight were identified as covariates that impacted the pharmacokinetics of olanzapine. A moderate effect of body weight on samidorphan pharmacokinetics was identified by the model but was not considered clinically meaningful. The effects of food, hepatic or renal impairment, and coadministration with rifampin on the pharmacokinetics of olanzapine and samidorphan, as estimated by the population pharmacokinetic analysis, were consistent with findings from dedicated clinical studies designed to evaluate these specific covariates of interest. Food intake did not have a clinically relevant effect on the pharmacokinetics of olanzapine or samidorphan. Consistent with the known metabolic pathways for olanzapine (primarily via uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase-mediated direct glucuronidation and cytochrome P450 [CYP]-mediated oxidation) and for samidorphan (predominantly mediated by CYP3A4), coadministration of olanzapine and samidorphan with rifampin, a strong inducer of CYP3A4 and an inducer of uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase enzymes, significantly decreased the systemic exposure of both olanzapine and samidorphan. Severe renal impairment or moderate hepatic impairment resulted in a modest increase in olanzapine and samidorphan exposure., (© 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

A combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (OLZ/SAM) was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder. The effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of olanzapine and samidorphan after a single dose of OLZ/SAM were characterized in a clinical study. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling was used to extend the clinical findings to predict the effects of varying degrees of hepatic impairment on the PKs of olanzapine and samidorphan. A previously developed PBPK model for OLZ/SAM was refined to recover the observed pharmacokinetic differences between individuals with moderate hepatic impairment and healthy controls. The optimized model was applied to predict changes in olanzapine and samidorphan PKs after multiple once-daily doses of OLZ/SAM in subjects with mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment relative to healthy controls. Modifications to model parameters, including absorption rate constant and fraction unbound to plasma protein, were made to recover the observed change in the PKs of olanzapine and samidorphan in individuals with moderate hepatic impairment. In applying the optimized model, mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment were predicted to increase steady-state total systemic exposures by 1.1-, 1.5-, and 1.6-fold, respectively, for olanzapine, and by 1.2-, 1.9-, and 2.3-fold, respectively, for samidorphan. PBPK modeling allowed for prediction of untested clinical scenarios of varying degrees of hepatic impairment in lieu of additional clinical studies., (© 2021 The Authors. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Blonanserin is an atypical antipsychotic drug with high affinity and selective antagonism for dopamine D 2 and D 3 and serotonin 5-HT 2A receptors. Blonanserin transdermal patch is the first transdermal formulation developed for the treatment of schizophrenia. The purpose of this population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analysis was to evaluate the characteristics of blonanserin pharmacokinetics after transdermal patch application, to estimate the daily fluctuation in blonanserin plasma concentration, and to evaluate the impact of patch application noncompliance to support usage in clinical settings. A total of 3747 plasma blonanserin concentrations from 9 clinical studies (93 healthy volunteers and 348 patients with schizophrenia) were used in the PPK analysis. The plasma concentration was predicted using the final PPK model, and dopamine D 2 receptor occupancy was estimated on the basis of the results of a separately reported positron emission tomography study. A 2-compartment, parallel zero-order absorption with a lag time and first-order elimination model was developed to describe the pharmacokinetics of blonanserin, including the change in absorption rate during patch application. The maximum/minimum ratio of plasma concentration was estimated as 1.10 at steady state, indicating minimal fluctuation. In the case of failure to remove the previous patch or a missing application, the increase or decrease in plasma concentration and dopamine D 2 receptor occupancy was <20%. These results indicated that the plasma blonanserin concentration and dopamine D 2 receptor occupancy were stable after blonanserin transdermal patch application, which may lead to improved tolerability during the treatment of patients with schizophrenia., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Pediatric labeling information for novel atypical antipsychotics can be significantly delayed as the result of time lag between initial drug approval in adults and the completion of pediatric clinical trials. This delay can lead health care providers to rely on limited evidence-based literature to make critical therapeutic decisions for pediatric patients. Effective and scientifically justified dosing recommendations are needed to improve treatment outcomes in pediatric patients with schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. Extrapolation-based drug development strategies rely on leveraging prior data to reduce evidentiary requirements for newer data in establishing drug efficacy. On January 13, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a general advice letter to sponsors highlighting the acceptance of extrapolating efficacy of atypical antipsychotics to pediatric patients. This review provides insight into the FDA's justification for extrapolating efficacy from adult to pediatric patients and provides a rationale for dose selection in pediatric patients with schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder., (Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Introduction: Patterns of clinical use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic drugs in many countries, especially in Asia, for treatment of patients diagnosed with chronic psychotic disorders including schizophrenia are not well established., Methods: Within an extensive research consortium, we evaluated prescription rates for first- (FGA) and second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) LAI drugs and their clinical correlates among 3557 subjects diagnosed with schizophrenia across 15 Asian countries and region., Results: Overall, an average of 17.9% (638/3557; range: 0.0%-44.9%) of treated subjects were prescribed LAI antipsychotics. Those given LAI vs orally administered agents were significantly older, had multiple hospitalizations, received multiple antipsychotics more often, at 32.4% higher doses, were more likely to manifest disorganized behavior or aggression, had somewhat superior psychosocial functioning and less negative symptoms, but were more likely to be hospitalized, with higher BMI, and more tremor. Being prescribed an FGA vs SGA LAI agent was associated with male sex, aggression, disorganization, hospitalization, multiple antipsychotics, higher doses, with similar risks of adverse neurological or metabolic effects. Rates of use of LAI antipsychotic drugs to treat patients diagnosed with schizophrenia varied by more than 40-fold among Asian countries and given to an average of 17.9% of treated schizophrenia patients. We identified the differences in the clinical profiles and treatment characteristics of patients who were receiving FGA-LAI and SGA-LAI medications., Discussion: These findings behoove clinicians to be mindful when evaluating patients' need to be on LAI antipsychotics amidst multifaceted considerations, especially downstream adverse events such as metabolic and extrapyramidal side effects., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

In a machine learning setting, this study aims to compare the prognostic utility of connectomic, brain structural, and clinical/demographic predictors of individual change in symptom severity in individuals with schizophrenia. Symptom severity at baseline and 1-year follow-up was assessed in 30 individuals with a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Structural and functional neuroimaging was acquired in all individuals at baseline. Machine learning classifiers were trained to predict whether individuals improved or worsened with respect to positive, negative, and overall symptom severity. Classifiers were trained using various combinations of predictors, including regional cortical thickness and gray matter volume, static and dynamic resting-state connectivity, and/or baseline clinical and demographic variables. Relative change in overall symptom severity between baseline and 1-year follow-up varied markedly among individuals (interquartile range: 55%). Dynamic resting-state connectivity measured within the default-mode network was the most accurate single predictor of change in positive (accuracy: 87%), negative (83%), and overall symptom severity (77%) at follow-up. Incorporating predictors based on regional cortical thickness, gray matter volume, and baseline clinical variables did not markedly improve prediction accuracy and the prognostic utility of these predictors in isolation was moderate (<70%). Worsening negative symptoms at 1-year follow-up were predicted by hyper-connectivity and hypo-dynamism within the default-mode network at baseline assessment, while hypo-connectivity and hyper-dynamism predicted worsening positive symptoms. Given the modest sample size investigated, we recommend giving precedence to the relative ranking of the predictors investigated in this study, rather than the prediction accuracy estimates., (© 2020 The Authors. Human Brain Mapping published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Olanzapine, a second-generation atypical antipsychotic drug, is widely used for schizophrenia and moderate to severe mania associated with bipolar disorders. This open-label, randomized, single-dose, 2-sequence, 2-period crossover, comparative pharmacokinetic study assessed the bioequivalence of 5 mg of olanzapine administered in tablet (R) or disintegrating tablet (T) formulation in healthy Chinese volunteers under both fasting and fed conditions. Numbers of enrolled subjects were 30 and 24 for fasting and fed treatments, respectively. Blood samples were drawn and collected predose as well as up to 144 hours postdose. The plasma concentration of olanzapine was quantitated by a robust, rapid, and sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. The R was bioequivalent to T formulation under either fasting or fed conditions. The 90%CI for ratios of the geometric means observed maximum plasma concentration, area under the curve from time 0 extrapolated to last time point, and area under the curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity were all within the allowed limit (80.0% to 125.0%). The pharmacokinetic profiles of T and R formulations were similar under fasting and fed conditions. Both formulations were well tolerated, with a similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events under fasting and fed conditions., (© 2019, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

