History, background, concepts and current use of comedication and polypharmacy in psychiatry

Based on a careful literature search a review is presented of the history, background, concepts and current use of comedication and polypharmacy in psychiatry. The pros and cons of comedication and polypharmacy are presented, as well as their apparent increase in recent times. Possible reasons for the increase of comedication/polypharmacy are described. Both the potential advantages as well as the potential risks are discussed. The one sided view that all comedication/polypharmacy is nothing but problematic is questioned. Comedication/polypharmacy seems to be, among others, the current answer to the well-known limited efficacy and effectiveness of current monotherapy treatment strategies

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

Sustained favorable long-term outcome in the treatment of schizophrenia: a 3-year prospective observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study of chronically ill patients with schizophrenia aimed to identify patients who achieve sustained favorable long-term outcome - when the outcome incorporates severity of symptoms, level of functioning, and use of acute care services - and to identify the best baseline predictors of achieving this sustained favorable long-term outcome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from the United States Schizophrenia Care and Assessment Program (US-SCAP) (N = 2327), a large 3-year prospective, multisite, observational study of individuals treated for schizophrenia in the US, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to group patients based upon baseline symptom severity. Symptom severity was assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, level of functioning, and use of acute care services. Level of functioning reflected patient-reported productivity and clinician-rated occupational role functioning. Use of acute care services reflected self-reported psychiatric hospitalization and emergency service use. Change of health state was determined over the 3-year period. A patient was classified as having a sustained favorable long-term outcome if their health state values had the closest distance to the defined "best baseline cluster" at each point over the length of the study. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine baseline predictors of sustained favorable long-term outcome.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At baseline, 5 distinct health state clusters were identified, ranging from "best" to "worst." Of 1635 patients with sufficient data, only 157 (10%) experienced sustained favorable long-term outcome during the 2-years postbaseline. The baseline predictors associated with sustained favorable long-term outcome included better quality of life, more daily activities, patient-reported clearer thinking from medication, better global functioning, being employed, not being a victim of a crime, not having received individual therapy, and not having received help with shopping and leisure activities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Only a small percentage of patients achieved sustained favorable long-term outcome in this study, suggesting there continues to be a great need for improvement in the treatment of schizophrenia. Findings suggest that clinicians could make early projections of health states and identify those patients more likely to achieve favorable long-term outcomes enabling early therapeutic interventions to enhance benefits for patients.</p

Change in level of productivity in the treatment of schizophrenia with olanzapine or other antipsychotics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>When treating schizophrenia, improving patients' productivity level is a major goal considering schizophrenia is a leading cause of functional disability. Productivity level has been identified as the most preferred treatment outcome by patients with schizophrenia. However, little has been done to systematically investigate productivity levels in schizophrenia. We set out to better understand the change in productivity level among chronically ill patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic medications. We also assessed the links between productivity level and other clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This post hoc analysis used data from 6 randomized, double-blind clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with each trial being of approximately 6 months duration. Change in productivity level was compared between olanzapine-treated patients (HGBG, n = 172; HGHJ, n = 277; HGJB, n = 171; HGLB, n = 281; HGGN, n = 159; HGDH, n = 131) and patients treated with other antipsychotic medications (separately vs. haloperidol [HGGN, n = 97; HGDH, n = 132], risperidone [HGBG, n = 167; HGGN, n = 158], quetiapine [HGJB, n = 175], ziprasidone [HGHJ, n = 271] and aripiprazole [HGLB, n = 285]). Productivity was defined as functional activities/work including working for pay, studying, housekeeping and volunteer work. Productivity level in the prior 3 months was assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from no useful functioning to functional activity/work 75% to 100% of the time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Chronically ill patients treated with olanzapine (OLZ) experienced significantly greater improvement in productivity when compared to patients treated with risperidone (RISP) (OLZ = 0.22 ± 1.19, RISP = -0.03 ± 1.17, p = 0.033) or ziprasidone (ZIP) (OLZ = 0.50 ± 1.38, ZIP = 0.25 ± 1.27, p = 0.026), but did not significantly differ from the quetiapine, aripiprazole or haloperidol treatment groups. Among first episode patients, OLZ therapy was associated with greater improvements in productivity levels compared to haloperidol (HAL), during the acute phase (OLZ = -0.31 ± 1.59, HAL = -0.69 ± 1.56, p = 0.011) and over the long-term (OLZ = 0.10 ± 1.50, HAL = -0.32 ± 1.91, p = 0.008). Significantly more chronically ill and first episode patients treated with olanzapine showed moderately high (>50%-75% of the time) and high levels of productivity (>75%-100% of the time) at endpoint, when compared to risperidone or haloperidol-treated patients (p < .05), respectively. Higher productivity level was associated with significantly higher study completion rates and better scores on the positive, negative, disorganized thoughts, hostility and depression subscales of the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Some antipsychotic medications significantly differed in beneficial impact on productivity level in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Findings further highlight the link between clinical and functional outcomes, showing significant associations between higher productivity, lower symptom severity and better persistence on therapy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>clinicaltrials.gov identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088049">NCT00088049</a>; <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00036088">NCT00036088</a></p

