Search

Some, but not all, studies have found longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) to be associated with poor response to treatment and more severe negative symptoms in schizophrenia. The aim of the current analysis was to investigate these parameters in a large cohort of patients in their first psychotic episode. The OPTiMiSE cohort included 446 patients with DUP up to two years, who were administered amisulpride for 4 weeks (Phase I). Patients who did not meet Andreasen remission criteria were randomized to double-blind continuation of amisulpride or olanzapine for 6 additional weeks in a blinded study (Phase II). Analyses showed that shorter DUP was associated with lower baseline CGI scores (p<0.001, r = 0.184), PANSS total (p = 0.025, r = 0.106) and PANSS negative subscale scores (p = 0.023, r = 0.107). Remitters had a significantly shorter mean DUP compared to non-remitters both in Phase I (24.5 weeks ±24.3 vs. 35 weeks ± 32.2, p = 0.01, t=-2.521) and in Phase II (24.3 weeks ± 26.4 vs. 38.3 weeks ± 31.3, p = 0.031, t=-2.194). Logistic regression analyses showed a significant effect of DUP on treatment response both in phase I (p = 0.008) and phase II (p = 0.041). Linear regression analyses found that DUP significantly affects PANSS Total change at the end of phase I (p = 0.028) but not at the end of phase II (p = 0.236). Based on these findings, it is possible to conclude that shorter DUP is associated with better response to treatment, particularly during the first weeks after treatment initiation. These findings highlight the need for early identification of the first psychotic episode., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Michael Davidson MD is an employee of Minerva Neurosciences Inc. a biotech company developing drugs for CNS indications. Renè Kahn is a consultant for Alkermes, Otsuka, Janssen-Cilag, Luye Pharma and Sunovion since September 2019. All other authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare, according to the Journal's requirements., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

This report presents the rationale and design of a multi-center clinical trial that examines the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic combination treatment in acutely ill schizophrenia patients compared to antipsychotic monotherapy. Antipsychotic combination treatment is common in clinical practice worldwide, despite clinical guidelines generally not recommending such practice due to lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Olanzapine has a related chemical structure and comparable receptor-binding profile as clozapine, which demonstrated superior efficacy in combination studies, but has a more unfavorable side-effect profile compared to olanzapine. Amisulpride and olanzapine have shown promising therapeutic efficacy in meta-analyses in monotherapy for people with schizophrenia. Combining amisulpride and olanzapine, complementary receptor-binding properties may enhance efficacy and possibly reduce (or at least not augment) side effects due to the different receptor profiles and metabolization pathways. Accordingly, we hypothesize that patients treated with amisulpride plus olanzapine show greater improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 8 weeks versus either monotherapy. A randomized, double-blind controlled trial is performed at 16 German centers comparing flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (400-800 mg/day), and olanzapine (10-20 mg/day) and amisulpride-olanzapine co-treatment. Sample size was calculated to be n = 101 per treatment arm, assuming an effect size of 0.500 and a two-sided alpha = 0.025 and beta = 0.90. Recruitment for this trial started in June 2012. Until December 2018, 328 patients have been randomized. Trial conduct has been extended to reach the projected sample size. Publication of the study results is expected in 2019 informing an evidence-based recommendation regarding specific antipsychotic combination treatment.