To assess the bioequivalence of two 5-mg olanzapine orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) products, 2 randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-way crossover studies were carried out under fasting or fed conditions. Blood samples were collected at scheduled times according to the study protocol. Statistical analysis of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 168 hours (AUC 0-t ), area under the curve from time zero to infinity (AUC 0-∞ ), and peak plasma concentration (C max ) was conducted. Two formulations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios for AUC 0-t, AUC 0-∞ , and C max were within the range of 0.80-1.25. Adverse events were recorded and evaluated throughout the studies. A total of 48 subjects with 24 in each study completed the 2 studies. In fasted subjects, the 90%CIs for the test product versus the reference product were 97.28%-105.13% for AUC 0-t , 97.57%-105.54% for AUC 0-∞ , and 90.94%-103.97% for C max . In fed subjects, the 90%CIs for AUC 0-t , AUC 0-∞ and C max were 99.73%-122.63%, 99.56%-121.75%, and 99.46%-120.46%, respectively. No serious adverse events were reported in the studies. The reference and the test product of 5-mg olanzapine ODT show comparable pharmacokinetic profiles under both fed and fasted conditions and were considered bioequivalent., (© 2020, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

This narrative review on clozapine blood levels or therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) includes sections focused on drug clearance and TDM, personalized dosing with TDM, clinical applications of TDM in Asians, and areas needing further study. Asian patients need half the clozapine dose (D) used in the United States to get the same blood concentrations (C). The concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratio measures drug clearance. In the United States, the average clozapine patient usually needs from 300 to 600 mg/day to reach 350 ng/mL. US male smokers reach this therapeutic C with a D of 600 mg/day (C/D ratio of 0.60 = 600/350), whereas US female nonsmokers usually need a D of 300 mg/day (C/D ratio of 1.17 = 300/350). While in the United States, average CLO C/D ratios typically are 0.6-1.2 ng/mL per mg/day, in Asian populations they range from 1.20 in male smokers to 2.40 in female smokers, requiring Ds of 300 to 150 mg/day to obtain 350 ng/mL. Asian patients can become clozapine poor metabolizers (PMs), needing very low Ds (50-150 mg/day) to get therapeutic Cs, by taking inhibitors (fluvoxamine, oral contraceptives and valproic acid), due to obesity, or during inflammations with systemic effects. In 573 Asian patients from five samples, around 1% were PMs due to taking inhibitors, 1% due to inflammation, 1% due to obesity, and 7% were potential genetic PMs. The potential genetic PMs ranged between 3% and 13%, but this prevalence will have to be better established in future studies including genetic testing for possible CYP1A2 mutations, which may explain PM status., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Introduction: This study was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia among Asian patients., Methods: Patients (N = 281) with schizophrenia who had completed a randomized, double-blind (DB), 6-week comparison of lurasidone (40 and 80 mg/day) and placebo were enrolled in a 26-week extension study in which all patients received open-label (OL), flexible doses of lurasidone (40 or 80 mg/day). Effectiveness was measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scale., Results: Fifty-seven percent of patients completed the OL extension study; 16.7% discontinued early due to lack of effectiveness; and 10.3% due to adverse events. The most common adverse events were insomnia (11.3%), akathisia (11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (10.6%). Adverse events related to weight gain, metabolic parameters, prolactin, and ECG measures were uncommon. Mean change in the PANSS total score from the DB baseline to OL endpoint was -28.4, with mean improvement of -7.5 observed from baseline to OL endpoint, and with a PANSS responder rate of 73.7%., Discussion: The results of the current 26-week extension study found lurasidone to be a generally safe, well-tolerated, and effective long-term treatment for schizophrenia in Asian patients., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

A combination of the antipsychotic olanzapine and the opioid receptor antagonist samidorphan (OLZ/SAM) is intended to provide the antipsychotic efficacy of olanzapine while mitigating olanzapine-associated weight gain. As cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 and CYP3A4 are the major enzymes involved in metabolism of olanzapine and samidorphan, respectively, physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling was applied to predict any drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential between olanzapine and samidorphan or between OLZ/SAM and CYP3A4/CYP1A2 inhibitors/inducers. A PBPK model for OLZ/SAM was developed and validated by comparing model-simulated data with observed clinical study data. Based on model-based simulations, no DDI between olanzapine and samidorphan is expected when administered as OLZ/SAM. CYP3A4 inhibition is predicted to have a weak effect on samidorphan exposure and negligible effect on olanzapine exposure. CYP3A4 induction is predicted to reduce both samidorphan and olanzapine exposure. CYP1A2 inhibition or induction is predicted to increase or decrease, respectively, olanzapine exposure only., (© 2020 The Authors. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The paliperidone pharmacokinetics after intramuscular administration of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate in Japanese patients were studied in 3 phase 1 studies and in 2 phase 3 studies performed in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. These data (Japanese, n = 509; Korean, n = 31; Taiwanese, n = 47) were used to describe the paliperidone palmitate pharmacokinetics in Japanese, to compare with non-Japanese, and to validate the historical population pharmacokinetic (Pop-PK) model for paliperidone palmitate, developed using data from studies in patients with schizophrenia outside Japan. The final historical Pop-PK model, including all significant patient covariates of Japanese studies, was used to simulate paliperidone plasma concentration-time data using nonlinear mixed effects, followed by comparison with actual data. Visual predictive checks displayed considerable overlap between predicted and actual plasma concentrations; the majority of observations were within the 90% prediction interval. Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese patients had comparable plasma concentrations. Covariate distributions demonstrated comparatively lower median body mass index in Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese patients versus rest-of-world population. Prediction errors for the data set used for external validation were within cutoff values, confirming accuracy/precision of the model. Paliperidone pharmacokinetics were adequately predicted for Japanese studies using the historical Pop-PK model, confirming its robustness. Pharmacokinetics in Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese patients with schizophrenia were comparable with rest-of-world population., (© 2019 Janssen Pharmaceutical. