Long-term clozapine treatment identifies significant improvements in clinical and functioning scales

The majority of clinical drug trials only cover a small number of variables over a short period of time on a small group of people. The objective of this study was to track a large group of people over a long period of time, using a diverse range of variables with a naturalistic design to assess the ‘real world’ use of clozapine. Fifty-three people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia were recruited into a 2-year study which assessed the subjects using the following scales: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), Life Skills Profile (LSP), and Role Functioning Scale (RFS). Discharge, leave, and ward movement rates were also monitored. All subjects were inpatients at a tertiary psychiatric facility. Thirty-three percent of the group was discharged. Seventythree percent moved to less cost-intensive wards, and the leave rate increased by 105”/0. Sixty-seven percent of the study group were identified as responders by the 24-month time point. Twenty-four percent of the group had their CGI scores reduced to 2 or better 0, =O.OOOl). Significant improvements were identified in the RFS (p = 0.02) and LSP (p = 0.0001). Long-term clozapine treatment has identified a significant group of responders on a variety of measures.

Use of advance information in patients with schizophrenia

To document possible motor disturbance in schizophrenia, we examined the ability to use advance information (or cues) to plan movements in a sequential button pressing task in 12 Clozapine medicated patients. Programming of movements under various cues revealed that patients with schizophrenia, relative to controls, initiated movements slower to the right than left, providing possible evidence for right hemineglect (left hemisphere dysfunction). Additionally, patients with schizophrenia had difficulty in the initiation of movements in the absence of a cue, suggesting internal cue generation difficulty for movement related to some form of fronto-striatal disturbance. Motor abnormalities were predominantly observed at the level of movement initiation, but not execution, contrary to basal ganglia disorders such as Parkinson's and Huntington's disease.

Olanzapine vs risperidone in the management of schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand

Improved drug therapy for schizophrenia may represent the best strategy for reducing the costs of schizophrenia and the recurrent chronic course of the disease. Olanzapine and risperidone are atypical antipsychotic agents developed to meet this need. We report a multicenter, double-blind, parallel, 30-week study designed to compare the efficacy, safety, and associated resource use for olanzapine and risperidone in Australia and New Zealand. The study sample consisted of 65 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder. Olanzapine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total, and PANSS General Psychopathology scores at endpoint compared to the risperidone-treated patients. Response rates through 30 weeks showed a significantly greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients had achieved a 20% or greater improvement in their PANSS total score compared to risperidone-treated patients. Olanzapine and risperidone were equivalent in their improvement of PANSS positive and negative scores and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) at endpoint. Using generic and disease-specific measures of quality of life, olanzapine-treated patients showed significant within-group improvement in most measures, and significant differences were observed in favor of olanzapine over risperidone in Quality of Life Scale (QLS) Intrapsychic Foundation and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-item instrument (SF-36) Role Functioning Limitations-Emotional subscale scores. Despite the relatively small sample size, our study suggests that olanzapine has a superior risk:benefit profile compared to risperidone. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders

