Long-acting injectable antipsychotics: focus on olanzapine pamoate

Medication non-adherence in patients with schizophrenia continues to be a significant problem and threatens successful treatment outcomes. Medication non-adherence is often associated with negative consequences, including symptom exacerbation, more frequent emergency room visits, re-hospitalizations and relapse. Long-acting injectable (LAI) forms of antipsychotics allow for rapid identification of non-adherence, obviate the need for the patient to take the medication on a daily basis and increase adherence to some significant degree. Eli Lilly has developed a long-acting depot formulation of olanzapine, olanzapine pamoate, which has recently been approved by the FDA for the US market, and which will be reviewed here. Olanzapine LAI appears to be an effective antipsychotic at dosages of 210 mg every 2 weeks, 300 mg every 2 weeks and 405 mg every 4 weeks in patients with acute schizophrenia, and at 150 mg every 2 weeks, 300 mg every 2 weeks and at 405 mg every 4 weeks for the maintenance treatment of stable patients. Oral supplementation appears not to be needed, particularly not at the onset of treatment with the LAI as is necessary with risperidone LAI. Its efficacy is in general comparable to the efficacy seen with oral olanzapine at a corresponding dose. The side effect profile is also comparable to the side effects observed with oral olanzapine, including lower rates of extrapyramidal symptoms, prolactin elevation and cardiovascular side effects, but significant metabolic effects. The latter include significant weight gain, lipid abnormalities and glucose dysregulation. While the injection site adverse events are overall mild, the most significant serious adverse event is the post-injection delirium sedation syndrome (PDSS). While rare, this syndrome results from inadvertent intravascular injection of olanzapine LAI and can cause a range of olanzapine overdose-type of symptoms. Olanzapine LAI needs therefore to be administered by trained personnel in settings where a post-injection observation period for at least 3 hours by medical personnel is available. The overall use of olanzapine LAI will probably be limited by the possibility of a PDSS event. Patients who have a history of good response to oral olanzapine and are in need of assured medication administration may present a good indication for its use, provided that the appropriate mental health delivery setting is available

Use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines in patients with psychiatric emergencies: Results of an observational trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Conventional antipsychotics augmented with benzodiazepines have been the standard acute treatment for psychiatric emergencies for more than 50 years. The inability of patients to give informed consent limits randomised, controlled studies. This observational study on immediate therapy for aggression and impulse control in acutely agitated patients (IMPULSE) evaluated the short-term effectiveness and tolerability of atypical and typical antipsychotic medications (AP) in a non-interventional setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a comparative, non-randomised, prospective, open-label, observational study. Treatment over the first 5 days was classified according to whether any olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol was included or not. Documentations (PANSS-excited component, CGI-aggression, CGI-suicidality, tranquilisation score) were at baseline (day 1) and days 2–6 after start of AP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During the short treatment-period, PANSS-EC and CGI-aggression scores improved in all cohorts. 68.7% of patients treated with olanzapine, 72.2% of patients treated with risperidone, and 83.3% of patients treated with haloperidol received concomitant benzodiazepines (haloperidol vs. non-haloperidol: p < 0.001). More patients treated with olanzapine (73.8%) were fully alert according to a tranquilisation score and active at day 2 than patients treated with risperidone (57.1%) or haloperidol (58.0%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Current medication practices for immediate aggression control are effective with positive results present within a few days. In this study, concomitant benzodiazepine use was significantly more frequent in patients receiving haloperidol.</p

Item response analysis of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Statistical models based on item response theory were used to examine (a) the performance of individual Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) items and their options, (b) the effectiveness of various subscales to discriminate among individual differences in symptom severity, and (c) the appropriateness of cutoff scores recently recommended by Andreasen and her colleagues (2005) to establish symptom remission.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Option characteristic curves were estimated using a nonparametric item response model to examine the probability of endorsing each of 7 options within each of 30 PANSS items as a function of standardized, overall symptom severity. Our data were baseline PANSS scores from 9205 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were enrolled between 1995 and 2003 in either a large, naturalistic, observational study or else in 1 of 12 randomized, double-blind, clinical trials comparing olanzapine to other antipsychotic drugs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our analyses show that the majority of items forming the Positive and Negative subscales of the PANSS perform very well. We also identified key areas for improvement or revision in items and options within the General Psychopathology subscale. The Positive and Negative subscale scores are not only more discriminating of individual differences in symptom severity than the General Psychopathology subscale score, but are also more efficient on average than the 30-item total score. Of the 8 items recently recommended to establish symptom remission, 1 performed markedly different from the 7 others and should either be deleted or rescored requiring that patients achieve a lower score of 2 (rather than 3) to signal remission.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This first item response analysis of the PANSS supports its sound psychometric properties; most PANSS items were either very good or good at assessing overall severity of illness. These analyses did identify some items which might be further improved for measuring individual severity differences or for defining remission thresholds. Findings also suggest that the Positive and Negative subscales are more sensitive to change than the PANSS total score and, thus, may constitute a "mini PANSS" that may be more reliable, require shorter administration and training time, and possibly reduce sample sizes needed for future research.</p