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background and Purpose: Lurasidone is an atypical mood-stabilizing antipsychotic with a unique receptor-binding profile, including 5-HT 7 receptor antagonism; however, the detailed effects of 5-HT 7 receptor antagonism on various transmitter systems relevant to schizophrenia, particularly the thalamo-insular glutamatergic system and the underlying mechanisms, are yet to be clarified., Experimental Approach: We examined the mechanisms underlying the clinical effects of lurasidone by measuring the release of l-glutamate, GABA, dopamine, and noradrenaline in the reticular thalamic nucleus (RTN), mediodorsal thalamic nucleus (MDTN) and insula of freely moving rats in response to systemic injection or local infusion of lurasidone or MK-801 using multiprobe microdialysis with ultra-HPLC., Key Results: Systemic MK-801 (0.5 mg·kg -1 ) administration increased insular release of l-glutamate, dopamine, and noradrenaline but decreased GABA release. Systemic lurasidone (1 mg·kg -1 ) administration also increased insular release of l-glutamate, dopamine, and noradrenaline but without affecting GABA. Local lurasidone administration into the insula (3 μM) did not affect MK-801-induced insular release of l-glutamate or catecholamine, whereas local lurasidone administration into the MDTN (1 μM) inhibited MK-801-induced insular release of l-glutamate and catecholamine, similar to the 5-HT 7 receptor antagonist SB269970., Conclusions and Implications: The present results indicate that MK-801-induced insular l-glutamate release is generated by activation of thalamo-insular glutamatergic transmission via MDTN GABAergic disinhibition resulting from NMDA receptor inhibition in the MDTN and RTN. Lurasidone inhibited this MK-801-evoked insular l-glutamate release through inhibition of excitatory 5-HT 7 receptor in the MDTN. These effects on thalamo-insular glutamatergic transmission may contribute to the antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing actions of lurasidone., (© 2019 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Purpose: To review and analyse medication errors related to clozapine, an atypical antipsychotic, that were reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS)., Methods: Following extraction of one year of clozapine related errors from the NRLS, a qualitative analysis (thematic analysis and re-classification) and quantitative analysis was performed. An incident was considered a clozapine error if there was a failure in its medication process (i.e. an error in the prescribing, dispensing, preparing, administering, monitoring or advising of clozapine)., Results: "Issues with stock/supply/ordering" was the most common theme derived from the qualitative thematic analysis (n = 338), followed by wrong dose/strength/frequency (n = 221) and medication omissions (n = 202). Most errors occurred in the "administration/supply" medication stage. Over half of reported clozapine incidents involved people 26 to 55 years old (n = 830) and 82% of errors were reported by mental health services (n = 1270). Only 1.5% of reports were classed as moderate/severe harm., Conclusion: Issues with availability, stock, and supply were found to be the most common causes. This usually entailed a lack of stock to fulfil a patient's dose/supply. Such incidents could potentially be reduced by improved management of the supply process, and liaison between pharmacy and clinical staff. The implementation of emergency drug cupboards at the discretion of an on-call pharmacist may prove to be a preventative measure for such errors. Despite the potential adverse effects associated with clozapine, very few incidents led to moderate/severe harm. Encouragement of NRLS reporting is recommended for incidents of all degrees of harm., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) represents a danger to both patients and their caregivers. Medication is often needed, and few high-quality randomized trials have evaluated the optimal drugs for this vulnerable population. In the United States, as of 2017, randomized trials of drugs typically cannot be conducted under Waiver of Consent (46 CFR 45.116), and Exception From Informed Consent trials (21 CFR 50.24) are limited to life-threatening conditions, are onerous, and require filing an investigational new drug application with the FDA. We sought to conduct a randomized double-dummy trial of inhaled loxapine versus intramuscular haloperidol + lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED by obtaining consent in advance ("preconsent") in patients at risk of future agitation, allowing study drug administration up to 3 years later if the patient presented with acute agitation., Objective: We sought to report the successful enrollment rate of patients preconsented at an earlier ED visit for this trial., Methods: This was an analysis of patients age 18 to 64 with bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia preconsented for enrollment in the trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02877108) conducted at a single urban academic center seeing approximately 60,000 patients per year. Eligible patients were assessed for capacity to consent by trained research associates, and informed consent was obtained at an ED visit for the possibility of administering drugs for agitation within the next 3 years. In the event the patient later presented to the ED and the attending physician deemed the patient required treatment for acute agitation, preconsent was confirmed and study drug would be administered., Results: Over 67 days, 1,461 patients were screened in the ED, 269 had bipolar I or schizophrenia, 194 of whom had a contraindication to inhaled loxapine leaving 75 eligible patients; preconsent was obtained in 43 patients. Four additional patients who had not preconsented were consented for the trial in real time (three by surrogate, one patient had capacity while agitated) resulting in a total of 47 consented patients. Of these 47, a total of 12 were later removed from the study: 10 patients had unrecognized exclusion criteria for inhaled loxapine, one preconsented patient contacted the investigators at a later date and asked to be removed, and one surrogate revoked consent immediately after providing it. Only two patients were successfully enrolled, neither by preconsent: one was enrolled via a surrogate the day of enrollment, and the other was mildly agitated and had capacity to consent. The remaining patient with a valid surrogate consent did not receive study medication., Conclusions: Utilization of preconsent to enroll patients in a randomized trial of treatments for acute agitation in the ED requires substantial resources and may not be feasible., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Although current quetiapine labeling recommends that its dosage should be lowered 6-fold when coadministered with strong cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A inhibitors, a reported case of coma in a patient receiving quetiapine with lopinavir and ritonavir prompted the reevaluation of labeling recommendations for the dosing of quetiapine when coadministered with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors. Literature and database (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and United States Symphony Health Solutions' Integrated Dataverse Database) searches allowed us to identify cases of coma and related adverse events involving the coadministration of quetiapine and HIV protease inhibitors and to estimate the frequency of concomitant use. Literature review and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling allowed us to estimate the potential for CYP3A inhibition to contribute to adverse events related to HIV protease inhibitor-quetiapine coadministration. We identified excess sedation following coadministration of quetiapine and an HIV protease inhibitor in 3 reports without obvious confounders. In prescription claims data, 0.4% of quetiapine patients were dispensed a concurrent ritonavir prescription. The quetiapine dose was not reduced on ritonavir initiation in 90% of therapy episodes. Available data indicate to us that all HIV protease inhibitors combined with ritonavir are likely to be strong CYP3A inhibitors. We predicted that ritonavir would increase quetiapine exposure comparable to the strong CYP3A inhibitor ketoconazole. The current dosing recommendations for use of quetiapine with strong CYP3A inhibitors (ie, 6-fold lower quetiapine dose) are appropriate and should be followed when quetiapine is coadministered with HIV protease inhibitors., (© Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Acute agitation secondary to alcohol intoxication frequently requires parenteral sedatives for patient and caregiver safety. Antipsychotics play a prominent role; however, no consensus exists regarding the ideal agent. One important consideration when evaluating the choice of antipsychotic is its association with emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS)., Objectives: We sought to determine the median ED LOS for patients receiving a single parenteral dose of an antipsychotic for acute agitation secondary to alcohol intoxication in an urban Level I trauma center., Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients receiving a single parenteral dose of droperidol, haloperidol, or olanzapine who were acutely intoxicated on alcohol from 2011 to 2016. Patients needing psychiatric assessment in our ED are discharged to a geographically separate department; thus, ED LOS is minimally impacted by waits for psychiatric assessment. Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record and are presented descriptively., Results: A total of 40,601 patients were identified and screened; 24,319 patients were intoxicated but received no sedation. Of those remaining 4,495 received multiple drugs and/or benzodiazepines leaving 11,787 for analysis. Median age was 42 years, 76% were male, and 5% of patients were admitted. Mean breath ethanol concentration was 227 mg/dL. Antipsychotics administered were as follows: droperidol (n = 3,790), haloperidol (n = 1,449), and olanzapine (n = 6,548). Median ED LOS was shortest for droperidol (499 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 493-506 minutes), which was significantly shorter than both haloperidol (524 minutes, 95% CI = 515-537 minutes) and olanzapine (533 minutes, 95% CI = 528-539 minutes). No cases of sudden cardiac death occurred., Conclusion: Droperidol, when given as monotherapy for sedation of acute agitation secondary to alcohol intoxication, was associated with significantly shorter ED LOS than either parenteral haloperidol or parenteral olanzapine. No difference in ED LOS was observed between haloperidol and olanzapine., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Disease modification is a primary therapeutic aim when developing treatments for most chronic progressive diseases. The best treatments do not simply affect disease symptoms but fundamentally improve disease course by slowing, halting, or reversing disease progression. One of many challenges for establishing disease modification relates to the identification of adequate analytic tools to show differences in a disease course following intervention. Traditional approaches rely on the comparisons of slopes or noninferiority margins. However, it