Research in both animals and humans indicates that cannabidiol (CBD) has antipsychotic properties. The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of CBD in patients with schizophrenia.
In an ...exploratory double-blind parallel-group trial, patients with schizophrenia were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive CBD (1000 mg/day; N=43) or placebo (N=45) alongside their existing antipsychotic medication. Participants were assessed before and after treatment using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF), and the improvement and severity scales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI-I and CGI-S).
After 6 weeks of treatment, compared with the placebo group, the CBD group had lower levels of positive psychotic symptoms (PANSS: treatment difference=-1.4, 95% CI=-2.5, -0.2) and were more likely to have been rated as improved (CGI-I: treatment difference=-0.5, 95% CI=-0.8, -0.1) and as not severely unwell (CGI-S: treatment difference=-0.3, 95% CI=-0.5, 0.0) by the treating clinician. Patients who received CBD also showed greater improvements that fell short of statistical significance in cognitive performance (BACS: treatment difference=1.31, 95% CI=-0.10, 2.72) and in overall functioning (GAF: treatment difference=3.0, 95% CI=-0.4, 6.4). CBD was well tolerated, and rates of adverse events were similar between the CBD and placebo groups.
These findings suggest that CBD has beneficial effects in patients with schizophrenia. As CBD's effects do not appear to depend on dopamine receptor antagonism, this agent may represent a new class of treatment for the disorder.
Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent ...should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.
We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from −0·89 (95% CrI −1·08 to −0·71) for clozapine to −0·03 (−0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from −0·69 (95% CrI −0·86 to −0·52) for amisulpride to −0·17 (−0·31 to −0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from −0·62 (−0·84 to −0·39; clozapine) to −0·10 (−0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from −0·90 (−1·36 to −0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (−0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from −0·16 kg (−0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from −77·05 ng/mL (−120·23 to −33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from −2·21 ms (−4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.
There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.
German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research
Antipsychotic medications are mainstays in the treatment of schizophrenia and a range of other psychotic disorders.
Recent meta-analyses of antipsychotic efficacy and tolerability have been included ...in this review, along with key papers on antipsychotic use in schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.
The heterogeneity in terms of individuals' response to antipsychotic treatment and the current inability to predict response leads to a trial-and-error strategy with treatment choice. Clozapine is the only effective medication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
There are a significant number of side effects associated with antipsychotic use. With a reduction in the frequency of extrapyramidal side effects with the use of second-generation antipsychotics, there has been a significant shift in the side effect burden, with an increase in the risk of cardiometabolic dysfunction.
There exist small and robust efficacy differences between medications (other than clozapine), and response and tolerability to each antipsychotic drug vary, with there being no first-line antipsychotic drug that is suitable for all patients.
A focus on the different symptom domains of schizophrenia may lead to endophenotypic markers being identified, e.g. for negative symptoms and cognitive deficits (as well as for positive symptoms) that can promote the development of novel therapeutics, which will rationally target cellular and molecular targets, rather than just the dopamine 2 receptor. Future developments will target additional processes, including glutamatergic, cholinergic and cannabinoid receptor targets and will utilize personalized medicine techniques, such as pharmacogenetic variants and biomarkers allowing for a tailored and safer use of antipsychotics.
Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are among the most effective treatments in psychiatry, yet they remain underutilized in clinical practice. Although LAIs are typically used to maintain ...treatment adherence in patients with chronic schizophrenia, recent research has suggested that they may also provide an effective treatment strategy for patients with early-phase or first-episode disease. In October 2015, a group of 8 experts on the management of schizophrenia and LAIs met to evaluate the evidence surrounding the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of LAIs and to develop practical recommendations regarding the clinical use, education, and unmet needs related to LAIs. Participants were also asked to rate the importance of several patient characteristics when choosing an LAI versus an oral antipsychotic, from the perspectives of 4 different stakeholder groups: patients, health care professionals, families, and payers. The evidence review demonstrated that LAIs are superior to placebo for acute and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia and, in general, appear to be similar to one another in terms of schizophrenia relapse prevention. Study design impacts the demonstrated efficacy of LAIs versus oral antipsychotics, but recent database and randomized controlled studies favor the use of LAIs in early-phase schizophrenia patients. LAIs vary considerably in their propensity to cause certain adverse effects, including weight gain, metabolic effects, extrapyramidal symptoms, and prolactin elevation, and these differences can be used to help guide LAI selection. Some studies, but not all, have demonstrated significant reductions in health care utilization or overall costs with LAIs. The expert panel identified several barriers to LAI use in current practice, including clinician lack of knowledge, negative attitudes about LAIs, and resource and cost issues. The participants also identified a number of additional factors that should be considered when weighing the use of LAI therapy, including medication adherence, relapse risk and severity, cognitive impairment, ease of use, substance misuse, access and cost, stigma, social support, patient autonomy, control over medication dosing, fear of needles, and the potential for patient harm due to relapses and associated loss of functioning. This evidence review, discussion, and summary recommendations may help clinicians, patients, families, payers, and other stakeholders to better characterize the role of LAIs in the treatment of schizophrenia.