Use of NON-PARAMETRIC Item Response Theory to develop a shortened version of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Nonparametric item response theory (IRT) was used to examine (a) the performance of the 30 Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) items and their options ((levels of severity), (b) the effectiveness of various subscales to discriminate among differences in symptom severity, and (c) the development of an abbreviated PANSS (Mini-PANSS) based on IRT and a method to link scores to the original PANSS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Baseline PANSS scores from 7,187 patients with Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective disorder who were enrolled between 1995 and 2005 in psychopharmacology trials were obtained. Option characteristic curves (OCCs) and Item Characteristic Curves (ICCs) were constructed to examine the probability of rating each of seven options within each of 30 PANSS items as a function of subscale severity, and summed-score linking was applied to items selected for the Mini-PANSS.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The majority of items forming the Positive and Negative subscales (i.e. 19 items) performed very well and discriminate better along symptom severity compared to the General Psychopathology subscale. Six of the seven Positive Symptom items, six of the seven Negative Symptom items, and seven out of the 16 General Psychopathology items were retained for inclusion in the Mini-PANSS. Summed score linking and linear interpolation was able to produce a translation table for comparing total subscale scores of the Mini-PANSS to total subscale scores on the original PANSS. Results show scores on the subscales of the Mini-PANSS can be linked to scores on the original PANSS subscales, with very little bias.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The study demonstrated the utility of non-parametric IRT in examining the item properties of the PANSS and to allow selection of items for an abbreviated PANSS scale. The comparisons between the 30-item PANSS and the Mini-PANSS revealed that the shorter version is comparable to the 30-item PANSS, but when applying IRT, the Mini-PANSS is also a good indicator of illness severity.</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

Garden and landscape-scale correlates of moths of differing conservation status: significant effects of urbanization and habitat diversity

Moths are abundant and ubiquitous in vegetated terrestrial environments and are pollinators, important herbivores of wild plants, and food for birds, bats and rodents. In recent years, many once abundant and widespread species have shown sharp declines that have been cited by some as indicative of a widespread insect biodiversity crisis. Likely causes of these declines include agricultural intensification, light pollution, climate change, and urbanization; however, the real underlying cause(s) is still open to conjecture. We used data collected from the citizen science Garden Moth Scheme (GMS) to explore the spatial association between the abundance of 195 widespread British species of moth, and garden habitat and landscape features, to see if spatial habitat and landscape associations varied for species of differing conservation status. We found that associations with habitat and landscape composition were species-specific, but that there were consistent trends in species richness and total moth abundance. Gardens with more diverse and extensive microhabitats were associated with higher species richness and moth abundance; gardens near to the coast were associated with higher richness and moth abundance; and gardens in more urbanized locations were associated with lower species richness and moth abundance. The same trends were also found for species classified as increasing, declining and vulnerable under IUCN (World Conservation Union) criteria

Processing of spatial-frequency altered faces in schizophrenia: Effects of illness phase and duration

Low spatial frequency (SF) processing has been shown to be impaired in people with schizophrenia, but it is not clear how this varies with clinical state or illness chronicity. We compared schizophrenia patients (SCZ, n534), first episode psychosis patients (FEP, n522), and healthy controls (CON, n535) on a gender/facial discrimination task. Images were either unaltered (broadband spatial frequency, BSF), or had high or low SF information removed (LSF and HSF conditions, respectively). The task was performed at hospital admission and discharge for patients, and at corresponding time points for controls. Groups were matched on visual acuity. At admission, compared to their BSF performance, each group was significantly worse with low SF stimuli, and most impaired with high SF stimuli. The level of impairment at each SF did not depend on group. At discharge, the SCZ group performed more poorly in the LSF condition than the other groups, and showed the greatest degree of performance decline collapsed over HSF and LSF conditions, although the latter finding was not significant when controlling for visual acuity. Performance did not change significantly over time for any group. HSF processing was strongly related to visual acuity at both time points for all groups. We conclude the following: 1) SF processing abilities in schizophrenia are relatively stable across clinical state; 2) face processing abnormalities in SCZ are not secondary to problems processing specific SFs, but are due to other known difficulties constructing visual representations from degraded information; and 3) the relationship between HSF processing and visual acuity, along with known SCZ- and medication-related acuity reductions, and the elimination of a SCZ-related impairment after controlling for visual acuity in this study, all raise the possibility that some prior findings of impaired perception in SCZ may be secondary to acuity reductions

