A randomized trial of a program to reduce the use of psychoactive drugs in nursing homes. Educating physicians to reduce benzodiazepine use by elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Issues that may determine the outcome of antipsychotic trials: industry sponsorship and extrapyramidal side effect. Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol. Some methodological considerations for the clinical evaluation of neuroleptics--comparative effects of clozapine and haloperidol on schizophrenics. Effect of switching to atypical antipsychotics on memory in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Pharmacotherapy of impaired affect in recovering schizophrenic patients. Ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. A dose-ranging exploratory study of the effects of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate in patients with persistent schizophrenic symptoms. The effect of industry-independent drug information on the prescribing of benzodiazepines in general practice. Lithium combined with carbamazepine or haloperidol in the treatment of mania. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the discontinuation of long-term antipsychotics in dementia. Efficacy of maintenance use of anticholinergic agents.
Although psychoactive medications have substantial side effects in the elderly, these drugs are used frequently in nursing homes. Few interventions have succeeded in changing this situation, and little is known about the clinical effects of such interventions.
                We studied six matched pairs of nursing homes; at one randomly selected nursing home in each pair, physicians, nurses, and aides participated in an educational program in geriatric psychopharmacology. At base line we determined the type and quantity of drugs received by all residents (n = 823), and a blinded observer performed standardized clinical assessments of the residents who were taking psychoactive medications. After the five-month program, drug use and patient status were reassessed.
                Scores on an index of psychoactive-drug use, measuring both the magnitude and the probable inappropriateness of medication use, declined significantly more in the nursing homes in which the program was carried out (experimental nursing homes) than in the control nursing homes (decrease, 27 percent vs. 8 percent; P = 0.02). The use of antipsychotic drugs was discontinued in more residents in the experimental nursing homes than in the control nursing homes (32 percent vs. 14 percent); the comparable figures for the discontinuation of long-acting benzodiazepines were 20 percent vs. 9 percent, and for antihistamine hypnotics, 45 percent vs. 21 percent. In the experimental nursing homes residents who were initially taking antipsychotic drugs showed less deterioration on several measures of cognitive function than similar residents in the control facilities, but they were more likely to report depression. Those who were initially taking benzodiazepines or antihistamine hypnotic agents reported less anxiety than controls but had more loss of memory. Most other measures of clinical status remained unchanged in both groups.
                An educational program targeted to physicians, nurses, and aides can reduce the use of psychoactive drugs in nursing homes without adversely affecting the overall behavior and level of functioning of the residents. Benzodiazepine use by elderly patients is associated with adverse outcomes including increased risk of falls and fractures, motor vehicle accidents and cognitive impairment. Recent studies suggest that individualized feedback and education to physicians may improve drug prescribing. In this study, we evaluated an intervention to address the inappropriate prescribing of benzodiazepines for elderly patients.
                We identified 1624 primary care physicians who wrote at least 10 prescriptions for the target drugs in a 2-month period and randomly assigned these physicians to the intervention group or the control group. We obtained data from the Ontario Drug Benefit claims database, which covers all Ontario residents aged 65 years and over for drugs selected from a minimally restrictive formulary. Every 2 months for 6 months, confidential profiles of benzodiazepine prescription use coupled with evidence-based educational bulletins were mailed to the intervention group. The control group received feedback and educational bulletins about first-line antihypertension drug prescribing for elderly patients. Our main outcome measures were reductions in the proportion of each physician's total benzodiazepine prescriptions for long-acting agents, combinations of benzodiazepines with other psychoactive medications (including other benzodiazepines) and long-term benzodiazepine therapy.
                After randomization, 168 physicians agreed to be in the intervention group and 206 in the control group. Their demographic and prescribing characteristics were similar. Although the proportion of long-acting benzodiazepine prescriptions decreased by 0.7% in the intervention group between the baseline period and the end of the intervention period (from 20.3%, or a mean of 29.5 prescriptions, to 19.6%, or a mean of 27.7 prescriptions) and increased by 1.1% in the control group (from 19.8%, or a mean of 26.4 prescriptions, to 20.9%, or a mean of 27.7 prescriptions) (p = 0.036), this difference was not clinically significant. There was no significant difference over the study period in either combination prescribing of benzodiazepines or in prescriptions for long-term benzodiazepine therapy.
                We did not find that a program of confidential feedback and educational material offered to Ontario primary care physicians had a clinically significant impact on their benzodiazepine prescribing. In many parts of the world, second-generation antipsychotics have largely replaced typical antipsychotics as the treatment of choice for schizophrenia. Consequently, trials comparing two drugs of this class--so-called head-to-head studies--are gaining in relevance. The authors reviewed results of head-to-head studies of second-generation antipsychotics funded by pharmaceutical companies to determine if a relationship existed between the sponsor of the trial and the drug favored in the study's overall outcome.
                The authors identified head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics through a MEDLINE search for the period from 1966 to September 2003 and identified additional head-to-head studies from selected conference proceedings for the period from 1999 to February 2004. The abstracts of all studies fully or partly funded by pharmaceutical companies were modified to mask the names and doses of the drugs used in the trial, and two physicians blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the abstracts and independently rated which drug was favored by the overall outcome measures. Two authors who were not blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the entire report of each study for sources of bias that could have affected the results in favor of the sponsor's drug.
