Clozapine dose for schizophrenia

Background: Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking and speech, emotional processes, behaviour and sense of self. Clozapine is useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, particularly when other antipsychotic medications have failed. It improves positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and negative symptoms (such as withdrawal and poverty of speech). However, it is unclear what dose of clozapine is most effective with the least side effects. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine at different doses and to identify the optimal dose of clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Trials (August 2011 and 8 December 2016). Selection criteria: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding status or language, that compared the effects of clozapine at different doses in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, diagnosed by any criteria. Data collection and analysis: We independently inspected citations from the searches, identified relevant abstracts, obtained full articles of relevant abstracts, and classified trials as included or excluded. We included trials that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created ’Summary of findings’ tables using GRADE. Main results: We identified five studies that could be included. Each compared the effects of clozapine at very low dose (up to 149 mg/day), low dose (150 mg/day to 300 mg/day) and standard dose (301 mg/day to 600 mg/day). Four of the five included studies were based on a small number of participants. We rated all the evidence reported for the main outcomes of interest as low or very low quality. No data were available for the main outcomes of global state, service use or quality of life. Very low dose compared to low dose: We found no evidence of effect on mental state between low and very low doses of clozapine in terms of average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 3.55, 95% CI −4.50 to 11.60, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in body mass index (BMI) in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD −0.10, 95% CI −0.95 to 0.75, low-quality evidence). Very low dose compared to standard dose: We found no evidence of effect on mental state between very low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of average BPRS-A endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31,MD 6.67, 95%CI −2.09 to 15.43, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 58, MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.76 to 0.96, low-quality evidence) Low dose compared to standard dose: We found no evidence of effect on mental state between low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of both clinician-assessed clinical improvement (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.61, medium-quality evidence) and clinically important response as more than 30% change in BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 176, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, medium-quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 0.20, 95% CI −0.84 to 1.24, low-quality evidence). We found some evidence of effect for other adverse effect outcomes; however, the data were again limited. Very low dose compared to low dose: There was limited evidence that serum triglycerides were lower at low-dose clozapine compared to very low dose in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49). Low dose compared to standard dose: Weight gain was lower at very low dose compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 27, MD −2.70, 95% CI −5.38 to −0.02). Glucose level one hour after meal was also lower at very lose dose (1 RCT, n = 58, MD −1.60, 95% CI −2.90 to −0.30). Total cholesterol levels were higher at very low compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 58, n = 58, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.80). Low dose compared to standard dose: There was evidence of fewer adverse effects, measured as lower TESS scores, in the low-dose group in the short term (2 RCTs, n = 266, MD −3.99, 95% CI −5.75 to −2.24); and in one study there was evidence that the incidence of lethargy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97), hypersalivation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84), dizziness (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and tachycardia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71) was less at low dose compared to standard dose. Authors’ conclusions: We found no evidence of effect on mental state between standard, low and very low dose regimes, but we did not identify any trials on high or very high doses of clozapine. BMI measurements were similar between groups in the short term, although weight gain was less at very low dose compared to standard dose in one study. There was limited evidence that the incidence of some adverse effects was greater at standard dose compared to lower dose regimes. We found very little useful data and the evidence available is generally of low or very low quality. More studies are needed to validate our findings and report on outcomes such as relapse, remission, social functioning, service utilisation, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. There is a particular lack of medium- or long-term outcome data, and on dose regimes above the standard rate

Community support for sex offender rehabilitation in Europe

It is assumed that the public holds negative attitudes towards sex offenders, yet an increasing number of European volunteers are involved in sex offender rehabilitation programmes through Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA). Public attitudes and their correlates have been mainly studied in Anglo-Saxon countries; research in European countries other than the UK is scarce. To fill this gap, a web-based survey was held among web-panels in nine European countries (n = 200 per country). Measures included awareness and knowledge about sex offenders, community attitudes towards sex offenders in the community (CATSO), attitudes towards the treatment of sex offenders (ATTSO), public attitudes towards sex offender rehabilitation (PATSOR), support for CoSA, and attitudes towards volunteers working with sex offenders. Results indicated that clear misperceptions were held by a minority. Attitudes tended to be negative, but not extremely, and differences between countries were significant. The amount of support for CoSA was considerable and mean attitudes towards volunteers working with sex offenders were positive. The lower educated held more negative attitudes. Since webpanels were probably not representative on key demographic markers, the results are only indicative. Professionals should especially address the lower educated, correct key misperceptions about recidivism of sex offenders, and provide information about processes of change in convicted sex offender

Characteristics and pathways of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England; a secondary publication from a large mixed-methods study

Background: Many patients experience extended stays within forensic care, but the characteristics of long-stay patients are poorly understood. Aims: To describe the characteristics of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England. Method: Detailed file reviews provided clinical, offending and risk data for a large representative sample of 401 forensic patients from 2 of the 3 high secure settings and from 23 of the 57 medium secure settings in England on 1 April 2013. The threshold for long-stay status was defined as 5 years in medium secure care or 10 years in high secure care, or 15 years in a combination of high and medium secure settings. Results: 22% of patients in high security and 18% in medium security met the definition for “long-stay,” with 20% staying longer than 20 years. Of the long-stay sample, 58% were violent offenders (22% both sexual and violent), 27% had been convicted for violent or sexual offences whilst in an institutional setting, and 26% had committed a serious assault on staff in the last 5 years. The most prevalent diagnosis was schizophrenia (60%) followed by personality disorder (47%, predominantly antisocial and borderline types); 16% were categorised as having an intellectual disability. Overall, 7% of the long-stay sample had never been convicted of any offence, and 16.5% had no index offence prompting admission. Although some significant differences were found between the high and medium secure samples, there were more similarities than contrasts between these two levels of security. The treatment pathways of these long-stay patients involved multiple moves between settings. An unsuccessful referral to a setting of lower security was recorded over the last 5 years for 33% of the sample. Conclusions: Long-stay patients accounted for one fifth of the forensic inpatient population in England in this representative sample. A significant proportion of this group remain unsettled. High levels of personality pathology and the risk of assaults on staff and others within the care setting are likely to impact on treatment and management. Further research into the treatment pathways of longer stay patients is warranted to understand the complex trajectories of this group

