Patterns of management of patients with dual disorder (psychosis) in Italy: a survey of psychiatrists and other physicians focusing on clinical practice

© 2018 Clerici, de Bartolomeis, De Filippis, Ducci, Maremmani, Martinotti and Schifano. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).Patients with severe psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective and bipolar disorders frequently suffer from concomitant substance use disorders (SUDs) – Dual Disorder (DD) patients. In order to better understand current practices for management of patients with psychotic episodes and concomitant SUD in Italy, we carried out a survey of psychiatrists on current routine practice among prescribers. These aspects can help to identify at-risk patients, improve current prescribing practices, and favor early intervention. An ad hoc survey of 17 questions was administered to psychiatrists via electronic polling and on-line distribution; 448 completed questionnaires were collected. Comorbid substance abuse was most frequently diagnosed within the context of anxiety disorder (46%), followed by bipolar disorder (25%), and schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (12%). The vast majority of respondents felt that patient management was becoming more complex due to substance abuse. The areas reported to be most affected in patients with SUD were functioning, interpersonal relations, and impulsivity, while sensory perception disorders, ideation, agitation, and impulsivity were the most frequently reported symptoms. In the acute setting, haloperidol was used as the first-line agent of choice followed by aripiprazole and olanzapine. In the maintenance phase, aripiprazole was the dominantly used first-line agent, followed by olanzapine. Almost half of respondents used long-acting agents, while about one-third did not. Among those prescribing long-acting agents, efficacy, control of impulsivity, and control of specific symptoms were cited as motivators, while in the maintenance phase, better adherence and tolerability were mainly cited. From the responses to the present survey, it is clear that the respondents are aware of the problem of SUD in psychotic patients. While treatment be optimized in terms of the choice and formulation of antipsychotics, greater emphasis should be placed on efficacy, tolerability and the negative metabolic consequences of some antipsychotics. When considering the ideal antipsychotic, long-acting agents were considered to be superior in reducing relapse, even if current treatment guidelines often give preference to oral formulations.Peer reviewe

TREATMENT PATTERNS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA BASED ON THE DATA FROM SEVEN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Objective: The aim is to analyze how schizophrenia is pharmacologically treated in seven CEE countries: Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia. Methods: Psychiatrists from selected centers in each of participating countries were asked to complete a pre-defined questionnaire on their current clinical practice. Information on protocols and resource utilization in schizophrenia treatment was included and derived from randomly selected patient medical records. Expert opinions on country-wide treatment patterns were additionally sought. This sub-analysis focuses on pharmacological treatment patterns in the last six months and over the course of the disease. Results: 961 patients’ data show that during last six months the most commonly prescribed medications were oral atypical antipsychotics: olanzapine (n=268), clozapine (n=234) and risperidone (n=160). The most frequently prescribed atypical antipsychotics over course of disease were: risperidone (54.5%), olanzapine (52.4%) and clozapine (35.1%), along with haloperidol (39.3%). Experts reported risperidone (four countries) and olanzapine (three countries) as first-line treatment, with the same two medications prescribed as second-line treatment. Clozapine was the most reported medication for refractory patients. Approximately 22% of patients received polypharmacy with antipsychotics in at least one period over the disease course. Mean time since diagnosis was 13.1 years and on average 4.8 treatment courses received during that period. Anxiolytics (70%), antidepressants (42%), moodstabilizers (27%) were also prescribed, with diazepam (35.4%), sertraline (10.5%), valproic acid (17.5%) the most commonly reported, respectively, in each group. The most frequently reported treatment change was switch from one oral atypical antipsychotic to another (51%). Conclusion: Oral atypical antipsychotics, mostly older drugs (risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine), were most commonly prescribed for schizophrenia treatment in participating countries. Given that results are from the first large-scale analysis of RWD, we believe these findings can be a benchmark for future real-world studies, which could contribute to the optimization of treatment for this debilitating disease

Exploring the feasibility of using the ICER Evidence Rating Matrix for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness in assessing treatment benefit and certainty in the clinical evidence on orphan therapies for paediatric indications

Abstract Background The evaluation of clinical evidence takes account of health benefit (efficacy and safety) and the degree of certainty in the estimate of benefit. In orphan indications practical and ethical challenges in conducting clinical trials, particularly in paediatric patients, often limit the available evidence, rendering structured evaluation challenging. While acknowledging the paucity of evidence, regulators and reimbursement authorities compare the efficacy and safety of alternative treatments for a given indication, often in the context of the benefits of other treatments for similar or different conditions. This study explores the feasibility of using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) Evidence Rating Matrix for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness in structured assessment of both the magnitude of clinical benefit (net health benefit, NHB) and the certainty of the effect estimate in a sample of orphan therapies for paediatric indications. Results Eleven systemic therapies with European Medicines Agency (EMA) orphan medicinal product designation, licensed for 16 paediatric indications between January 2017 and March 2020 were identified using OrphaNet and EMA databases and were selected for evaluation with the ICER Evidence Rating Matrix: burosumab; cannabidiol; cerliponase alfa; chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA); dinutuximab beta; glibenclamide; metreleptin; nusinersen; tisagenlecleucel; velmanase alfa; and vestronidase alfa. EMA European Public Assessment Reports, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, and conference presentations from January 2016 to April 2021 were searched for evidence on efficacy and safety. Two of the identified therapies were graded as “substantial” NHB: dinutuximab beta (neuroblastoma maintenance) and nusinersen (Type I SMA), and one as “comparable” NHB (CDCA). The NHB grade of the remaining therapies fell between “comparable” and “substantial”. No therapies were graded as having negative NHB. The certainty of the estimate ranged from “high” (dinutuximab beta in neuroblastoma maintenance) to “low” (CDCA, metreleptin and vestronidase alfa). The certainty of the other therapies was graded between “low” and “high”. The ICER Evidence Rating Matrix overall rating “A” (the highest) was given to two therapies, “B+” to 6 therapies, “C+” to five therapies, and “I” (the lowest) to three therapies. The scores varied between rating authors with mean agreement over all indications of 71.9% for NHB, 56.3% for certainty and 68.8% for the overall rating. Conclusions Using the ICER Matrix to grade orphan therapies according to their treatment benefit and certainty is feasible. However, the assessment involves subjective judgements based on heterogenous evidence. Tools such as the ICER Matrix might aid decision makers to evaluate treatment benefit and its certainty when comparing therapies across indications