Explore the vast range of titles available.

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs were introduced over a decade ago for the treatment of schizophrenia; however, their purported clinical effectiveness compared with first-generation antipsychotic drugs is still debated. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotic drugs with that of a low dose of haloperidol, in first-episode schizophrenia. We did an open randomised controlled trial of haloperidol versus second-generation antipsychotic drugs in 50 sites, in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18–40 years, and met diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. 498 patients were randomly assigned by a web-based online system to haloperidol (1–4 mg per day; n=103), amisulpride (200–800 mg per day; n=104), olanzapine (5–20 mg per day; n=105), quetiapine (200–750 mg per day; n=104), or ziprasidone (40–160 mg per day; n=82); follow-up was at 1 year. The primary outcome measure was all-cause treatment discontinuation. Patients and their treating physicians were not blinded to the assigned treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN68736636. The number of patients who discontinued treatment for any cause within 12 months was 63 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 72%) for haloperidol, 32 (40%) for amisulpride, 30 (33%) for olanzapine, 51 (53%) for quetiapine, and 31 (45%) for ziprasidone. Comparisons with haloperidol showed lower risks for any-cause discontinuation with amisulpride (hazard ratio [HR] 0·37, [95% CI 0·24–0·57]), olanzapine (HR 0·28 [0·18–0·43]), quetiapine (HR 0·52 [0·35–0·76]), and ziprasidone (HR 0·51 [0·32–0·81]). However, symptom reductions were virtually the same in all the groups, at around 60%. This pragmatic trial suggests that clinically meaningful antipsychotic treatment of first-episode of schizophrenia is achievable, for at least 1 year. However, we cannot conclude that second-generation drugs are more efficacious than is haloperidol, since discontinuation rates are not necessarily consistent with symptomatic improvement. AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis.

Background Antipsychotic are the cornerstone in the treatment of schizophrenia. They also have a number of side-effects. Constipation is thought to be common, and a potential serious side-effect, which has received little attention in recent literature. Method We performed a retrospective study in consecutively admitted patients, between 2007 and 2009 and treated with antipsychotic medication, linking different electronic patient data to evaluate the prevalence and severity of constipation in patients with schizophrenia under routine treatment conditions. Results Over a period of 22 months 36.3% of patients (99) received at least once a pharmacological treatment for constipation. On average medication for constipation was prescribed for 273 days. Severe cases (N = 50), non-responsive to initial treatment, got a plain x-ray of the abdomen. In 68.4% fecal impaction was found. Conclusion A high prevalence of constipation, often severe and needing medical interventions, was confirmed during the study period. Early detection, monitoring over treatment and early intervention of constipation could prevent serious consequences such as ileus.

Effective management of schizophrenia remains a significant clinical challenge. While antipsychotic medications have proven efficacy in this disease, there remains an opportunity to further improve symptom control and long-term relapse prevention. Also, a number of factors, including tolerability and complex dosing regimens, can result in nonadherence to medication. Quetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic with proven efficacy and an established tolerability profile in schizophrenia. The once-daily extended-release formulation (quetiapine XR) offers a simplified dosing regimen and titration schedule. Short-term clinical studies have shown that quetiapine XR (400-800 mg/d) is efficacious in the acute treatment of schizophrenia, while a long-term study has shown that quetiapine XR was significantly more effective than placebo at preventing relapse. Furthermore, an investigation in which stable patients switched from the immediate-release formulation (quetiapine IR) to quetiapine XR showed that quetiapine XR is generally well tolerated and has no loss of efficacy compared with quetiapine IR. In patients who experienced insufficient efficacy or poor tolerability on their previous antipsychotic, switching to quetiapine XR significantly improved efficacy compared with the previous treatment. In conclusion, quetiapine XR is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for schizophrenia. Furthermore, once-daily dosing may improve patient adherence, which may impact positively on patient outcomes.

