Evaluating movement disorders in pediatric patients receiving risperidone: a comparison of spontaneous reports and research criteria for TD

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Movement disorders (MD) in children are relatively common and may be associated with medication use. Objective methods (ie rating scales) and specific research criteria may be helpful in identifying MD-related adverse events that would otherwise not be apparent from spontaneous reports. We assessed whether more stringent and rigorous criteria would provide MD rates similar to those derived subjectively from spontaneous reports.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>MDs were assessed in children with disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) and subaverage intelligence receiving risperidone. Data were from three 1-year, open-label studies in subjects 4–14 years old. Dyskinesia severity was rated by the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS) dyskinesia subscale. Tardive dyskinesia (TD) was defined: mild dyskinesia (scores 2, 3) in two anatomical areas; or moderate dyskinesia (score ≥ 4) in one area for ≥ 4 weeks in subjects without dyskinesia at baseline (scores 0, 1).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean (± SD) age of subjects was 9.4 ± 2.4 years, the mean (± SD) risperidone dose was 1.6 ± 0.7 mg/day, and the mean (± SD) exposure was 317.8 ± 104.5 days. ESRS data were available for 668 subjects. Mean ESRS scores were low throughout the study. At baseline, 655 subjects had no dyskinetic symptoms. One subject met predefined TD criteria after a risperidone dose reduction. Symptoms persisted for 4 weeks, resolving with continued treatment and no dosage change. Two different subjects had TD by spontaneous adverse-event reports, with dyskinetic symptoms at 1–2 visits, and symptoms that resolved after treatment discontinuation. Thirteen subjects had dyskinesia at baseline; their mean ESRS dyskinesia scores decreased at endpoint.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using objective rating scales and research criteria, low-dose risperidone was associated with low risk of TD and other MDs in children with DBDs in three large 1-year studies. Careful, objective evaluation of emergent MDs during all stages of treatment is essential for identifying treatment-emergent TD.</p

What Is Causing the Reduced Drug-Placebo Difference in Recent Schizophrenia Clinical Trials and What Can be Done About It?

On September 18, 2007, a collaborative session between the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and the International Society for CNS Drug Development was held in Brussels, Belgium. Both groups, with membership from industry, academia, and governmental and nongovernmental agencies, have been formed to address scientific, clinical, regulatory, and methodological challenges in the development of central nervous system therapeutic agents. The focus of this joint session was the apparent diminution of drug-placebo differences in recent multicenter trials of antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia. To characterize the nature of the problem, some presenters reported data from several recent trials that indicated higher rates of placebo response and lower rates of drug response (even to previously established, comparator drugs), when compared with earlier trials. As a means to identify the possible causes of the problem, discussions covered a range of methodological factors such as participant characteristics, trial designs, site characteristics, clinical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), inclusion/exclusion criteria, and diagnostic specificity. Finally, possible solutions were discussed, such as improving precision of participant selection criteria, improving assessment instruments and/or assessment methodology to increase reliability of outcome measures, innovative methods to encourage greater subject adherence and investigator involvement, improved rater training and accountability metrics at clinical sites to increase quality assurance, and advanced methods of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling to optimize dosing prior to initiating large phase 3 trials. The session closed with a roundtable discussion and recommendations for data sharing to further explore potential causes and viable solutions to be applied in future trials

Financial incentives to improve adherence to anti-psychotic maintenance medication in non-adherent patients - a cluster randomised controlled trial (FIAT)

Background Various interventions have been tested to achieve adherence to anti-psychotic maintenance medication in non-adherent patients with psychotic disorders, and there is no consistent evidence for the effectiveness of any established intervention. The effectiveness of financial incentives in improving adherence to a range of treatments has been demonstrated; no randomised controlled trial however has tested the use of financial incentives to achieve medication adherence for patients with psychotic disorders living in the community. Methods/Design In a cluster randomised controlled trial, 34 mental health teams caring for difficult to engage patients in the community will be randomly allocated to either the intervention group, where patients will be offered a financial incentive for each anti-psychotic depot medication they receive over a 12 month period, or the control group, where all patients will receive treatment as usual. We will recruit 136 patients with psychotic disorders who use these services and who have problems adhering to antipsychotic depot medication, although all conventional methods to achieve adherence have been tried. The primary outcome will be adherence levels, and secondary outcomes are global clinical improvement, number of voluntary and involuntary hospital admissions, number of attempted and completed suicides, incidents of physical violence, number of police arrests, number of days spent in work/training/education, subjective quality of life and satisfaction with medication. We will also establish the cost effectiveness of offering financial incentives. Discussion The study aims to provide new evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of offering financial incentives to patients with psychotic disorders to adhere to antipsychotic maintenance medication. If financial incentives improve adherence and lead to better health and social outcomes, they may be recommended as one option to improve the treatment of non-adherent patients with psychotic disorders. Trial Registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN77769281

Risperidone and cognitive function in children with disruptive behavior disorders

Effects of risperidone on cognitive function in children with disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) and subaverage intelligence quotient (IQ) were assessed. Data from two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (n = 228) were combined, as were three 1-year, open-label studies (n = 688). Patients with DBDs and subaverage IQ, 5 to14 years, received placebo or risperidone .02 to .06 mg/kg/day. Cognitive measures included the Continuous Performance Task (CPT) and Verbal Learning Test for Children (VLT-C). Efficacy was assessed using the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form (NCBRF). Adverse events were collected via spontaneous report; sedation was assessed using visual analog scale. Improvements on the NCBRF Conduct Problem subscale were significantly greater for risperidone- versus placebo-treated patients (-15.8 vs. -6.4, p < .0001) in short-term studies; significant reductions were observed in long-term studies (-16.3, p < .0001). No overall decline and some significant improvement in attention (CPT) and memory (VLT-C) were noted regardless of treatment in short-term studies. VLT-C improved significantly (p < .0001) for both groups, with no difference between treatment groups. Improvements in memory (VLT-C) and attention (CPT) were noted in long-term studies. Somnolence/sedation did not affect cognitive function. Cognitive function was not altered by risperidone in short-term studies and was maintained or improved with one year of treatment in children with DBDs and subaverage IQ, potentially representing age-appropriate gains