has proven difficult to conclusively demonstrate disease modification using such approaches. To address these challenges, we propose a novel adaptation of the delayed start study design that incorporates posterior probabilities identified by hierarchical Bayesian inference approaches to establish evidence for disease modification. Our models compare the size of treatment differences at the end of the delayed start period with those at the end of the early start period. Simulations that compare several models are provided. These include general linear models, repeated measures models, spline models, and model averaging. Our work supports the superiority of model averaging for accurately characterizing complex data that arise in real world applications. This novel approach has been applied to the design of an ongoing, doubly randomized, matched control study that aims to show disease modification in young persons with schizophrenia (the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study). The application of this Bayesian methodology to the DREaM study highlights the value of this approach and demonstrates many practical challenges that must be addressed when implementing this methodology in a real world trial., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Although physicians are aware of the risks of prescribing long-term off-label antipsychotics in people with intellectual disability, attempts to discontinue often fail. This study aimed to identify potential determinants of successful and failed discontinuation. Long-term off-label antipsychotics were tapered in 14 weeks, with 12.5% of baseline dose every 2 weeks. Participants living in facilities offered by intellectual disability service providers, ≥6 years, with an IQ <70 were eligible to discontinue antipsychotic use, as judged by their physicians. The primary outcome was achievement of complete discontinuation at 16 weeks; changes in the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC) and its 5 subscales were secondary outcomes. Potential determinants of the success or failure in discontinuing antipsychotics were psychotropic drug use and participants' living circumstances, medical health conditions, and severity of behavioral symptoms and neurologic side effects. Of 499 eligible clients, 129 were recruited. Reasons for client non-participation were clinician concerns that discontinuation might increase challenging behaviors and changes in clients' environment. Of the 129 participants, 61% had completely discontinued antipsychotics at 16 weeks, 46% at 28 weeks, and 40% at 40 weeks. ABC total scores increased in 49% of participants with unsuccessful discontinuation at 16 weeks. Autism, higher dose of antipsychotic drug, higher ABC and akathisia scores, and more-frequent worsening of health during discontinuation were associated with a lower incidence of complete discontinuation. Thus, in a selected sample of participants whom responsible clinicians had deemed discontinuation of antipsychotics could be attempted, 40% had achieved and maintained discontinuation at end of follow-up. Physicians should try to address patients' conditions that may hamper discontinuation., (© 2018, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Purpose: To investigate unintentional therapeutic medication errors associated with antidepressant and antipsychotic medications in the United States and expand current knowledge on the types of errors commonly associated with these medications., Methods: A retrospective analysis of non-health care facility unintentional therapeutic errors associated with antidepressant and antipsychotic medications was conducted using data from the National Poison Data System., Results: From 2000 to 2012, poison control centers received 207 670 calls reporting unintentional therapeutic errors associated with antidepressant or antipsychotic medications that occurred outside of a health care facility, averaging 15 975 errors annually. The rate of antidepressant-related errors increased by 50.6% from 2000 to 2004, decreased by 6.5% from 2004 to 2006, and then increased 13.0% from 2006 to 2012. The rate of errors related to antipsychotic medications increased by 99.7% from 2000 to 2004 and then increased by 8.8% from 2004 to 2012. Overall, 70.1% of reported errors occurred among adults, and 59.3% were among females. The medications most frequently associated with errors were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (30.3%), atypical antipsychotics (24.1%), and other types of antidepressants (21.5%). Most medication errors took place when an individual inadvertently took or was given a medication twice (41.0%), inadvertently took someone else's medication (15.6%), or took the wrong medication (15.6%)., Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive overview of non-health care facility unintentional therapeutic errors associated with antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. The frequency and rate of these errors increased significantly from 2000 to 2012. Given that use of these medications is increasing in the US, this study provides important information about the epidemiology of the associated medication errors., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Many people with schizophrenia do not respond to an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, one treatment strategy could be to increase the antipsychotic dose; and another strategy could be to switch to a different antipsychotic drug., Objectives: To examine the efficacy of increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching the antipsychotic drug in the treatment of non-responsive people with schizophrenia., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching to a different antipsychotic drug for people with schizophrenia who have not responded to their initial antipsychotic treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: We include one RCT with relevant data on 29 participants in this review. The trial had a parallel design and was double-blind, but blinding procedures were not described. The trial included people who were non-responsive to fluphenazine 20 mg/day administered for 4 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to continuing treatment with fluphenazine 20 mg/day, increasing the dose to fluphenazine 80 mg/day or switching to haloperidol 20 mg/day for four additional weeks. Data were reported only for 47 out of 58 initially randomised participants. The trial was published in 1993. The fact that only one RCT with a small sample size (N = 29) was included in the analysis limits the quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the three available outcomes: global state (number of participants with clinically relevant response (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 15.99, very low quality evidence); general mental state (endpoint score, BPRS total) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.20 to 8.20, very low quality evidence); and negative symptoms (endpoint score, SANS) (MD 3.40, 95% CI -12.56 to 19.36). No data were reported for leaving the study early, adverse effects, time in hospital, quality of life, satisfaction with care and functioning., Authors' Conclusions: There is extremely limited evidence and no clear conclusions can be drawn. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optimal treatment strategy for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

Background: Many people with schizophrenia do not reach a satisfactory clinical response with a standard dose of an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, clinicians face the dilemma of increasing the antipsychotic dose in order to enhance antipsychotic efficacy., Objectives: To examine the efficacy of increasing antipsychotic dose compared to keeping the same dose in the treatment of people with schizophrenia who have not responded (as defined in the individual studies) to an initial antipsychotic drug trial. We also examine the adverse effects associated with such a procedure., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting useable data, comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose rather than maintaining the original dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently extracted data . We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: Ten relevant RCTs with 675 participants are included in this review. All trials were double blind except one single blind. All studies had a run-in phase to confirm they did not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. The trials were published between 1980 and 2016. In most studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. In addition sample sizes were often small, limiting the overall quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the number of participants who showed clinically relevant response (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.40, 9 RCTs, N = 533, low-quality evidence), or left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.07, very low quality evidence), or due to any reason (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90, 5 RCTs, N = 353, low-quality evidence). Similarly, no clear difference was found in general mental state as measured by PANSS total score change (MD -1.44, 95% CI -6.85 to 3.97, 3 RCTs, N = 258, very low quality evidence). At least one adverse effect was equivocal between groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50, 2 RCTs, N = 191, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for time in hospital or quality-of-life outcomes. Finally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not show any effect on the primary outcome but these analyses were clearly underpowered., Authors' Conclusions: Current data do not show any clear differences between increasing or maintaining the antipsychotic dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. Adverse effect reporting was limited and poor. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optional treatment strategy in such cases.