Abstract Cognitive impairment has always been regarded as an important characteristic of schizophrenia. Many domains of cognition are disrupted with varying degrees of deficit: attention, executive functions, verbal and visuospatial working memory, learning, and memory. However, it is only recently that cognitive dysfunction has been recognized as a primary and enduring core deficit in schizophrenia (rather than the previous focus on positive and negative symptoms). This article discusses cognitive impairment and the therapeutic effects of newer antipsychotic agents on cognitive functioning in patients with schizophrenia. Cognitive dysfunction occurs before the first psychotic episode and persists throughout the course of the illness. It involves every aspect of cognitive functioning and has an important impact on long-term social and occupational outcomes. Improvement of cognitive functioning by antipsychotic treatment can be due indirectly to the improvement of therapeutic profiles of the newer antipsychotic agents (eg, higher efficacy on positive and negative symptoms, fewer side effects, less anticholinergic effects) or directly to effects on cerebral functioning (eg, by restoring dopamine prefrontal activity). However, further research is needed regarding the therapeutic effects of the newer antipsychotic drugs on cognitive functioning and their impact on psychosocial outcome. Although newer medications may improve cognitive functioning, they do not normalize neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia. In addition, various nonpharmacologic, psychological interventions have been used in the rehabilitation of patients with cognitive deficits.

Background Although continuous treatment with antipsychotics is still recommended as the gold standard treatment paradigm for all patients with schizophrenia, some clinicians question whether continuous antipsychotic treatment is necessary, or even justified, for every patient with schizophrenia who has been stabilized on antipsychotics. Objective The primary objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were (i) to compare relapse/hospitalization risks of stabilized patients with schizophrenia under active versus intermittent or placebo treatment conditions; (ii) to examine the role of several study characteristics, possibly intervening in the relationship between relapse risk and treatment condition; and (iii) to examine whether time to relapse is associated with antipsychotic treatment duration. Methods A systematic literature search, using the MEDLINE database (1950 until November 2014), was conducted for English-language published randomized controlled trials, covering a follow-up time period of at least 6 months, and investigating relapse/rehospitalization and/or time-to-relapse rates with placebo or intermittent treatment strategies versus continuous treatment with oral and long-acting injectable first- or second-generation antipsychotics (FGAs/SGAs) in stabilized patients with schizophrenia. Additional studies were identified through searches of reference lists of other identified systematic reviews and Cochrane reports. Two meta-analyses (placebo versus continuous and intermittent versus continuous treatment) were performed to obtain an optimal estimation of the relapse/hospitalization risks of stabilized patients with schizophrenia under these treatment conditions and to assess the role of study characteristics. For time-to-relapse data, a descriptive analysis was performed. Results Forty-eight reports were selected as potentially eligible for our meta-analysis. Of these, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five records, identified through Cochrane and other systematic reviews and fulfilling the inclusion criteria, were added, resulting in a total of 46 records. Stabilized patients with schizophrenia who have been exposed for at least 6 months to intermittent or placebo strategies, respectively, have a 3 (odds ratio [OR] 3.36; 95 % CI 2.36–5.45; p  < 0.0001) to 6 (OR 5.64; 95 % CI 4.47–7.11; p  < 0.0001) times increased risk of relapse, compared with patients on continuous treatment. The availability of rescue medication ( p  = 0.0102) was the only study characteristic explaining systematic differences in the OR for relapse between placebo versus continuous treatment across studies. Studies reporting time-to-relapse data show that the time to (impending) relapse is always significantly delayed with continuous treatment, compared with placebo or intermittent treatment strategies. Although the interval between treatment discontinuation and symptom recurrence can be highly variable, mean time-to-relapse data seem to indicate a failure of clinical stability before 7–14 months with intermittent and before 5 months with placebo treatment strategies. For all reports included in this systematic review, median time-to-relapse rates in the continuous treatment group were not estimable as <50 % of the patients in this treatment condition relapsed before the end of the study. Conclusions With continuous treatment, patients have a lower risk of relapse and remain relapse free for a longer period of time compared with placebo and intermittent treatment strategies. Moreover, ‘success rates’ in the intermittent treatment conditions are expected to be an overestimate of actual outcome rates. Therefore, continuous treatment remains the ‘gold standard’ for good clinical practice, particularly as, until now, only a few and rather general valid predictors for relapse in schizophrenia are known and subsequent relapses may contribute to functional deterioration as well as treatment resistance in patients with schizophrenia.