Background: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is co-ordinating the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in psychiatry, funded under the National Mental Health Strategy (Australia) and the New Zealand Health Funding Authority. This paper presents CPGs for schizophrenia and related disorders. Over the past decade schizophrenia has become more treatable than ever before. A new generation of drug therapies, a renaissance of psychological and psychosocial interventions and a first generation of reform within the specialist mental health system have combined to create an evidence-based climate of realistic optimism. Progressive neuroscientific advances hold out the strong possibility of more definitive biological treatments in the near future. However, this improved potential for better outcomes and quality of life for people with schizophrenia has not been translated into reality in Australia. The efficacy-effectiveness gap is wider for schizophrenia than any other serious medical disorder. Therapeutic nihilism, under-resourcing of services and a stalling of the service reform process, poor morale within specialist mental health services, a lack of broad-based recovery and life support programs, and a climate of tenacious stigma and consequent lack of concern for people with schizophrenia are the contributory causes for this failure to effectively treat. These guidelines therefore tackle only one element in the endeavour to reduce the impact of schizophrenia. They distil the current evidence-base and make recommendations based on the best available knowledge. Method: A comprehensive literature review (1990-2003) was conducted, including all Cochrane schizophrenia reviews and all relevant meta-analyses, and a number of recent international clinical practice guidelines were consulted. A series of drafts were refined by the expert committee and enhanced through a bi-national consultation process. Treatment recommendations: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of schizophrenia by treatment type and by phase of illness. The essential features of the guidelines are: (i) Early detection and comprehensive treatment of first episode cases is a priority since the psychosocial and possibly the biological impact of illness can be minimized and outcome improved. An optimistic attitude on the part of health professionals is an essential ingredient from the outset and across all phases of illness. (ii) Comprehensive and sustained intervention should be assured during the initial 3-5 years following diagnosis since course of illness is strongly influenced by what occurs in this 'critical period'. Patients should not have to 'prove chronicity' before they gain consistent access and tenure to specialist mental health services. (iii) Antipsychotic medication is the cornerstone of treatment. These medicines have improved in quality and tolerability, yet should be used cautiously and in a more targeted manner than in the past. The treatment of choice for most patients is now the novel antipsychotic medications because of their superior tolerability and, in particular, the reduced risk of tardive dyskinesia. This is particularly so for the first episode patient where, due to superior tolerability, novel agents are the first, second and third line choice. These novel agents are nevertheless associated with potentially serious medium to long-term side-effects of their own for which patients must be carefully monitored. Conventional antipsychotic medications in low dosage may still have a role in a small proportion of patients, where there has been full remission and good tolerability; however, the indications are shrinking progressively. These principles are now accepted in most developed countries. (vi) Clozapine should be used early in the course, as soon as treatment resistance to at least two antipsychotics has been demonstrated. This usually means incomplete remission of positive symptomatology, but clozapine may also be considered where there are pervasive negative symptoms or significant or persistent suicidal risk is present. (v) Comprehensive psychosocial interventions should be routinely available to all patients and their families, and provided by appropriately trained mental health professionals with time to devote to the task. This includes family interventions, cognitive-behaviour therapy, vocational rehabilitation and other forms of therapy, especially for comorbid conditions, such as substance abuse, depression and anxiety. (vi) The social and cultural environment of people with schizophrenia is an essential arena for intervention. Adequate shelter, financial security, access to meaningful social roles and availability of social support are essential components of recovery and quality of life. (vii) Interventions should be carefully tailored to phase and stage of illness, and to gender and cultural background. (viii) Genuine involvement of consumers and relatives in service development and provision should be standard. (ix) Maintenance of good physical health and prevention and early treatment of serious medical illness has been seriously neglected in the management of schizophrenia, and results in premature death and widespread morbidity. Quality of medical care for people with schizophrenia should be equivalent to the general community standard. (x) General practitioners (GPs)s should always be closely involved in the care of people with schizophrenia. However, this should be truly shared care, and sole care by a GP with minimal or no special Optimal treatment of schizophrenia requires a multidisciplinary team approach with a consultant psychiatrist centrally involved.

Performance on tests sensitive to impaired executive ability in schizophrenia, mania and well controls: acute and subacute phases

Aims: To compare the performance of schizophrenia, mania and well control groups on tests sensitive to impaired executive ability, and to assess the within-group stability of these measures across the acute and subacute phases of psychoses. Method: Recently admitted patients with schizophrenia (n=36), mania (n=18) and a well control group (n=20) were assessed on two occasions separated by 4 weeks. Tests included: the Controlled Oral Word Association Test, the Stroop Test, the Wisconsin Card Sort Test, and the Trail Making Test. Results: The two patient groups were significantly impaired on the Stroop Test at both time points compared to the control group. Significant group differences were also found for the Trail Making Test at Time 1 and for the Wisconsin Card Sort Test at Time 2. When controlled for practice effect, significant improvements over time were found on the Stroop and Trail Making tests in the schizophrenia group and on WCST Categories Achieved in the mania group. Discussion: Compared to controls, the patient groups were impaired on measures related to executive ability. The pattern of improvement on test scores between the acute and subacute phases differed between patients with schizophrenia versus patients with mania. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.