Background:
This double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase-3 study was designed to test the noninferiority of paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation (PP3M) to the currently marketed ...1-month formulation (PP1M) in patients (age 18–70 years) with schizophrenia, previously stabilized on PP1M.
Methods:
After screening (≤3 weeks) and a 17-week, flexible-dosed, open-label phase (PP1M: day 1 150mg eq. deltoid, day 8 100mg eq. deltoid., weeks 5, 9, and 13 50, 75, 100, or 150mg eq., deltoid/gluteal), clinically stable patients were randomized (1:1) to PP3M (fixed-dose, 175, 263, 350, or 525mg eq. deltoid/gluteal) or PP1M (fixed-dose, 50, 75, 100, or 150mg eq. deltoid/gluteal) for a 48-week double-blind phase.
Results:
Overall, 1016/1429 open-label patients entered the double-blind phase (PP3M: n=504; PP1M: n=512) and 842 completed it (including patients with relapse). PP3M was noninferior to PP1M: relapse rates were similar in both groups (PP3M: n=37, 8%; PP1M: n=45, 9%; difference in relapse-free rate: 1.2% 95% CI:-2.7%; 5.1%) based on Kaplan-Meier estimates (primary efficacy). Secondary endpoint results (changes from double-blind baseline in positive and negative symptom score total and subscale scores, Clinical Global Impression-Severity, and Personal and Social Performance scores) were consistent with primary endpoint results. No clinically relevant differences were observed in pharmacokinetic exposures between PP3M and PP1M. Both groups had similar tolerability profiles; increased weight was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (double-blind phase; 21% each). No new safety signals were detected.
Conclusion:
Taken together, PP3M with its 3-month dosing interval is a unique option for relapse prevention in schizophrenia.
In treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is considered the standard treatment. However, clozapine use has restrictions owing to its many adverse effects. Moreover, an increasing number of ...randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of other antipsychotics have been published.
To integrate all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Trial Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to June 30, 2014.
At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form of administration) with another antipsychotic or placebo.
At least 2 independent reviewers extracted all data into standard forms and assessed the quality of all included trials with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in a Bayesian setting.
The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included change in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, categorical response to treatment, dropouts for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, and important adverse events.
Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; mean SD age, 38.8 3.7 years) were included in the analysis. Few significant differences were found in all outcomes. In the primary outcome (reported as standardized mean difference; 95% credible interval), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine (-0.29; -0.56 to -0.02), haloperidol (-0. 29; -0.44 to -0.13), and sertindole (-0.46; -0.80 to -0.06); clozapine was more effective than haloperidol (-0.22; -0.38 to -0.07) and sertindole (-0.40; -0.74 to -0.04); and risperidone was more effective than sertindole (-0.32; -0.63 to -0.01). A pattern of superiority for olanzapine, clozapine, and risperidone was seen in other efficacy outcomes, but results were not consistent and effect sizes were usually small. In addition, relatively few RCTs were available for antipsychotics other than clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. The most surprising finding was that clozapine was not significantly better than most other drugs.
Insufficient evidence exists on which antipsychotic is more efficacious for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide little evidence of the superiority of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Future clozapine studies with high doses and patients with extremely treatment-refractory schizophrenia might be most promising to change the current evidence.