Background This analysis of pooled data evaluates treatment outcomes of patients with schizophrenia receiving maintenance treatment with olanzapine long-acting injection (OLAI) by means of a categorical approach addressing the symptomatic and functional status of patients at different times. Methods Patients were grouped into 5 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Shifts between categories were assessed for individual patients and factors associated with improvement were analyzed. 1182 patients from 3 clinical trials were included in the current analysis. Results At baseline, 434 (36.8%) patients had minimal Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptoms but seriously impaired Heinrich Carpenter’s Quality of Life Scale (QLS) functioning; 303 (25.6%) had moderate to severe symptoms and seriously impaired function; 208 (17.6%) had mild to moderate symptoms but good functioning, and 162 (13.7%) had minimal symptoms and good functioning. Baseline category was significantly associated with Clinical Global Impression – Severity (CGI-S), extrapyramidal symptoms, working status, age, and number of previous episodes. The majority of all patients starting OLAI treatment maintained or improved (62% at 6 months and 52% at 12 months) their symptom and functioning levels on OLAI maintenance treatment. Less than 8% of the patients showed worsening of symptoms or functioning. An improvement in category was associated with high PANSS positive and low CGI-S scores at baseline. Conclusions We present evidence that a composite assessment of schizophrenic patients including symptom severity and functioning is helpful in the evaluation of maintenance treatment outcomes. This approach could also be useful for the assessment of treatment options in clinical practice. The trials from which data are reported here were registered on clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00088491, NCT00088465, and NCT00320489.

Background Because wide variations in mental health care utilization exist throughout the world, determining long-term effectiveness of psychotropic medications in a real-world setting would be beneficial to physicians and patients. The purpose of this analysis was to describe the effectiveness of injectable risperidone long-acting therapy (RLAT) for schizophrenia across countries. Methods This was a pragmatic analysis of data from two prospective observational studies conducted in the US (Schizophrenia Outcomes Utilization Relapse and Clinical Evaluation [SOURCE]; ClinicalTrials.gov registration number for the SOURCE study: NCT00246194) and Spain, Australia, and Belgium (electronic Schizophrenia Treatment Adherence Registry [eSTAR]). Two separate analyses were performed to assess clinical improvement during the study and estimate psychiatric hospitalization rates before and after RLAT initiation. Clinical improvement was evaluated using the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scales, and change from baseline was evaluated using paired t tests. Psychiatric hospitalization rates were analyzed using incidence densities, and the bootstrap resampling method was used to examine differences between the pre-baseline and post-baseline periods. Results The initial sample comprised 3,069 patients (US, n = 532; Spain, n = 1,345; Australia, n = 784; and Belgium, n = 408). In all, 24 months of study participation, completed by 39.3% (n = 209), 62.7% (n = 843), 45.8% (n = 359), and 64.2% (n = 262) of patients from the US, Spain, Australia, and Belgium, respectively, were included in the clinical analysis. Improvements compared with baseline were observed on both clinical assessments across countries ( P < 0.001 at all post-baseline visits). The mean improvement was approximately 1 point on the CGI-S and 15 points on the GAF. A total of 435 (81.8%), 1,339 (99.6%), 734 (93.6%), and 393 (96.3%) patients from the US, Spain, Australia, and Belgium, respectively, had ≥1 post-baseline visit and were included in the analysis of psychiatric hospitalization rates. Hospitalization rates decreased significantly in all countries regardless of hospitalization status at RLAT initiation ( P < 0.0001) and decreased significantly in the US and Spain ( P < 0.0001) when the analysis was limited to outpatients only. Conclusions RLAT in patients with schizophrenia was associated with improvements in clinical and functional outcomes and decreased hospitalization rates in the US, Spain, Australia, and Belgium, despite differences in health care delivery systems.