The Self-Assessment Scale of Cognitive Complaints in Schizophrenia: A validation study in Tunisian population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a huge well-documented literature on cognitive deficits in schizophrenia, little is known about the own perception of patients regarding their cognitive functioning. The purpose of our study was to create a scale to collect subjective cognitive complaints of patients suffering from schizophrenia with Tunisian Arabic dialect as mother tongue and to proceed to a validation study of this scale.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The authors constructed the Self-Assessment Scale of Cognitive Complaints in Schizophrenia (SASCCS) based on a questionnaire covering five cognitive domains which are the most frequently reported in the literature to be impaired in schizophrenia. The scale consisted of 21 likert-type questions dealing with memory, attention, executive functions, language and praxia. In a second time, the authors proceeded to the study of psychometric qualities of the scale among 105 patients suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorders (based on DSM- IV criteria). Patients were evaluated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Global Assessment Functioning Scale (GAF scale) and the Calgary Depression Scale (CDS).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The scale's reliability was proven to be good through Cronbach alpha coefficient equal to 0.85 and showing its good internal consistency. The intra-class correlation coefficient at 11 weeks was equal to 0.77 suggesting a good stability over time. Principal component analysis with Oblimin rotation was performed and yielded to six factors accounting for 58.28% of the total variance of the scale.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Given the good psychometric properties that have been revealed in this study, the SASCCS seems to be reliable to measure schizophrenic patients' perception of their own cognitive impairment. This kind of evaluation can't substitute for objective measures of cognitive performances in schizophrenia. The purpose of such an evaluation is to permit to the patient to express his own well-being and satisfaction of quality of life.</p

The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Since its first publication, the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) has become one of the most widely used assessment instruments in psychiatry. Although some conflicting data has been presented, studies investigating the CGI's validity have only rarely been conducted so far. It is unclear whether the improvement index CGI-I or a difference score of the severity index CGI-S_difis more valid in depicting clinical change. The current study examined the validity of these two measures and investigated whether therapists' CGI ratings correspond to the view the patients themselves have on their condition.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirty-one inpatients of a German psychotherapeutic hospital suffering from a major depressive disorder (age M = 45.3, SD = 17.2; 58.1% women) participated. Patients filled in the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). CGI-S and CGI-I were rated from three perspectives: the treating therapist (THER), the team of therapists involved in the patient's treatment (TEAM), and the patient (PAT). BDI and CGI-S were filled in at admission and discharge, CGI-I at discharge only. Data was analysed using effect sizes, Spearman's <it>ρ </it>and intra-class correlations (ICC).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Effect sizes between CGI-I and CGI-S _difratings were large for all three perspectives with substantially higher change scores on CGI-I than on CGI-S _dif. BDI_difcorrelated moderately with PAT ratings, but did not correlate significantly with TEAM or THER ratings. Congruence between CGI-ratings from the three perspectives was low for CGI-S _dif(ICC = .37; Confidence Interval [CI] .15 to .59; <it>F</it>_30,60= 2.77, <it>p </it>< .001; mean <it>ρ </it>= 0.36) and moderate for CGI-I (ICC = .65 (CI .47 to .80; <it>F</it>_30,60= 6.61, <it>p </it>< .001; mean <it>ρ </it>= 0.59).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Results do not suggest a definite recommendation for whether CGI-I or CGI-S _difshould be used since no strong evidence for the validity of neither of them could be found. As congruence between CGI ratings from patients' and staff's perspective was not convincing it cannot be assumed that CGI THER or TEAM ratings fully represent the view of the patient on the severity of his impairment. Thus, we advocate for the incorporation of multiple self- and clinician-reported scales into the design of clinical trials in addition to CGI in order to gain further insight into CGI's relation to the patients' perspective.</p