                Of the 42 reports identified by the authors, 33 were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. In 90.0% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug. This pattern resulted in contradictory conclusions across studies when the findings of studies of the same drugs but with different sponsors were compared. Potential sources of bias occurred in the areas of doses and dose escalation, study entry criteria and study populations, statistics and methods, and reporting of results and wording of findings.
                Some sources of bias may limit the validity of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Because most of the sources of bias identified in this review were subtle rather than compelling, the clinical usefulness of future trials may benefit from minor modifications to help avoid bias. The authors make a number of concrete suggestions for ways in which potential sources of bias can be addressed by study initiators, peer reviewers of studies under consideration for publication, and readers of published studies. This study presents a meta-analysis of the influence of several potentially biasing factors (eg industry support, extrapyramidal side effects) on efficacy of studies comparing second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) with first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) medications. We used the dataset from our previously published meta-analysis of 124 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SGAs with FGAs, to evaluate whether certain possible biases could influence the actual outcome on the total score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scores. Industry sponsorship was determined by contact with authors or publication statement. We calculated whether (1) industry sponsorship, (2) study quality, (3) extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) properties, or (4) prophylactic antiparkinsonian medications influenced SGA vs FGA efficacy for each drug and averaged overall by two Hedges and Olkin-based meta-analyses. The analysis found that none of the factors was significantly associated with a particular outcome. While industry-sponsored articles may conclude their medication to be more favorable than that of a competitor in an RCT, we found that the observed efficacy was not influenced by sponsorship. Many attribute the finding that SGAs appears to be more efficacious than FGAs to be a result of EPS-decreasing efficacy (or its measurement). We were unable to confirm that the drug's EPS properties or antiparkinsonian management altered actual efficacy. Few long-term studies have compared the efficacy and safety of typical and atypical antipsychotic medications directly in patients with a first episode of psychosis who met the criteria for schizophrenia or a related psychotic disorder. This study compared the acute and long-term effectiveness of haloperidol with that of olanzapine in patients with first-episode psychosis in a large, controlled clinical trial.
                Patients with first-episode psychosis (N=263) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive haloperidol or olanzapine and were followed for up to 104 weeks. Domains measured included psychopathology, psychosocial variables, neurocognitive functioning, and brain morphology and metabolism. This report presents data from clinical measures of treatment response and safety data from the 12-week acute treatment phase.
                Haloperidol and olanzapine were associated with substantial and comparable baseline-to-endpoint reductions in symptom severity, which did not differ significantly in last-observation-carried-forward analyses. However, in a mixed-model analysis, olanzapine-treated subjects had significantly greater decreases in symptom severity as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score and negative and general scales and by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale but not as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive scale and by the Clinical Global Impression severity rating. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced a lower rate of treatment-emergent parkinsonism and akathisia but had significantly more weight gain, compared with the haloperidol-treated patients. Overall, significantly more olanzapine-treated subjects than haloperidol-treated subjects completed the 12-week acute phase of the study (67% versus 54%).
                As expected on the basis of previous studies, both olanzapine and haloperidol were effective in the acute reduction of psychopathological symptoms in this group of patients with first-episode psychosis. However, olanzapine had several relative advantages in therapeutic response. Although the nature of adverse events differed between the two agents, retention in the study was greater with olanzapine. Retention in treatment is important in this patient population, given their risk of relapse. Longer-term results are needed to determine whether treatment with atypical antipsychotics results in superior outcomes for a first episode of schizophrenia. For the purpose of evaluating objectively the characteristics of clinical effects of clozapine and haloperidol, a double-blind comparative trial was conducted on 91 schizophrenic in-patients. The changes of symptoms were assessed by means of several psychiatric and behavioral rating scales. The results were analyzed by means of nonparametric statistical methods. Furthermore, application of multivariate analysis was considered. After 12 weeks of treatment, though no significant difference in general improvement rate was noted between the two groups, a marked different spectrum of clinical effects was observed according to the rating scales. Clozapine is superior in anti-delusional, contact-promoting and sedative anxiolytic effect, while haloperidol is superior in anti-autistic effect. Among the side-effects, extrapyramidal symptoms appeared significatly more severe in the haloperidol group. The frequency of appearance of fever, was significantly greater in the clozapine group than the other. The four dropout cases of the clozapine group were all caused by fever. Through this clinical trial, clinical availability and validity of various statistical analytical methods were reconsidered. While the usefulness of atypical antipsychotics for improving cognitive function has been proven, the specific effects of these drugs are still unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate changes of the immediate memory and verbal working memory in patients with chronic schizophrenia after switching to one of four atypical antipsychotic agents and cessation of anticholinergic therapy. The subjects included 77 schizophrenic patients who were treated primarily with typical antipsychotics. Treatment was randomly switched to one of four atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, perospirone, quetiapine, or risperidone) over a 4-week period, and then the drug was continued for another 4 weeks while the patient was taken off anticholinergics. The immediate memory, verbal working memory, and symptoms were evaluated. Significant improvement of immediate memory was only seen with olanzapine and risperidone. Improvement was also seen after switching to perospirone, but immediate memory worsened after treatment with this anticholinergic drug was discontinued. Deterioration was seen after switching to quetiapine, but immediate memory improved and reached the previous level after treatment with anticholinergic drugs was discontinued. Significant improvement of the verbal working memory was only seen during risperidone administration. The findings suggested that switching chronic schizophrenic patients to atypical antipsychotics can improve both the immediate memory and the verbal working memory when risperidone is used, while improvement of immediate memory can be expected with olanzapine. From the viewpoint of improving the memory, quetiapine should not be administered concomitantly with anticholinergic drugs, and caution should be exercised when discontinuing anticholinergic drugs during treatment with perospirone. Prominent and persistent anxiety, depression, and/or negative features characterize a substantial minority of recovered or residually psychotic schizophrenic outpatients and contribute to poor outcome. Because extrapyramidal side effects of typical neuroleptic medications often resemble such features, we first systematically studied the contribution of extrapyramidal side effects to these problems and their treatment. For patients who remained distressed, controlled trials of supplemental thymoleptics were undertaken.