Substance misuse in patients with schizophrenia: epidemiology and management

Substance misuse in individuals with schizophrenia is very common, especially in young men, in communities where use is frequent and in people receiving inpatient treatment. Problematic use occurs at very low intake levels, so that most affected people are not physically dependent (with the exception of nicotine). People with schizophrenia and substance misuse have poorer symptomatic and functional outcomes than those with schizophrenia alone. Unless there is routine screening, substance misuse is often missed in assessments. Service systems tend to be separated, with poor inter-communication, and affected patients are often excluded from services because of their comorbidity. However, effective management of these disorders requires a fully integrated approach because of the close inter-relationship of the disorders. Use of atypical antipsychotics may be especially important in this population because of growing evidence (especially on clozapine and risperidone) that nicotine smoking, alcohol misuse and possibly some other substance misuse is reduced. Several pharmacotherapies for substance misuse can be used safely in people with schizophrenia, but the evidence base is small and guidelines for their use are necessarily derived from experience in the general population.

Assessing cost-effectiveness of drug interventions for schizophrenia

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of eight drug treatment scenarios for established schizophrenia. Method: Using a standardized methodology, costs and outcomes are modelled over the lifetime of prevalent cases of schizophrenia in Australia in 2000. A two-stage approach to assessment of health benefit is used. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis based on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, using best available evidence. The robustness of results is tested using probabilistic uncertainty analysis. The second stage involves application of 'second filter' criteria (equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability) to allow broader concepts of benefit to be considered. Results: Replacing oral typicals with risperidone or olanzapine has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$48 000 and A$92 000/DALY respectively. Switching from low-dose typicals to risperidone has an ICER of A$80 000. Giving risperidone to people experiencing side-effects on typicals is more cost-effective at A$20 000. Giving clozapine to people taking typicals, with the worst course of the disorder and either little or clear deterioration, is cost-effective at A$42 000 or A$23 000/DALY respectively. The least cost-effective intervention is to replace risperidone with olanzapine at A$160 000/DALY. Conclusions: Based on an A$50 000/DALY threshold, low-dose typical neuroleptics are indicated as the treatment of choice for established schizophrenia, with risperidone being reserved for those experiencing moderate to severe side-effects on typicals. The more expensive olanzapine should only be prescribed when risperidone is not clinically indicated. The high cost of risperidone and olanzapine relative to modest health gains underlie this conclusion. Earlier introduction of clozapine however, would be cost-effective. This work is limited by weaknesses in trials (lack of long-term efficacy data, quality of life and consumer satisfaction evidence) and the translation of effect size into a DALY change. Some stakeholders, including SANE Australia, argue the modest health gains reported in the literature do not adequately reflect perceptions by patients, clinicians and carers, of improved quality of life with these atypicals.

Resting energy expenditure is lower than predicted in people taking atypical antipsychotic medication

Resting energy expenditure (REE) is lower than predicted in persons taking atypical antipsychotic medication, and weight management is a significant clinical challenge for some of them. However, to date there have been no published guidelines to assist clinicians in choosing appropriate prediction equations to estimate energy expenditure in persons taking atypical antipsychotic medications. The objectives of this study were to measure REE in a group of men taking the atypical antipsychotic clozapine and to determine whether REE can be accurately predicted for this population using previously published regression equations. REE was measured using indirect calorimetry via a ventilated hood on eight men who had completed at least 6 months of treatment with clozapine. Comparisons between measured REE and predicted REE using five different equations were undertaken. The commonly-used Harris-Benedict and Schofield equations systematically overestimated REE. Predictions of REE from other equations were too variable for clinical use. When estimating energy requirements as part of a weight-management program in men who have been taking clozapine for 6 months, predictions of REE from the equations of Harris-Benedict and Schofield should be reduced by 280 kcal/day.