Metformin was found to reduce elevated serum thyrotropin levels, and this effect was partially determined by endogenous dopaminergic tone. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of metformin treatment on hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis activity in elderly women with subclinical hypothyroidism treated with antipsychotic agents and not receiving this drug. The study population consisted of 34 elderly women with subclinical hypothyroidism, 16 of whom received antipsychotic drugs. Because of coexistent type 2 diabetes, these women were treated with metformin (2.55-3 g daily). Glucose homeostasis markers as well as serum levels of thyrotropin, free thyroid hormones and prolactin were measured at the beginning of the study and 6 months later. Thirty women completed the study. With the exception of prolactin, baseline serum levels of the assessed hormones were comparable in both study groups. Although metformin reduced serum thyrotropin levels in both groups, this effect was more pronounced in the antipsychotic-treated than in the antipsychotic-naive patients. The effect on serum prolactin was observed only in antipsychotic-treated patients. The impact on serum thyrotropin levels correlated with improvement in insulin sensitivity and with a reduction in prolactin levels. Free thyroxine and free triiodothyronine remained at a similar level throughout the study. The obtained results indicate that metformin reduces serum thyrotropin levels in elderly women, and this effect is particularly pronounced in women with diminished dopaminergic transmission., (© 2017, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of 2 policy changes on quetiapine dispensing in Australia: removal of prior authorisation for prescribing (policy 1: July 2007) and removal of repeat prescriptions for 25-mg quetiapine (policy 2: January 2014)., Methods: We performed an interrupted time series analysis using Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme claims data (July 2005 to December 2015). We assessed the impact of both policies on monthly quetiapine dispensing (25 mg and >25 mg) and the impact of policy change 2 on monthly rates of 25-mg discontinuation and switching from 25 mg to other quetiapine strengths. We also estimated the impact of both policies on the proportion of people with potentially inappropriate therapy (no evidence of dose escalation) following 25-mg initiation., Results: Following removal of prior authorisation, 25-mg and >25-mg quetiapine dispensing in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 10% sample increased by 11/month (95% CI: 2-21) and 14/month (95% CI: 8-20), respectively. After removing 25-mg repeats, there was a permanent decrease of 1072 (95% CI 773-1371) dispensings and an increase in discontinuation of this strength; 48% of people dispensed the 25-mg strength that discontinued, discontinued quetiapine completely; the remainder continued to use higher quetiapine strengths. We observed minimal switching to other quetiapine strengths. There was no change in inappropriate 25-mg therapy following policy change 1 and a small decrease (79% to 76%, P = 0.05) following policy change 2., Conclusion: More nuanced policies are needed to ensure the appropriate access to 25-mg quetiapine for dose escalation while discouraging use for indications where the evidence of risk and benefit is unclear., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

A subcutaneous risperidone implant (RI) formulation was developed to improve medication adherence in schizophrenia. Two phase 1 studies were conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of RI in adult patients with schizophrenia. In study 1, all subjects were stable on 4 mg oral risperidone; subsequently, the first subject received 375 mg RI for 1 month, and the remaining subjects received 375 mg RI for 3 months. In study 2, all subjects were stable on oral risperidone 4 mg, 6 mg, or 8 mg and subsequently received RI 480 mg, 720 mg, or 960 mg, respectively, for 6 months. Blood samples were collected at prespecified time points. Various pharmacokinetic parameters were determined in both studies. In both studies risperidone total active moiety plasma concentrations following RI increased slowly, reached therapeutic levels within approximately 2 days, and remained relatively stable. In study 1, the average concentration for RI was 81.3% of the oral trough concentration and 27.5% of the oral peak concentration. In study 2, the steady-state concentration for RI was comparable to the oral trough concentration of the corresponding dose. Patient disease status remained stable with no major safety issues. RI may represent an alternative formulation for schizophrenia treatment with a lower peak-to-trough plasma drug ratio than oral risperidone., (© 2018, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Although pregnancy is known to cause changes in drug pharmacokinetics, little is known about its impact on serum levels of antipsychotics. In this study we retrospectively assessed 201 routine serum antipsychotic therapeutic drug monitoring concentration measurements obtained from a total of 110 pregnancies in 103 women, and 512 measurements from the same women before and after pregnancy. Serum concentrations in the third trimester were significantly lower than baseline for quetiapine (-76%; confidence interval (CI), -83%, -66%; P < 0.001) and aripiprazole (-52%; CI, -62%, -39%; P < 0.001), but not for olanzapine (-9%; CI, -28%, +14%; P = 0.40). For the remaining antipsychotics (perphenazine, haloperidol, ziprasidone, risperidone, and clozapine), our dataset was limited, but it indicates that concentrations may decline at least for perphenazine and possibly also for haloperidol. Even though the clinical consequence of the serum concentrations decline remains to be elucidated, our results warrant close clinical monitoring throughout pregnancy, preferentially supported by therapeutic drug monitoring., (© 2017 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Since the 1950s antipsychotic medication has been extensively used to treat people with chronic mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. These drugs, however, have also been associated with a wide range of adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD) - a problem often seen as repetitive involuntary movements around the mouth and face. Various strategies have been examined to reduce a person's cumulative exposure to antipsychotics. These strategies include dose reduction, intermittent dosing strategies such as drug holidays, and antipsychotic cessation., Objectives: To determine whether a reduction or cessation of antipsychotic drugs is associated with a reduction in TD for people with schizophrenia (or other chronic mental illnesses) who have existing TD. Our secondary objective was to determine whether the use of specific antipsychotics for similar groups of people could be a treatment for TD that was already established., Search Methods: We updated previous searches of Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based Register of Trials including the registers of clinical trials (16 July 2015 and 26 April 2017). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We also contacted authors of trials for additional information., Selection Criteria: We included reports if they assessed people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who had established antipsychotic-induced TD, and had been randomly allocated to (a) antipsychotic maintenance versus antipsychotic cessation (placebo or no intervention), (b) antipsychotic maintenance versus antipsychotic reduction (including intermittent strategies), (c) specific antipsychotics for the treatment of TD versus placebo or no intervention, and (d) specific antipsychotics versus other antipsychotics or versus any other drugs for the treatment of TD., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently extracted data from these trials and estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assumed that people who dropped out had no improvement., Main Results: We included 13 RCTs with 711 participants; eight of these studies were newly included in this 2017 update. One trial is ongoing.There was low-quality evidence of a clear difference on no clinically important improvement in TD favouring switch to risperidone compared with antipsychotic cessation (with placebo) (1 RCT, 42 people, RR 0.45 CI 0.23 to 0.89, low-quality evidence). Because evidence was of very low quality for antipsychotic dose reduction versus antipsychotic maintenance (2 RCTs, 17 people, RR 0.42 95% CI 0.17 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence), and for switch to a new antipsychotic versus switch to another new antipsychotic (5 comparisons, 5 RCTs, 140 people, no meta-analysis, effects for all comparisons equivocal), we are uncertain about these effects. There was low-quality evidence of a significant difference on extrapyramidal symptoms: use of antiparkinsonism medication favouring switch to quetiapine compared with switch to haloperidol (1 RCT, 45 people, RR 0.45 CI 0.21 to 0.96, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for switch to risperidone or haloperidol compared with antipsychotic cessation (with placebo) (RR 1 RCT, 48 people, RR 2.08 95% CI 0.74 to 5.86, low-quality evidence) and switch to risperidone compared with switch to haloperidol (RR 1 RCT, 37 people, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Trials also reported on secondary outcomes such as other TD symptom outcomes, other adverse events outcomes, mental state, and leaving the study early, but the quality of the evidence for all these outcomes was very low due mainly to small sample sizes, very wide 95% CIs, and risk of bias. No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, outcomes that we designated as being important to patients., Authors' Conclusions: Limited data from small studies using antipsychotic reduction or specific antipsychotic drugs as treatments for TD did not provide any convincing evidence of the value of these approaches. There is a need for larger trials of a longer duration to fully investigate this area.

