Search

BackgroundClozapine is associated with increased risk of myocarditis. However, many common side-effects of clozapine overlap with the clinical manifestations of myocarditis. As a result, there is uncertainty about which signs, symptoms and investigations are important in distinguishing myocarditis from benign adverse effects of clozapine. Clarity on this issue is important, since missing a diagnosis of myocarditis or discontinuing clozapine unnecessarily may both have devastating consequences.AimsTo examine the clinical characteristics of clozapine-induced myocarditis and to identify which signs and symptoms distinguish true myocarditis from other clozapine adverse effects.MethodA retrospective analysis of the record database for 247 621 patients was performed. A natural language processing algorithm identified the instances of patients in which myocarditis was suspected. The anonymised case notes for the patients of each suspected instance were then manually examined, and those whose instances were ambiguous were referred for an independent assessment by up to three cardiologists. Patients with suspected instances were classified as having confirmed myocarditis, myocarditis ruled out or undetermined.ResultsOf 254 instances in 228 patients with suspected myocarditis, 11.4% (n = 29 instances) were confirmed as probable myocarditis. Troponin and C-reactive protein (CRP) had excellent diagnostic value (area under the curve 0.975 and 0.896, respectively), whereas tachycardia was of little diagnostic value. All confirmed instances occurred within 42 days of clozapine initiation.ConclusionsSuspicion of myocarditis can lead to unnecessary discontinuation of clozapine. The ‘critical period’ for myocarditis emergence is the first 6 weeks, and clinical signs including tachycardia are of low specificity. Elevated CRP and troponin are the best markers for the need for further evaluation.

The monovalent cation lithium partially exerts its effects by activating neurotrophic and neuroprotective cellular cascades. Here, we discuss the effects of lithium on oxidative stress, programmed cell death (apoptosis), inflammation, glial dysfunction, neurotrophic factor functioning, excitotoxicity, and mitochondrial stability. In particular, we review evidence demonstrating the action of lithium on cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)-mediated signal transduction, cAMP response element binding activation, increased expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, the phosphatidylinositide cascade, protein kinase C inhibition, glycogen synthase kinase 3 inhibition, and B-cell lymphoma 2 expression. Notably, we also review data from clinical studies demonstrating neurotrophic effects of lithium. We expect that a better understanding of the clinically relevant pathophysiological targets of lithium will lead to improved treatments for those who suffer from mood as well as neurodegenerative disorders.

Background: Prescribed drugs in patients with Alzheimer’s disease may affect the symptomatic progression of their disease, both positively and negatively. Aim: To examine the effects of drugs on the progression of disease in a representative group of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Methods: Patients with the diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease were recruited from the community. The prescribed drugs taken by 224 patients (mean age 82.3 years) were recorded at initial assessment and then correlated in logistic regression analysis with progression of the disease, defined as an increase of one point or more in the Global Deterioration Scale over the next 12-month period. Results: Patients who were taking antipsychotic drugs and sedatives had a significantly higher risk of deterioration than those who were taking none (odds ratios (ORs) 2.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 6.41) and 2.77 (95% CI 1.14 to 6.73), respectively). Higher risk of deterioration was observed in those who were taking both antipsychotic and sedative drugs together (OR 3.86 (95% CI 1.28 to 11.7). Patients taking drugs licensed for dementia, drugs affecting the renin–angiotensin system and statins had a significantly lower risk of deterioration than those who were not taking any of these drugs (ORs 0.49 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.97), 0.31 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.85) and 0.12 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.52), respectively). Conclusion: Our findings have implications for both clinicians and trialists. Most importantly, clinicians should carefully weigh any potential benefits of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, especially in combination, against the risk of increased decline. Researchers need to be aware of the potential of not only licensed drugs for dementia but also drugs affecting the renin–angiotensin system and statins in reducing progression in clinical trials.

Antisaccade errors are consistently increased in schizophrenia. As they have been demonstrated only in cross sectional studies, it is unclear how they vary longitudinally or with different medications. In a previous cross sectional study, we reported a trend towards a reduction in error rates in a patient group treated with risperidone, compared with clozapine and sulpiride treated groups.Gap random and antisaccade paradigms were performed on two occasions in the same sample of DSM-IV schizophrenic patients (n=12) in transition between conventional antipsychotic drugs and risperidone. A cross over design was used with six patients switching from risperidone to conventional (group I) and six in the opposite direction (group II). A control sample (n=12) was also tested on two occasions and their performance compared. The effects of practice between first and second testing and of switching between conventional antipsychotic drugs and risperidone and vice versa was also evaluated.A significant reduction in error rate was demonstrated during risperidone treatment (n=12), compared with conventional APD treatment. Switching from conventional to risperidone produced a reduction in errors, and vice versa.Treatment with risperidone was associated with improvement in antisaccade errors.