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 /

Treatment response for acute depression is not associated with number of previous episodes: lack of evidence for a clinical staging model for major depressive disorder

Mental illness has been observed to follow a neuroprogressive course, commencing with prodrome, then onset, recurrence and finally chronic illness. In bipolar disorder and schizophrenia responsiveness to treatment mirrors these stages of illness progression, with greater response to treatment in the earlier stages of illness and greater treatment resistance in chronic late stage illness. Using data from 5627 participants in 15 controlled trials of duloxetine, comparator arm (paroxetine, venlafaxine, escitalopram) or placebo for the treatment of an acute depressive episode, the relationship between treatment response and number of previous depressive episodes was determined. Data was dichotomised for comparisons between participants who had &gt;3 previous episodes (n=1697) or &le;3 previous episodes (n=3930), and additionally for no previous episodes (n=1381) or at least one previous episode (n=4246). Analyses were conducted by study arm for each clinical trial, and results were then pooled. There was no significant difference between treatment response and number of previous depressive episodes. This unexpected finding suggests that treatments to reduce symptoms of depression during acute illness do not lose efficacy for patients with a longer history of illness

Nocebo effects in the treatment of major depression: results from an individual study participant-level meta-analysis of the placebo arm of duloxetine clinical trials

BACKGROUND: The nocebo effect, when a harmless substance creates harmful effects in a person who takes it, is a clinically salient yet seldom studied phenomenon that may be associated with poorer treatment outcomes, perceived adverse events, and treatment discontinuation. The covert presence of nocebo responders in clinical trials may contribute to outcome variance in both placebo and active treatment arms for important primary and secondary endpoints. Nocebo effects are thought to be driven by expectancy and conditioning. METHOD: This study analyzed pooled clinical trial data in the placebo arms of controlled trials of antidepressant medications to investigate variables associated with the emergence of adverse outcomes in placebo-treated participants (N = 2,457). Specifically, we examined treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and discontinuation in placebo-treated individuals. Trials were commenced between 1993 and 2010 as studies of duloxetine versus active comparator and/or placebo. RESULTS: TEAEs were reported by 1,569 placebo-treated participants (63.9%), with 115 (4.7%) discontinuing from the studies due to TEAEs and 274 (11.2%) showing worsening of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score during placebo treatment. There was specifically no evidence to support the expectancy hypothesis, that reported TEAEs were influenced by adverse effects described in the clinical trials participant information and consent forms, or the conditioning hypothesis, that reported TEAEs would be influenced by adverse effect profiles of previous antidepressant medications used by these study participants. There was some evidence to suggest that people who had previously used complementary medications were more likely to report TEAEs. Variables specific to individual studies were the strongest predictors of TEAEs. DISCUSSION: In this study, TEAEs were very common among placebo-treated clinical trial participants. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence to associate TEAEs with adverse clinical outcomes, nor were the conditioning or expectancy hypotheses supported by these data. CONCLUSIONS: The nocebo effect is a common, covert, and poorly understood driver of clinical outcomes that requires further investigation

The impact of age at onset of bipolar I disorder on functioning and clinical presentation outcomes after 12 months

Abstract not available