Increasing animal genetic, post-mortem and pharmacological evidence supports a role for the cerebral type 1 cannabinoid (CB1) receptor in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia (SCZ) and/or neural circuit dysfunctions responsible for its symptomatology. Moreover, since important interspecies differences are present in CB1 receptor expression, in vivo human data are of direct interest. We investigated an in vivo CB1 receptor expression in SCZ patients compared to healthy controls (CON), and in relation with psychopathological symptom severity using positron emission tomography (PET) and the selective high-affinity radioligand [18F]MK-9470. A total of sixty-seven patients with SCZ, with (SCZ-T, n=51) and without (SCZ-F, n=16) antipsychotic treatment, and 12 age and gender-matched CON were investigated with [18F]MK-9470 PET. Parametric modified standardized uptake value (mSUV) images, reflecting CB1 receptor binding, were compared and related to psychopathological symptoms. Compared to CON, there was a significant increase of CB1 receptor binding in SCZ patients in the nucleus accumbens, insula, cingulate cortex, inferior frontal cortex, parietal and mediotemporal lobe. Furthermore, in the SCZ-F group only, CB1 receptor binding was negatively correlated to negative symptoms and to depression scores, especially in the nucleus accumbens. Present findings strongly support that CB1 receptor binding is altered in the mesocorticolimbic circuitry of both SCZ-T and SCZ-F patients, especially in the nucleus accumbens. In SCZ-F patients, it is associated with negative symptoms and depression scores. •This is the first CB1R PET study investigating more than 60 SCZ patients.•This is the first CB1R PET study including patients with and without antipsychotics.•CB1R is increased in patients with SCZ both with and without antipsychotics.•CB1R binding is increased in selected mesocorticolimbic regions of SCZ patients.•Increased striatal CB1R binding is related to negative symptoms.

Many patients with schizophrenia receive long-term treatment with antipsychotic medication. Switching of antipsychotic medication due to lack of efficacy, tolerability issues, and partial/non-adherence is common. Despite this, consensus strategies for switching between antipsychotics are lacking. This manuscript provides practical recommendations for switching antipsychotic medication to ensure optimal management of patients with schizophrenia, with a particular focus on paliperidone extended release (ER). The authors drew on their clinical experience supported by detailed discussion of literature describing antipsychotic switching techniques and strategies and findings from paliperidone ER clinical trials. Antipsychotic switching strategies should be individualized and take into consideration the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of the pre- and post-switch medication. The use of temporary concomitant medications may be appropriate in some scenarios. Abrupt withdrawal of pre-switch medication may be appropriate in some instances but carries a greater risk of rebound and withdrawal symptoms than other strategies. Cross-tapering is the method most widely used in clinical practice. Paliperidone ER can be initiated without dose titration. The EU SmPC recommended dose of paliperidone ER is 6 mg/day; but doses should be individualized within the approved range of 3–12 mg/day. Higher doses may be required due to insufficient efficacy of the previous antipsychotic or in patients with acute symptoms. Recently diagnosed patients, those with renal impairment, or patients who have previously experienced tolerability issues with other antipsychotics may require lower doses. When switching from risperidone, higher doses of paliperidone ER may be required compared with risperidone. When switching from antipsychotics that have sedative and/or significant anticholinergic activity, the pre-switch antipsychotic should be tapered off gradually. Antipsychotics with less sedating and little anticholinergic activity can be tapered off over a shorter period. Temporary concomitant sedative medication may be beneficial when switching from antipsychotics with relatively higher sedative propensities. Switching from another antipsychotic to paliperidone ER requires individualized switching strategies and dosing, dependent on the characteristics of the patient and the PK and PD properties of the pre-switch medication. Cross-tapering strategies should be considered as a means of reducing the risk of rebound and withdrawal symptoms.

The presence of the metabolic syndrome is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The short- and long-term metabolic safety of sertindole was compared to that of risperidone in a subset of patients enrolled in the sertindole cohort prospective (SCoP) study, an open randomized study. In 261 randomized patients, there were moderate increases in mean weight, BMI, and waist circumference during treatment with either sertindole or risperidone; after 12 weeks, the increase in weight was 1.3 and 1.1 kg, respectively, and after 36 weeks, it was 2.2 and 2.0 kg, respectively. From baseline to last assessment (up to 60 weeks), weight gains of 1.8 and 1.7 kg for sertindole and risperidone, respectively, were observed. Similar proportions of patients (sertindole: 17% versus risperidone: 16%) had weight increases ≥7% from baseline to last assessment. The mean changes from baseline in triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, plasma glucose and blood pressure were small and not clinically relevant in both treatment groups. No patient in either of the groups developed type 2 diabetes during the study. At last assessment, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (International Diabetes Federation) was 17% in the sertindole group and 26% in the risperidone group and the incidence of metabolic syndrome was 7% in the sertindole group and 10% in the risperidone group. Treatment with either sertindole or risperidone did not appear to be associated with an increased comparative risk of developing metabolic syndrome. In general, the metabolic effects of sertindole and risperidone were similar.