Comparison of patients undergoing switching versus augmentation of antipsychotic medications during treatment for schizophrenia

It is often difficult to determine whether a patient may best benefit by augmenting their current medication or switching them to another. This post-hoc analysis compares patients’ clinical and functional profiles at the time their antipsychotic medications were either switched or augmented. Adult outpatients receiving oral antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia were assessed during a 12-month international observational study. Clinical and functional measures were assessed at the time of first treatment switch/augmentation (0–14 days prior) and compared between Switched and Augmented patient groups. Due to low numbers of patients providing such data, interpretations are based on effect sizes. Data at the time of change were available for 87 patients: 53 Switched and 34 Augmented. Inadequate response was the primary reason for treatment change in both groups, whereas lack of adherence was more prevalent in the Switched group (26.4% vs 8.8%). Changes in clinical severity from study initiation to medication change were similar, as indicated by Clinical Global Impressions–Severity scores. However, physical and mental component scores of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey improved in the Augmented group, but worsened in the Switched group. These findings suggest that the patient’s worsening or lack of meaningful improvement prompts clinicians to switch antipsychotic medications, whereas when patients show some improvement, clinicians may be more likely to try bolstering the improvements through augmentation. Current findings are consistent with physicians’ stated reasons for switching versus augmenting antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Confirmation of these findings requires further research

Treatment and outcomes of an Australian cohort of outpatients with bipolar 1 or schizoaffective disorder over twenty-four months : implications for clinical practice

Background The Bipolar Comprehensive Outcomes Study (BCOS) is a 2-year, prospective, non-interventional, observational study designed to explore the clinical and functional outcomes associated with &lsquo;real-world&rsquo; treatment of participants with bipolar I or schizoaffective disorder. All participants received treatment as usual. There was no study medication.Methods Participants prescribed either conventional mood stabilizers (CMS; n&thinsp;=&thinsp;155) alone, or olanzapine with, or without, CMS (olanzapine&thinsp;&plusmn;&thinsp;CMS; n&thinsp;=&thinsp;84) were assessed every 3&thinsp;months using several measures, including the Young Mania Rating Scale, 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions Scale &ndash; Bipolar Version, and the EuroQol Instrument. This paper reports 24-month longitudinal clinical, pharmacological, functional, and socioeconomic data.Results On average, participants were 42 (range 18 to 79) years of age, 58%; were female, and 73%; had a diagnosis of bipolar I. Polypharmacy was the usual approach to pharmacological treatment; participants took a median of 5 different psychotropic medications over the course of the study, and spent a median proportion of time of 100%; of the study on mood stabilizers, 90%; on antipsychotics, 9%; on antidepressants, and 5%; on benzodiazepines/hypnotics. By 24&thinsp;months, the majority of participants had achieved both symptomatic and syndromal remission of both mania and depression. Symptomatic relapse rates were similar for both the CMS alone (65%;) and the olanzapine&thinsp;&plusmn;&thinsp;CMS (61%;) cohorts.Conclusions Participants with bipolar I or schizoaffective disorder in this study were receiving complex medication treatments that were often discordant with recommendations made in contemporary major treatment guidelines. The majority of study participants demonstrated some clinical and functional improvements, but not all achieved remission of symptoms or syndrome.<br /

Incidence and characteristics of the nocebo response from meta-analyses of the placebo arms of clinical trials of olanzapine for bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES: In the clinical setting, the nocebo phenomenon is where clinical worsening or adverse events occur as a response to a treatment, in a situation in which conditioning from previous treatment exposure and/or expectations of sickness or symptoms lead to sickness and symptoms in a conditioned or expectant individual. The nocebo response may thus be a confounder in clinical treatment and clinical research. There is a need to know how to predict if an individual is likely to be a nocebo responder, and how significant and commonplace the nocebo effect might be. METHODS: An analysis was conducted on nine placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials of olanzapine for the treatment of bipolar disorder using data from placebo-treated study participants only. Data were analysed to identify participant or study characteristics associated with a nocebo event, defined as any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) or an increase in score from baseline to endpoint for primary measures of clinical symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 1185 participants were randomized to placebo, of whom 806 (68%) reported a TEAE. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) data were only available for 649 placebo-treated participants, of whom 321 (49.5%) demonstrated worsening. Nocebo events were significantly associated with: not being treatment-naïve, younger age, being located in the USA, being a participant in an earlier study, and being classified as obese compared with normal weight. CONCLUSIONS: A pattern to identify nocebo responders did not emerge, although some prognostic variables were associated with a greater probability of nocebo response. There was some evidence to support the role of expectancy as a cause of nocebo reactions