Background: People experiencing psychosis may become aggressive. Antipsychotics, such as aripiprazole in intramuscular form, can be used in such situations., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of intramuscular aripiprazole in the treatment of psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)., Search Methods: On 11 December 2014 and 11 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that randomised people with psychosis-induced aggression or agitation to receive either intramuscular aripiprazole or another intramuscular intervention., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed these. We included studies that met our selection criteria. At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We chose a fixed-effect model. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: Searching found 63 records referring to 21 possible trials. We could only include three studies, all completed over the last decade, with 885 participants, of which 707 were included for quantitative analyses in this systematic review. Due to limited comparisons, small size of trials and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was mostly graded as low or very low quality. No trials reported useful data for one of our primary outcomes of tranquil or asleep by 30 minutes. Economic outcomes were also not reported in the trials.When compared with placebo, fewer people in the aripiprazole group needed additional injections compared to the placebo group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85, very low-quality evidence). Clinically important improvement in agitation at two hours favoured the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.92, very low-quality evidence). The numbers of non-responders after the first injection also favoured aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 263, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71, low-quality evidence). Although no effect was found, more people in the aripiprazole compared to the placebo group experienced adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 117, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46, very low-quality evidence).Aripiprazole required more injections compared to haloperidol (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.63, very low-quality evidence), with no significant difference in agitation (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, very low-quality evidence), and similar non-responders after first injection (1 RCT, n = 360, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.79, low-quality evidence). Aripiprazole and haloperidol did not differ when taking into account the overall number of people that experienced at least one adverse effect (1 RCT, n = 113, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Compared to aripiprazole, olanzapine was better at reducing agitation (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99, low-quality evidence) and had a more favourable effect on global state change scores (1 RCT, n = 80, MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.15, low-quality evidence), both at two hours. No differences were found in terms of experiencing at least one adverse effect during the 24 hours after treatment (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.24, very low-quality evidence). However, participants allocated to aripiprazole experienced less somnolence (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.82, low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The available evidence is of poor quality but there is some evidence aripiprazole is effective compared to placebo and haloperidol, but not when compared to olanzapine. However, considering that evidence comes from only three studies, caution is required in generalising these results to real-world practice. This review firmly highlights the need for more high-quality trials on intramuscular aripiprazole in the management of people with acute aggression or agitation.

Objective: To quantify and explain variation in use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) in the United States, and understand the relationship between patient characteristics, drug reimbursement policies, and LAI prescribing after relapse., Methods: A cohort of recently relapsed patients with schizophrenia ages 18 to 64, were identified immediately after discharge from a related inpatient hospitalization, partial hospitalization, or emergency room visit, drawn from 2004 to 2006 Medicaid claims, and followed for 90 days until LAI initiation. Data on state-level Medicaid prior authorization (PA) policies for LAIs were collected. Sequential longitudinal Poisson regression models were developed to understand the relationship between patient and PA policy variables and LAI prescribing, including prior adherence to oral antipsychotics, demographics, clinical variables, and presence of PA policy for LAI., Results: Among 36 282 patients, 3.1% received risperidone LAI, and 3.8% received a first-generation (FGA) LAI with wide variation across states. Prior adherence ranged from 29% to 89% but was marginally associated with initiation and did not explain variation for LAI prescribing. FGA initiation was associated with geography and race/ethnicity but not PA policy. For risperidone LAI initiation, demographics and clinical factors explained, respectively, 5.0% and 3.0% of the variation; PA policy had a large negative association with initiation (RR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.20-0.87) and explained 8.4% of the variation., Conclusions: PA policies may represent a major treatment barrier for risperidone LAI among relapsed patients. Non-adherence plays a little role in predicting which patients receive LAIs. Policy makers and health insurers will need to consider these findings when guiding the use of LAIs. KEY POINTS Among a nationwide cohort of relapsed schizophrenia patients enrolled in US Medicaid, 3.1% received Risperdal Consta, a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI), and 3.8% initiated a first-generation first-generation LAI within 90 days after discharge. During 2004 to 2006, there was marked variation in 90 day post-relapse initiation of Risperdal-Consta-a newly marketed medication during this period-and also marked variation in 90 day post-relapse initiation of any first-generation LAI, which appeared to be associated with race/ethnicity and geography. Prior authorization policies were associated with substantially lower initiation of Risperdal Consta in this cohort of relapsed patients even after accounting for clinical indication (non-adherence), relapse history, demographics, adjunctive medication, and mental health service use., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Brexpiprazole is currently approved in the United States for the treatment of schizophrenia and as adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder. In Canada, it is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of brexpiprazole in Japanese patients with schizophrenia. This phase 1 study comprised a 14-day multiple-dose administration of brexpiprazole 1, 4, and 6 mg/day (n = 7, 8, and 6, respectively). Plasma concentrations and PK parameters and the influence of CYP2D6 polymorphisms (intermediate metabolizers [IMs] and extensive metabolizers [EMs]) on PK were evaluated. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded. The C max and AUC 24h of brexpiprazole and its metabolite, DM-3411, showed dose-proportionality. The C max and AUC 24h of brexpiprazole showed accumulation of about 2.5- to 5.5-fold on day 14, compared with those on day 1. The median t max and the mean elimination half-life of brexpiprazole were 4-5 and 52-92 hours, respectively, across all doses on day 14. The C 24h of brexpiprazole reached steady state after day 10 in all dose groups. The dose-normalized C max and AUC 24h of brexpiprazole on day 14 were higher in IM patients than in EM patients. AEs were generally mild to moderate, with transient serum prolactin increase being the most common event. No clinically significant changes were observed for other clinical laboratory values. Brexpiprazole was safe and well tolerated in the studied Japanese patients with schizophrenia., (© 2017, The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Sulpiride, a selective dopamine D2 receptor blocker, is used widely for the treatment of schizophrenia, depression and gastric/duodenal ulcers. Because the great majority of sulpiride is positively charged at physiological pH 7.4, and ~70% of the dose recovered in urine is in the unchanged form after human intravenous administration of sulpiride, it is believed that transporters play an important role in the renal excretion of sulpiride. The aim of the present study was to explore which transporters contribute to the renal disposition of sulpiride. The results demonstrated that sulpiride was a substrate of human carnitine/organic cation transporter 1 (hOCTN1) and 2 (hOCTN2), human organic cation transporter 2 (hOCT2), human multidrug and toxin efflux extrusion protein 1 (hMATE1) and 2-K (hMATE2-K). Sulpiride accumulation from the basolateral (BL) to the apical (AP) side in MDCK-hOCT2/pcDNA3.1 cell monolayers was much greater than that in MDCK-hOCT2/hMATE1 cells, and cimetidine dramatically reduced the intracellular accumulation of sulpiride from BL to AP. In addition, the accumulation of sulpiride in mouse primary renal tubular cells (mPRTCs) was markedly reduced by inhibitors of Oct2 and Octns. The results implied that OCTN1, OCTN2, OCT2, MATE1 and MATE2-K probably contributed to the renal transfer of sulpiride, in which OCT2 mediated the uptake of sulpiride from the bloodstream to the proximal tubular cells, while MATEs contributed to the sulpiride efflux from the proximal tubular cells to the renal lumen, and OCTNs participated in both renal secretion and reabsorption., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas., Objectives: To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting aggression and/or agitation thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes of interest included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and providing useable data., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest., Main Results: We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real-world practice.