How best to engage users of forensic services in research: literature review and recommendations

Guidance on service user involvement is available to help researchers working with people with mental health problems, but there is currently no comprehensive guidance relating to forensic settings where additional issues arise. This rapid review aims to summarise the currently available information on how best to engage users of forensic mental health services in the research process, and to make appropriate recommendations. Medline and five other databases were searched to May 2016 using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings, supplemented by a general Internet search. Eleven peer-reviewed journal papers and 12 reports or web-based documents were identified, the majority containing information derived using a qualitative methodology. Five areas of particular relevance to forensic settings were identified: power relations & vulnerability issues (including ethical treatment; informed consent; attitudes of staff and other service users; support), practical difficulties (including ‘consultation fatigue’; tokenistic inclusion; tensions over security and risk management; access; payment; co-authoring); confidentiality and transparency; language and communication and training issues. Recommendations on engaging service users in forensic mental health research are presented

Characteristics and pathways of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England : a secondary publication from a large mixed-methods study

Background: Many patients experience extended stays within forensic care, but the characteristics of long-stay patients are poorly understood. Aims: To describe the characteristics of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England. Method: Detailed file reviews provided clinical, offending and risk data for a large representative sample of 401 forensic patients from 2 of the 3 high secure settings and from 23 of the 57 medium secure settings in England on 1 April 2013. The threshold for long-stay status was defined as 5 years in medium secure care or 10 years in high secure care, or 15 years in a combination of high and medium secure settings. Results: 22% of patients in high security and 18% in medium security met the definition for ‘long-stay’, with 20% staying longer than 20 years. Of the long-stay sample, 58% were violent offenders (22% both sexual and violent), 27% had been convicted for violent or sexual offences whilst in an institutional setting, and 26% had committed a serious assault on staff in the last 5 years. The most prevalent diagnosis was schizophrenia (60%) followed by personality disorder (47%, predominantly antisocial and borderline types); 16% were categorised as having an intellectual disability. Overall, 7% of the long-stay sample had never been convicted of any offence, and 16.5% had no index offence prompting admission. Although some significant differences were found between the high and medium secure samples, there were more similarities than contrasts between these two levels of security. The treatment pathways of these long-stay patients involved multiple moves between settings. An unsuccessful referral to a setting of lower security was recorded over the last 5 years for 33% of the sample. Conclusions: Long-stay patients accounted for one fifth of the forensic inpatient population in England in this representative sample. A significant proportion of this group remain unsettled. High levels of personality pathology and the risk of assaults on staff and others within the care setting are likely to impact on treatment and management. Further research into the treatment pathways of longer stay patients is warranted to understand the complex trajectories of this group

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder : a focused systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Aims: To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. Method: We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. Results: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD −0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD −0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD −0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference −8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference −3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD −0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD −0.48, P = 0.002). Conclusions: There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings

Pharmacological interventions for co-occurring psychopathology in people with borderline personality disorder:Secondary analysis of the Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses

Background: Medications are commonly used to treat co-occurring psychopathology in persons with borderline personality disorder (BPD).Aims: To systematically review and integrate the evidence of medications for treatment of co-occurring psychopathology in people with BPD, and explore the role of comorbidities.Method: Building on the current Cochrane review of medications in BPD, an update literature search was done in March 2024. We followed the methods of this Cochrane review, but scrutinised all identified placebo-controlled trials post hoc for reporting of non BPD-specific ('co-occurring') psychopathology, and explored treatment effects in subgroups of samples with and without defined co-occurring disorders. GRADE ratings were done to assess the evidence certainty.Results: Twenty-two trials were available for quantitative analyses. For antipsychotics, we found very-low-certainty evidence (VLCE) of an effect on depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, P = 0.04), and low-certainty evidence (LCE) of an effect on psychotic-dissociative symptoms (SMD -0.28, P = 0.007). There was evidence of effects of anticonvulsants on depressive (SMD -0.44, P = 0.02; LCE) and anxious symptoms (SMD -1.11, P &lt; 0.00001; VLCE). For antidepressants, no significant findings were observed (VLCE). Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated a greater effect of antipsychotics in samples including participants with co-occurring substance use disorders on psychotic-dissociative symptoms (P = 0.001).Conclusions: Our findings, based on VLCE and LCE only, do not support the use of pharmacological interventions in people with BPD to target co-occurring psychopathology. Overall, the current evidence does not support differential treatment effects in persons with versus without defined comorbidities. Medications should be used cautiously to target co-occurring psychopathology.<p/

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder:A focused systematic review and meta-Analysis

Background A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Aims To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. Method We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. Results Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD)-0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD-0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P &lt; 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P &lt; 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD-0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD-0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference-8.49, P &lt; 0.00001), manual-Assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference-3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD-0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD-0.48, P = 0.002). Conclusions There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings. </p

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder

Background: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. Objectives: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. Search methods: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. Main results: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD −0.07, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI −10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI −0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD −0.26, 95% CI −1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD −0.36, 95% CI −1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD −0.16, 95% CI −0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD −0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD −0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD −0.21, 95% CI −0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD −0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD −0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. Authors' conclusions: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.</p

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological treatment for adolescents and adults with borderline personality disorder (BPD)