Therapeutic drug monitoring studies have generally concentrated on controlling compliance and avoiding side effects by maintaining long-term exposure to minimally effective blood concentrations. The ...rationale for using therapeutic drug monitoring in relation to second-generation antipsychotics is still being discussed at least with regard to the real clinical utility, but there is evidence that it can improve efficacy, especially when patients do not respond or develop side effects using therapeutic doses. Furthermore, drug plasma concentration determinations can be of some utility in medico-legal problems. This review concentrates on the clinical pharmacokinetic data related to clozapine, risperidone, paliperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, amisulpride, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, sertindole, asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, brexpiprazole and cariprazine and briefly considers the main aspects of their pharmacodynamics. Optimal plasma concentration ranges are proposed for clozapine, risperidone, paliperidone and olanzapine because the studies of quetiapine, amisulpride, asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone provide only limited information and there is no direct evidence concerning ziprasidone, aripiprazole, sertindole, brexpiprazole and cariprazine: the few reported investigations need to be confirmed and extended.
Pharmacovigilance studies have definitely established that clozapine can cause myocarditis. Two published reviews suggested that on rare occasions other antipsychotics may induce myocarditis.
This ...review explored myocarditis associated with antipsychotics other than clozapine by conducting a systematic search of the literature and critically analyzing the current data in VigiBase compared to the data on clozapine-associated myocarditis. VigiBase is the World Health Organization's global pharmacovigilance database that uses a statistical signal for associations with a logarithmic measure of disproportionality called the information component (IC).
For quetiapine, VigiBase provided 106 reports of myocarditis and a significant statistical signal (IC = 1.8; IC
= 1.5) which was confounded by 48% (51/106) with clozapine co-prescription. Combining the literature and VigiBase cases provided five probable myocarditis cases during quetiapine monotherapy (4 after overdose or rapid titration). For olanzapine, VigiBase provided 107 reports of myocarditis and a significant statistical signal (IC = 2.1; IC
= 1.8) probably explained by 77% (82/107) using clozapine co-prescription. Combining the literature and VigiBase cases provided one probable myocarditis case during olanzapine monotherapy. Combining the literature and VigiBase provided another three probable cases during therapy with other antipsychotics during overdose or titration with a high dose.
•Innovative approach in bioequivalence prediction utilizing small-volume systems.•In vivo Cmax and AUC ratio prediction utilizing different evaluation methods.•Impact of dose on predictive accuracy ...of in vitro aparatusses.•In vitro flux profile as input for in silico absorption rate prediction.
Both biphasic dissolution and simultaneous dissolution-permeation (D-P) systems have great potential to improve the in vitro-in vivo correlation compared to simple dissolution assays, but the assay conditions, and the evaluation methods still need to be refined in order to effectively use these apparatuses in drug development.
Therefore, this comprehensive study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of small-volume (16–20 mL) D-P system and small-volume (40–80 mL) biphasic dissolution apparatus in bioequivalence prediction of five aripiprazole (ARP) containing marketed drug products.
Assay conditions, specifically dose dependence were studied to overcome the limitations of both small-scale systems. In case of biphasic dissolution the in vivo maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) prediction greatly improved with the dose reduction of ARP, while in case of the D-P setup the use of whole tablet gave just as accurate prediction as the scaled dose. With the dose reduction strategy both equipment was able to reach 100 % accuracy in bioequivalence prediction for Cmax ratio. In case of the in vivo area under the curve (AUC) prediction the predictive accuracy for the AUC ratio was not dependent on the dose, and both apparatus had a 100 % accuracy predicting bioequivalence based on AUC results.
This paper presents for the first time that not only selected parameters of flux assays (like permeability, initial flux, AUC value) were used as an input parameter of a mechanistic model (gastrointestinal unified theory) to predict absorption rate but the whole in vitro flux profile was used. All fraction absorbed values estimated by Predictor Software fell within the ±15 % acceptance range during the comparison with the in vivo data.
Display omitted
Patients who recover from an acute episode of psychosis are frequently prescribed prophylactic antipsychotics for many years, especially if they are diagnosed as having schizophrenia. However, there ...is a dearth of evidence concerning the long-term effectiveness of this practice, and growing concern over the cumulative effects of antipsychotics on physical health and brain structure. Although controversy remains concerning some of the data, the wise psychiatrist should regularly review the benefit to each patient of continuing prophylactic antipsychotics against the risk of side-effects and loss of effectiveness through the development of supersensitivity of the dopamine D
receptor. Psychiatrists should work with their patients to slowly reduce the antipsychotic to the lowest dose that prevents the return of distressing symptoms. Up to 40% of those whose psychosis remits after a first episode should be able to achieve a good outcome in the long term either with no antipsychotic medication or with a very low dose.
PDF