Background: Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources., Authors' Conclusions: There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Background: Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking and speech, emotional processes, behaviour and sense of self. Clozapine is useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, particularly when other antipsychotic medications have failed. It improves positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and negative symptoms (such as withdrawal and poverty of speech). However, it is unclear what dose of clozapine is most effective with the least side effects., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine at different doses and to identify the optimal dose of clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (August 2011 and 8 December 2016)., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding status or language, that compared the effects of clozapine at different doses in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, diagnosed by any criteria., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently inspected citations from the searches, identified relevant abstracts, obtained full articles of relevant abstracts, and classified trials as included or excluded. We included trials that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE., Main Results: We identified five studies that could be included. Each compared the effects of clozapine at very low dose (up to 149 mg/day), low dose (150 mg/day to 300 mg/day) and standard dose (301 mg/day to 600 mg/day). Four of the five included studies were based on a small number of participants. We rated all the evidence reported for the main outcomes of interest as low or very low quality. No data were available for the main outcomes of global state, service use or quality of life. Very low dose compared to low doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low and very low doses of clozapine in terms of average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 3.55, 95% CI -4.50 to 11.60, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in body mass index (BMI) in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.75, low-quality evidence). Very low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between very low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of average BPRS-A endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 6.67, 95% CI -2.09 to 15.43, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 58, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.96, low-quality evidence) Low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of both clinician-assessed clinical improvement (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.61, medium-quality evidence) and clinically important response as more than 30% change in BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 176, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, medium-quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).We found some evidence of effect for other adverse effect outcomes; however, the data were again limited. Very low dose compared to low doseThere was limited evidence that serum triglycerides were lower at low-dose clozapine compared to very low dose in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49). Low dose compared to standard doseWeight gain was lower at very low dose compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 27, MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.38 to -0.02). Glucose level one hour after meal was also lower at very lose dose (1 RCT, n = 58, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.90 to -0.30). Total cholesterol levels were higher at very low compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 58, n = 58, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.80). Low dose compared to standard doseThere was evidence of fewer adverse effects, measured as lower TESS scores, in the low-dose group in the short term (2 RCTs, n = 266, MD -3.99, 95% CI -5.75 to -2.24); and in one study there was evidence that the incidence of lethargy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97), hypersalivation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84), dizziness (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and tachycardia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71) was less at low dose compared to standard dose., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence of effect on mental state between standard, low and very low dose regimes, but we did not identify any trials on high or very high doses of clozapine. BMI measurements were similar between groups in the short term, although weight gain was less at very low dose compared to standard dose in one study. There was limited evidence that the incidence of some adverse effects was greater at standard dose compared to lower dose regimes. We found very little useful data and the evidence available is generally of low or very low quality. More studies are needed to validate our findings and report on outcomes such as relapse, remission, social functioning, service utilisation, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. There is a particular lack of medium- or long-term outcome data, and on dose regimes above the standard rate.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines lists chlorpromazine as one of its five medicines used in psychotic disorders., Objectives: To determine chlorpromazine dose response and dose side-effect relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (December 2008; 2 October 2014; 19 December 2016)., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low doses of chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day), medium dose (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) or higher doses (> 800 mg/day) for people with schizophrenia, and which reported clinical outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: We included studies meeting review criteria and providing useable data. Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs based on a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and graded trial quality using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)., Main Results: As a result of searches undertaken in 2014, we found one new study and in 2016 more data for already included studies. Five relevant studies with 1132 participants (585 are relevant to this review) are now included. All are hospital-based trials and, despite over 60 years of chlorpromazine use, have durations of less than six months and all are at least at moderate risk of bias. We found only data on low-dose (≤ 400 mg/day) versus medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) and low-dose versus high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day).When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day), there was no clear benefit of one dose over the other for both global and mental state outcomes (low-quality and very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear evidence for people in one dosage group being more likely to leave the study early, over the other dosage group (moderate-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group experienced agitation and restlessness (very low-quality evidence). However, significantly more people in the medium-dose group (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) experienced extrapyramidal symptoms in the short term (2 RCTS, n = 108, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74, moderate-quality evidence). No data for death were available.When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day), data from one study with 416 patients were available. Clear evidence of a benefit of the high dose was found with regards to global state. The low-dose group had significantly fewer people improving (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, moderate-quality evidence). There was also a marked difference between the number of people leaving the study from each group for any reason, with significantly more people leaving from the high-dose group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89, moderate-quality evidence). More people in the low-dose group had to leave the study due to deterioration in behaviour (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.44, low-quality evidence). There was clear evidence of a greater risk of people experiencing extrapyramidal symptoms in general in the high-dose group (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, moderate-quality evidence). One death was reported in the high-dose group yet no effect was shown between the two dosage groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, moderate-quality evidence). No data for mental state were available., Authors' Conclusions: The dosage of chlorpromazine has changed drastically over the past 50 years with lower doses now being the preferred of choice. However, this change was gradual and arose not due to trial-based evidence, but due to clinical experience and consensus. Chlorpromazine is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs yet appropriate use of lower levels has come about after many years of trial and error with much higher doses. In the absence of high-grade evaluative studies, clinicians have had no alternative but to learn from experience. However, such an approach can lack scientific rigor and does not allow for proper dissemination of information that would assist clinicians find the optimum treatment dosage for their patients. In the future, data for recently released medication should be available from high-quality trials and studies to provide optimum treatment to patients in the shortest amount of time.