Background: No established treatment algorithm exists for patients with schizophrenia. Whether switching antipsychotics or early use of clozapine improves outcome in (first-episode) schizophrenia is unknown., Methods: This three-phase study was done in 27 centres, consisting of general hospitals and psychiatric specialty clinics, in 14 European countries and Israel. Patients aged 18-40 years who met criteria of the DSM-IV for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder were treated for 4 weeks with up to 800 mg/day amisulpride orally in an open-label design (phase 1). Patients who did not meet symptomatic remission criteria at 4 weeks were randomly assigned to continue amisulpride or switch to olanzapine (≤20 mg/day) during a 6-week double-blind phase, with patients and staff masked to treatment allocation (phase 2). Randomisation was done online by a randomisation website; the application implemented stratification by site and sex, and applied the minimisation method for randomisation. Patients who were not in remission at 10 weeks were given clozapine (≤900 mg/day) for an additional 12 weeks in an open-label design (phase 3). The primary outcome was the number of patients who achieved symptomatic remission at the final visits of phases 1, 2, and 3, measured by intention-to-treat analysis. Data were analysed with a generalised linear mixed model, with a logistic link and binomial error distribution. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248195, and closed to accrual., Findings: Between May 26, 2011, and May 15, 2016, we recruited 481 participants who signed informed consent. Of the 446 patients in the intention-to-treat sample, 371 (83%) completed open-label amisulpride treatment, and 250 (56%) achieved remission after phase 1. 93 patients who were not in remission continued to the 6-week double-blind switching trial, with 72 (77%) patients completing the trial (39 on olanzapine and 33 on amisulpride); 15 (45%) patients on amisulpride versus 17 (44%) on olanzapine achieved remission (p=0·87). Of the 40 patients who were not in remission after 10 weeks of treatment, 28 (70%) started on clozapine; 18 (64%) patients completed the 12-week treatment, and five (28%) achieved remission. The number of serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment arms in phase 2: one patient on olanzapine was admitted to hospital because of an epileptic seizure, and one patient on amisulpride was admitted to hospital twice because of exacerbations of psychotic symptoms. Over the course of the trial, two serious suicide attempts were reported., Interpretation: For most patients in the early stages of schizophrenia, symptomatic remission can be achieved using a simple treatment algorithm comprising the sequential administration of amisulpride and clozapine. Since switching to olanzapine did not improve outcome, clozapine should be used after patients fail a single antipsychotic trial-not until two antipsychotics have been tried, as is the current recommendation., Funding: European Commission Seventh Framework Program., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Hypothesis Meta-analyses have shown that the majority of patients with schizophrenia who have not improved after 2 weeks of treatment with an antipsychotic drug are unlikely to fully respond later. We hypothesized that switching to another antipsychotic with a different receptor binding profile is an effective strategy in such a situation. Study Design In total, 327 inpatients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomized to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine (5–20 mg/day) or amisulpride (200–800 mg/day). Those patients who had not reached at least 25% Positive-and-Negative-Syndrome-Scale (PANSS) total score reduction from baseline after 2 weeks (the "non-improvers") were rerandomized double-blind to either staying on the same compound ("stayers") or to switching to the other antipsychotic ("switchers") for another 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of patients in symptomatic remission between the combined "switchers" and the "stayers" after 8 weeks of treatment, analyzed by logistic regression. Study Results A total of 142 nonimprovers were rerandomized at week two. 25 (45.5 %) of the 'stayers' compared to 41 (68.3 %) of the "switchers" reached remission at endpoint (p =.006). Differences in secondary efficacy outcomes were not significant, except for the PANSS negative subscore and the Clinical-Global-Impression-Scale. "Switchers" and "stayers" did not differ in safety outcomes. Conclusions Switching "non-improvers" from amisulpride to olanzapine or vice-versa increased remission rates and was safe. The superiority in the primary outcome was, however, not paralleled by significant differences in most secondary efficacy outcomes and the effect was only apparent at the last visit making replications of longer duration necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The concept of dose equivalence of depot medication is important for many scientific and clinical purposes.Methods: A systematic literature search on four second-generation antipsychotics available as long-acting injectable drugs and haloperidol was conducted. We used the minimum effective dose method which is based on randomized fixed dose studies where the smallest dose which was significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome was declared as minimum effective dose. We calculated equivalent doses from acute phase studies but we also reported the minimum effective doses found in relapse prevention studies.Results: The acute phase minimum effective doses/olanzapine equivalents were: aripiprazole lauroxil 441mg (300mg aripiprazole)/4wks/0.71; aripiprazole 400mg/4weeks/0.95 (aripiprazole maintena); paliperidone palmitate 25mg/4weeks/0,06; risperidone 25mg/2weeks/0,12; RBP-7000 90mg/4weeks/0,21; olanzapine 210mg/2weeks/1.Conclusions: The minimum effective dose method is an operationalized and evidence-based approach for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence which can also be applied to long-acting injectable formulations. Doses may not have been chosen low enough to find the truly minimum effective dose. Comparisons with other methods will be necessary to come to ultimate conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinicians need to know the right antipsychotic dose for optimized treatment, and the concept of dose equivalence is important for many clinical and scientific purposes. Methods: We refined a method presented in 2003, which was based on the minimum effective doses found in fixed-dose studies. We operationalized the selection process, updated the original findings, and expanded them by systematically searching more recent literature and by including 13 second-generation antipsychotics. To qualify for the minimum effective dose, a dose had to be significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome of at least one randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose trial. In a sensitivity analysis, 2 positive trials were required. The minimum effective doses identified were subsequently used to derive olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine equivalents. Results: We reviewed 73 included studies. The minimum effective daily doses/olanzapine equivalents based on our primary approach were: aripiprazole 10 mg/1.33, asenapine 10 mg/1.33, clozapine 300 mg/40, haloperidol 4 mg/0.53, iloperidone 8 mg/1.07, lurasidone 40 mg/5.33, olanzapine 7.5 mg/1, paliperidone 3 mg/0.4, quetiapine 150 mg/20, risperidone 2 mg/0.27, sertindole 12 mg/1.60, and ziprasidone 40 mg/5.33. For amisulpride and zotepine, reliable estimates could not be derived. Conclusions: This method for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence entails an operationalized and evidence-based approach that can be applied to the various antipsychotic drugs. As a limitation, the results are not applicable to specific populations such as first-episode or refractory patients. We recommend that alternative methods also be updated in order to minimize further differences between the methods and risk of subsequent bias. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: In many parts of the world, second-generation antipsychotics have largely replaced typical antipsychotics as the treatment of choice for schizophrenia. Consequently, trials comparing two drugs of this class—so-called head-to-head studies—are gaining in relevance. The authors reviewed results of head-to-head studies of second-generation anti-psychotics funded by pharmaceutical companies to determine if a relationship existed between the sponsor of the trial and the drug favored in the study's overall outcome. Method: The authors identified head-to- head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics through a MEDLINE search for the period from 1966 to September 2003 and identified additional head-to-head studies from selected conference proceedings for the period from 1999 to February 2004. The abstracts of all studies fully or partly funded by pharmaceutical companies were modified to mask the names and doses of the drugs used in the trial, and two physicians blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the abstracts and independently rated which drug was favored by the overall outcome measures. Two authors who were not blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the entire report of each study for sources of bias that could have affected the results in favor of the sponsor's drug. Results: Of the 42 reports identified by the authors, 33 were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. In 90.0% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug. This pattern resulted in contradictory conclusions across studies when the findings of studies of the same drugs but with different sponsors were compared. Potential sources of bias occurred in the areas of doses and dose escalation, study entry criteria and study populations, statistics and methods, and reporting of results and wording of findings. Conclusions: Some sources of bias may limit the validity of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Because most of the sources of bias identified in this review were subtle rather than compelling, the clinical usefulness of future trials may benefit from minor modifications to help avoid bias. The authors make a number of concrete suggestions for ways in which potential sources of bias can be addressed by study initiators, peer reviewers of studies under consideration for publication, and readers of published studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the effects of olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, perphenazine and ziprasidone on psychosocial functioning in people with schizophrenia. The study shows that there is no difference in psychosocial functioning between different antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia after one year.