Cancer and schizophrenia: is there a paradox?

People with schizophrenia are more likely to die prematurely than the general population from both suicide and physical ill health. Published studies examining the incidence of cancer in schizophrenia patients report increased, reduced or similar incidence compared with the general population. Older studies tended to report lower incidence rates which fuelled speculation as to the biological and other mechanisms for this protective effect. Furthermore, mortality rates in patients with schizophrenia appear higher than expected. We undertook a non-systematic review of published data to give an overview for these variable findings and illustrate methodological confounders by highlighting a systematic review of breast cancer studies

Weight management in a cohort of Irish inpatients with serious mental illness (SMI) using a modular behavioural programme. A preliminary service evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Weight gain is commonly observed during psychotropic treatments for chronic forms of severe mental illness and is most rapid during the early treatment phases. All formats of behavioural weight intervention programmes have suggested that weight gain can be prevented or reversed in some patients. There is no data on these programmes in acutely unwell inpatients whom may be the major beneficiaries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A modular behavioural intervention programme (Solutions for Wellness) used in SMI outpatients since 2002 in Ireland has been adapted for inpatient use. Preliminary data is reported from 5 centres in Ireland.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 47 inpatients the mean weight change was +0.26 kg (SD 2.02) with a median change of 0 kg. Mean follow-up was 23.7 (SD 21.6) days, and median 14 days (range 6–98 days). There was no difference in mean weight change in those patients involved for > 35 days compared with < 35 days (+0.26 kg; 0.25 kg; p = 0.5). Weight loss or maintenance was seen in 70% of patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These preliminary data are supportive of the concept that acutely unwell inpatients with SMI may engage with a behavioural weight programme. Weight change observed contrasts with the significant weight gain often seen in most subjects. Further clinical trials are warranted.</p

Intramuscular Olanzapine – a UK case series of early cases

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials assessing efficacy and safety of Intramuscular (IM) Olanzapine in acute schizophrenia and acute mania have previously been undertaken in studies required for drug registration in patients who were required to give informed consent. These patients may have less severe forms of psychosis than patients treated in routine practice. Data derived from naturalistic practice following the launch of IM olanzapine may be helpful for clinicians in assessing efficacy and safety of IM olanzapine. The PANSS-EC scale used in the clinical studies may represent a tool that could be used in routine clinical practice. CASE PRESENTATION: We report on an early unselected case series of 7 patients who received IM olanzapine in routine clinical practice settings in the UK. In this case series, olanzapine IM was generally effective, and no adverse events were reported. Adjunctive benzodiazepines were given concomitantly in 1 of the 7 subjects. This is relevant as concomitant benzodiazepines are not recommended for a minimum of 1 hour post IM olanzapine administration. PANSS-EC data was collected in 2 of the 7 subjects. CONCLUSION: Although patients had greater severity of psychosis than clinical trial patients there were no unexpected findings. In addition the PANSS-EC scale is a scale that may be useful in assessing the efficacy of IM antipsychotics in routine clinical practice

A systematic review of the safety information contained within the Summaries of Product Characteristics of medications licensed in the United Kingdom for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. how does the safety prescribing advice compare with national guidance?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The safety of paediatric medications is paramount and contraindications provide clear pragmatic advice. Further advice may be accessed through Summaries of Product Characteristics (SPCs) and relevant national guidelines. The SPC can be considered the ultimate independent guideline and is regularly updated. In 2008, the authors undertook a systematic review of the SPC contraindications of medications licensed in the United Kingdom (UK) for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). At that time, there were fewer contraindications reported in the SPC for atomoxetine than methylphenidate and the specific contraindications varied considerably amongst methylphenidate formulations. In 2009, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandated harmonisation of methylphenidate SPCs. Between September and November 2011, there were three changes to the atomoxetine SPC that resulted in revised prescribing information. In addition, Clinical Guidance has also been produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2008), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2009) and the British National Formulary for Children (BNFC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An updated systematic review of the Contraindications sections of the SPCs of all medications currently licensed for treatment of ADHD in the UK was undertaken and independent statements regarding contraindications and relevant warnings and precautions were then compared with UK national guidance with the aim of assessing any disparity and potential areas of confusion for prescribers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of November 2011, there were seven medications available in the UK for the treatment of ADHD. There are 15 contraindications for most formulations of methylphenidate, 14 for dexamfetamine and 5 for atomoxetine. Significant differences exist between the SPCs and national guidance part due to the ongoing reactive process of amending the former as new information becomes known. In addition, recommendations are made outside UK SPC licensed indications and a significant contraindication for methylphenidate (suicidal behaviours) is missing from both the NICE and SIGN guidelines. Particular disparity exists relating to monitoring for suicidal and psychiatric side effects. The BNFC has not yet been updated in line with the European Union (EU) Directive on methylphenidate; it does not include any contraindications for atomoxetine but describes contraindications for methylphenidate that are no longer in the SPC.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinicians seeking prescribing advice from critical independent sources of data, such as SPCs and national guidelines, may be confused by the disparity that exists. There are major differences between guidelines and SPCs and neither should be referred to in isolation. The SPC represents the most relevant source of safety data to aid prescribing of medications for ADHD as they present the most current safety data in line with increased exposure. National guidelines may need more regular updates.</p