Currently approved treatments for schizophrenia only minimally affect the cognitive features of the illness that are the most closely related to disability. Hence, there is now considerable effort to repurpose drugs for schizophrenia, and to seek agents that can improve cognition by targeting receptor systems other than the dopaminergic system. The results of these studies have been mixed thus far; however, this continues to be a high-priority area of schizophrenia research and an important unmet need., (Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form., Objectives: To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia., Search Methods: On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)., Main Results: The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.

Background: Psychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically aggressive behaviour - and both can be prolonged. Aggression within the psychiatric setting imposes a significant challenge to clinicians and risk to service users; it is a frequent cause for admission to inpatient facilities. If people continue to be aggressive it can lengthen hospitalisation. Haloperidol is used to treat people with long-term aggression., Objectives: To examine whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2011 and April 2015)., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or double blind trials (implying randomisation) with useable data comparing haloperidol with another drug or placebo for people with psychosis and long-term/persistent aggression., Data Collection and Analysis: One review author (AK) extracted data. For dichotomous data, one review author (AK) calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. One review author (AK) assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE., Main Results: We have no good-quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression. One study randomising 110 chronically aggressive people to three different antipsychotic drugs met the inclusion criteria. When haloperidol was compared with olanzapine or clozapine, skewed data (n=83) at high risk of bias suggested some advantage in terms of scale scores of unclear clinical meaning for olanzapine/clozapine for 'total aggression'. Data were available for only one other outcome, leaving the study early. When compared with other antipsychotic drugs, people allocated to haloperidol were no more likely to leave the study (1 RCT, n=110, RR 1.37, CI 0.84 to 2.24, low-quality evidence). Although there were some data for the outcomes listed above, there were no data on most of the binary outcomes and none on service outcomes (use of hospital/police), satisfaction with treatment, acceptance of treatment, quality of life or economics., Authors' Conclusions: Only one study could be included and most data were heavily skewed, almost impossible to interpret and oflow quality. There were also some limitations in the study design with unclear description of allocation concealment and high risk of bias for selective reporting, so no firm conclusions can be made. This review shows how trials in this group of people are possible - albeit difficult. Further relevant trials are needed to evaluate use of haloperidol in treatment of long-term/persistent aggression in people living with psychosis.

We propose a two-step procedure to personalize drug dosage over time under the framework of a log-linear mixed-effect model. We model patients' heterogeneity using subject-specific random effects, which are treated as the realizations of an unspecified stochastic process. We extend the conditional quadratic inference function to estimate both fixed-effect coefficients and individual random effects on a longitudinal training data sample in the first step and propose an adaptive procedure to estimate new patients' random effects and provide dosage recommendations for new patients in the second step. An advantage of our approach is that we do not impose any distribution assumption on estimating random effects. Moreover, the new approach can accommodate more general time-varying covariates corresponding to random effects. We show in theory and numerical studies that the proposed method is more efficient compared with existing approaches, especially when covariates are time varying. In addition, a real data example of a clozapine study confirms that our two-step procedure leads to more accurate drug dosage recommendations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Model-based approach is recognized as a tool to make drug development more productive and to better support regulatory and therapeutic decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a novel model-based methodology based on the response surface analysis and a nonlinear optimizer algorithm to maximize the clinical performances of drug treatments. The treatment response was described using a drug-disease model accounting for multiple components such as the dosage regimen, the pharmacokinetic characteristics of a drug (including the mechanism and the rate of drug delivery), and the exposure-response relationship. Then, the clinical benefit of a treatment was defined as a function of the diseases and the clinical endpoints and was estimated as a function of the target pharmacodynamic endpoints used to evaluate the treatment effect. A case study is presented to illustrate how the treatment performances of paliperidone extended release (ER) and paliperidone long-acting injectable (LAI) can be improved. A convolution-based approach was used to characterize the pharmacokinetics of ER and LAI paliperidone. The drug delivery properties and the dosage regimen maximizing the clinical benefit (defined as the target level of D2 receptor occupancy) were estimated using a nonlinear optimizer. The results of the analysis indicated that a substantial improvement in clinical benefit (from 15% to 27% for the optimization of the in vivo release and from ∼30% to ∼70% for the optimization of dosage regimen) was obtained when optimal strategies were deployed either for optimizing the in vivo drug delivery properties of ER formulations or for optimizing the dosage regimen of LAI formulations., (© 2016, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are also prescribed for therapeutic indications other than epilepsy (EPI), namely, psychiatric disorders (PSY). Our aim was to develop an algorithm able to distinguish between EPI and PSY among childbearing age women based on differences in AED exposure in these patient groups., Methods: Two groups of women (18-45 years) with EPI or PSY treated with AEDs in the first semester of 2010 or 2011 were extracted from paper or electronic medical charts of specialized centers. Through the prescription database of Bologna Local Health Authority (Italy), AEDs, treatment schedule and co-treatments were collected for each patient. A prescription-based hierarchical classification system was developed. The algorithm obtained was subsequently validated on internal and external data., Results: Eighty-one EPI and 94 PSY subjects were recruited. AED monotherapy was the most common choice in both groups (69% EPI vs 79% PSY). Some AEDs were used only in EPI, others exclusively in PSY. Co-treatments with antipsychotics (6% vs 67%), lithium (0% vs 9%), and antidepressants (7% vs 70%) were fewer in EPI than in PSY. The hierarchical classification system identified antipsychotics, SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), and number of AEDs as variables to discriminate EPI and PSY, with an overall error rate estimate of 9.7% (95%CI: 5.3% to 14.1%)., Conclusion: Among the differences between EPI and PSY, prescription data alone allowed an algorithm to be developed to diagnose each childbearing age woman receiving AEDs. This approach will be useful to stratify patients for risk estimates of AED-treated patients based on administrative databases. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose: Our purpose was to quantify missing baseline laboratory results, assess predictors of missingness, and examine performance of missing data methods., Methods: Using the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database from three sites, we selected three exposure-outcome scenarios with laboratory results as baseline confounders. We compared hazard ratios (HRs) or risk differences (RDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from models that omitted laboratory results, included only available results (complete cases), and included results after applying missing data methods (multiple imputation [MI] regression, MI predictive mean matching [PMM] indicator)., Results: Scenario 1 considered glucose among second-generation antipsychotic users and diabetes. Across sites, glucose was available for 27.7-58.9%. Results differed between complete case and missing data models (e.g., olanzapine: HR 0.92 [CI 0.73, 1.12] vs 1.02 [0.90, 1.16]). Across-site models employing different MI approaches provided similar HR and CI; site-specific models provided differing estimates. Scenario 2 evaluated creatinine among individuals starting high versus low dose lisinopril and hyperkalemia. Creatinine availability: 44.5-79.0%. Results differed between complete case and missing data models (e.g., HR 0.84 [CI 0.77, 0.92] vs. 0.88 [0.83, 0.94]). HR and CI were identical across MI methods. Scenario 3 examined international normalized ratio (INR) among warfarin users starting interacting versus noninteracting antimicrobials and bleeding. INR availability: 20.0-92.9%. Results differed between ignoring INR versus including INR using missing data methods (e.g., RD 0.05 [CI -0.03, 0.13] vs 0.09 [0.00, 0.18]). Indicator and PMM methods gave similar estimates., Conclusion: Multi-site studies must consider site variability in missing data. Different missing data methods performed similarly. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)