Paliperidone ER and oral risperidone in patients with schizophrenia: a comparative database analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To compare the efficacy and tolerability of paliperidone extended-release (ER) with risperidone immediate-release using propensity score methodology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, short-term clinical trials for acute schizophrenia with availability of individual patient-level data were identified (3 per compound). Propensity score pairwise matching was used to balance observed covariates between the paliperidone ER and risperidone patient populations. Scores were generated using logistic regression models, with age, body mass index, race, sex, baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and baseline Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) score as factors. The dosage range of paliperidone ER (6-12 mg/day) was compared with 2 risperidone dosage ranges: 2-4 and 4-6 mg/day. The primary efficacy measure was change in PANSS total score at week 6 end point. Tolerability end points included adverse event (AE) reports and weight. AEs with rates ≥5% and with a ≥2% difference between paliperidone ER and risperidone were identified.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Completion rates for placebo-treated subjects in paliperidone ER trials (n = 95) and risperidone trials (n = 122) groups were 36.8% and 51.6%, respectively; end point changes on PANSS total scores were similar (p = 0.768). Completion rates for subjects receiving paliperidone ER 6-12 mg/day (n = 179), risperidone 2-4 mg/day (n = 113) or risperidone 4-6 mg/day (n = 129) were 64.8%, 54.0% and 66.7%, respectively (placebo-adjusted rates: paliperidone ER vs risperidone 2-4 mg/day, p = 0.005; paliperidone ER vs risperidone 4-6 mg/day, p = 0.159). PANSS total score improvement with paliperidone ER was greater than with risperidone 2-4 mg/day (difference in mean change score, -6.7; p < 0.05) and similar to risperidone 4-6 mg/day (0.2; p = 0.927). Placebo-adjusted AEs more common with paliperidone ER were insomnia, sinus tachycardia and tachycardia; more common with risperidone were somnolence, restlessness, nausea, anxiety, salivary hypersecretion, akathisia, dizziness and nasal congestion. Weight changes with paliperidone ER and risperidone were similar (paliperidone ER vs risperidone 2-4 mg/day, p = 0.489; paliperidone ER vs risperidone 4-6 mg/day, p = 0.236).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This indirect database analysis suggested that paliperidone ER 6-12 mg/day may be more efficacious than risperidone 2-4 mg/day and as efficacious as risperidone 4-6 mg/day. The AE-adjusted incidence rates suggest differences between treatments that may be relevant for individual patients. Additional randomized, direct, head-to-head clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.</p

Signs and symptoms of acute mania: a factor analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The major diagnostic classifications consider mania as a uni-dimensional illness. Factor analytic studies of acute mania are fewer compared to schizophrenia and depression. Evidence from factor analysis suggests more categories or subtypes than what is included in the classification systems. Studies have found that these factors can predict differences in treatment response and prognosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The sample included 131 patients consecutively admitted to an acute psychiatry unit over a period of one year. It included 76 (58%) males. The mean age was 44.05 years (SD = 15.6). Patients met International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) clinical diagnostic criteria for a manic episode. Patients with a diagnosis of mixed bipolar affective disorder were excluded. Participants were evaluated using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis) was carried out and factors with an eigenvalue > 1 were retained. The significance level for interpretation of factor loadings was 0.40. The unrotated component matrix identified five factors. Oblique rotation was then carried out to identify three factors which were clinically meaningful.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Unrotated principal component analysis extracted five factors. These five factors explained 65.36% of the total variance. Oblique rotation extracted 3 factors. Factor 1 corresponding to 'irritable mania' had significant loadings of irritability, increased motor activity/energy and disruptive aggressive behaviour. Factor 2 corresponding to 'elated mania' had significant loadings of elevated mood, language abnormalities/thought disorder, increased sexual interest and poor insight. Factor 3 corresponding to 'psychotic mania' had significant loadings of abnormalities in thought content, appearance, poor sleep and speech abnormalities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings identified three clinically meaningful factors corresponding to 'elated mania', 'irritable mania' and 'psychotic mania'. These findings support the multidimensional nature of manic symptoms. Further evidence is needed to support the existence of corresponding clinical subtypes.</p

Is the PANSS used correctly? a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) is one of the most important rating instruments for patients with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, there is a long and ongoing debate in the psychiatric community regarding its mathematical properties.</p> <p>All 30 items range from 1 to 7 leading to a minimum total score of 30, implying that the PANSS is an interval scale. For such interval scales straightforward calculation of relative changes is not appropriate. To calculate outcome criteria based on a percent change as, e.g., the widely accepted response criterion, the scale has to be transformed into a ratio scale beforehand. Recent publications have already pointed out the pitfall that ignoring the scale level (interval vs. ratio scale) leads to a set of mathematical problems, potentially resulting in erroneous results concerning the efficacy of the treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Pubmed search based on the PRISMA statement of the highest-ranked psychiatric journals (search terms "PANSS" and "response") was carried out. All articles containing percent changes were included and methods of percent change calculation were analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This systematic literature research shows that the majority of authors (62%) actually appear to use incorrect calculations. In most instances the method of calculation was not described in the manuscript.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These alarming results underline the need for standardized procedures for PANSS calculations.</p

Cannabis use in male and female first episode of non-affective psychosis patients: Long-term clinical, neuropsychological and functional differences

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies show the existence of a high prevalence of cannabis use among patients with psychosis. However, the differences between men and women who debut with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) regarding cannabis use have not been largely explored. The aim of this study was to identify the specific sex factors and differences in clinical evolution associated with cannabis use. METHOD: Sociodemographic characteristics at baseline were considered in our sample of FEP patients to find differences depending on sex and the use of cannabis. Clinical, functional and neurocognitive variables at baseline, 1-year, and 3-years follow-up were also explored. RESULTS: A total of 549 patients, of whom 43% (N = 236) were cannabis users, 79% (N = 186) male and 21% (N = 50) female, were included in the study. There was a clear relationship between being male and being a user of cannabis (OR = 5.6). Cannabis users were younger at illness onset. Longitudinal analysis showed that women significantly improved in all three dimensions of psychotic symptoms, both in the subgroup of cannabis users and in the non-users subgroup. Conversely, subgroups of men did not show improvement in the negative dimension. In cognitive function, only men presented a significant time by group interaction in processing speed, showing a greater improvement in the subgroup of cannabis users. CONCLUSION: Despite knowing that there is a relationship between cannabis use and psychosis, due to the high prevalence of cannabis use among male FEP patients, the results showed that there were very few differences in clinical and neurocognitive outcomes between men and women who used cannabis at the start of treatment compared to those who did not