WELLFOCUS PPT – modified positive psychotherapy to improve well-being in psychosis: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The promotion of well-being is an important goal of recovery oriented mental health services. No structured, evidence-based intervention exists that aims to increase the well-being in people with severe mental illness such as psychosis. Positive psychotherapy (PPT) is a promising intervention for this goal. Standard PPT was adapted for use with people with psychosis in the UK following the Medical Research Council framework for developing and testing complex interventions, resulting in the WELLFOCUS Model describing the intended impact of WELLFOCUS PPT. This study aims to test the WELLFOCUS Model, by piloting the intervention, trial processes, and evaluation strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a non-blinded pragmatic pilot RCT comparing WELLFOCUS PPT provided as an 11-session group therapy in addition to treatment as usual to treatment as usual alone. Inclusion criteria are adults (aged 18–65 years) with a main diagnosis of psychosis who use mental health services. A target sample of 80 service users with psychosis are recruited from mental health services across the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. Participants are randomised in blocks to the intervention and control group. WELLFOCUS PPT is provided to groups by specifically trained and supervised local therapists and members of the research team. Assessments are conducted before randomisation and after the group intervention. The primary outcome measure is well-being assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. Secondary outcomes include good feelings, symptom relief, connectedness, hope, self-worth, empowerment, and meaning. Process evaluation using data collected during the group intervention, post-intervention individual interviews and focus groups with participants, and interviews with trial therapists will complement quantitative outcome data. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on the feasibility of the intervention and identify necessary adaptations. It will allow optimisation of trial processes and inform the evaluation strategy, including sample size calculation, for a future definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04199273 – WELLFOCUS study: an intervention to improve well-being in people with psychosis, Date registered: 27 March 2013, first participant randomised on 26 April 2013

The cross-sectional GRAS sample: A comprehensive phenotypical data collection of schizophrenic patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Schizophrenia is the collective term for an exclusively clinically diagnosed, heterogeneous group of mental disorders with still obscure biological roots. Based on the assumption that valuable information about relevant genetic and environmental disease mechanisms can be obtained by association studies on patient cohorts of ≥ 1000 patients, if performed on detailed clinical datasets and quantifiable biological readouts, we generated a new schizophrenia data base, the GRAS (Göttingen Research Association for Schizophrenia) data collection. GRAS is the necessary ground to study genetic causes of the schizophrenic phenotype in a 'phenotype-based genetic association study' (PGAS). This approach is different from and complementary to the genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on schizophrenia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For this purpose, 1085 patients were recruited between 2005 and 2010 by an invariable team of traveling investigators in a cross-sectional field study that comprised 23 German psychiatric hospitals. Additionally, chart records and discharge letters of all patients were collected.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The corresponding dataset extracted and presented in form of an overview here, comprises biographic information, disease history, medication including side effects, and results of comprehensive cross-sectional psychopathological, neuropsychological, and neurological examinations. With >3000 data points per schizophrenic subject, this data base of living patients, who are also accessible for follow-up studies, provides a wide-ranging and standardized phenotype characterization of as yet unprecedented detail.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The GRAS data base will serve as prerequisite for PGAS, a novel approach to better understanding 'the schizophrenias' through exploring the contribution of genetic variation to the schizophrenic phenotypes.</p