                In trial 1, 92 distressed (depressed and/or anxious) patients and 36 patients in a defect state (patients with negative symptoms) participated in a double-blind, intramuscular challenge that compared centrally acting benztropine mesylate with peripherally acting glycopyrrolate. In trial 2, 57 distressed patients and 22 patients in a defect state were randomly assigned to a double-blind, neuroleptic medication dose-reduction group. In trial 3, 57 chronically distressed patients who were maintained on a low dose of fluphenazine decanoate were randomly assigned to a supplemental desipramine hydrochloride, lithium carbonate, or placebo group under double-blind conditions for 12 weeks.
                For patients who were already maintained on antiparkinsonian medication, impaired affect was not resolved by additional benztropine. Only distressed patients with a family history of severe mental disorder (often affective) showed improvement with neuroleptic medication dose reduction. Patients in the defect-state group reported less dysphoria on a reduced neuroleptic medication dose, but negative symptoms persisted. Desipramine improved diverse aspects of mood and residual psychoticism, possibly as a prophylaxis against minor affective exacerbations. Depression improved in women only. Lithium positively affected multiple indexes of anxiety and anxious depression.
                Most often, persistent affective impairments are neither resistant extrapyramidal side effects nor characterological traits. Thymoleptics improve the nonphasic, chronic types of anxiety and depression in contrast to the acute, episodic forms, for which little support can be found in the literature. To investigate if ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid (E-EPA) augmentation improves antipsychotic efficacy and tolerability in first-episode psychosis (FEP).
                We performed a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 2-g E-EPA augmentation in 80 FEP patients. Sixty-nine patients were eligible for analysis; a post hoc analysis was computed for a subgroup of nonaffective FEP patients (N = 53). The first participant was included in November 2000 and the last participant completed the trial in August 2003. Primary outcome measures were symptom change scores and time to first response, while tolerability measures and cumulative antipsychotic dose were secondary outcome measures.
                Analysis of covariance controlling for baseline symptoms found no significant mean difference between E-EPA and placebo at week 12 for symptom change scores. Cox regression analysis revealed a significant treatment by diagnosis interaction (p = .024) for time to first response favoring E-EPA in nonaffective psychosis. Post hoc analysis for cumulative response rates further confirmed a higher response rate at week 6 (42.9% [15/35] vs. 17.6% [6/34] for all participants, p = .036; 54.2% [13/24] vs. 17.2% [5/29] for the nonaffective psychosis subset, p = .008); however, the difference at week 12 was no longer significant. Analysis of secondary outcome measures revealed that E-EPA-augmented participants needed 20% less antipsychotic medication between weeks 4 through 6 (p = .03), had less extrapyramidal side effects in the initial 9 weeks (p < .05 for all participants and for all timepoints), and reported less constipation (p = .011) and fewer sexual side effects (p = .016) than those treated with antipsychotic medication alone.
                The findings suggest that E-EPA may accelerate treatment response and improve the tolerability of antipsychotic medications. However, it was not possible to demonstrate a sustained symptomatic benefit of E-EPA in early psychosis, possibly due to a ceiling effect, since a high proportion of first-episode patients already achieve symptomatic remission with antipsychotic medication alone. Further controlled trials in nonaffective early psychosis seem warranted.
                Australian Clinical Trials Registry identifier 12605000267651 (http://actr.org.au). The objective was to test effects of ethyl eicosapentaenoate (E-E) on persistent ongoing symptoms in patients receiving different types of anti-schizophrenic drugs, typical antipsychotics, new atypical antipsychotics, and clozapine. 115 patients with DSM-IV-defined schizophrenia were studied, 31 on clozapine, 48 on new atypical drugs and 36 on typical antipsychotics. Placebo or 1, 2 or 4 g/day of E-E was given for 12 weeks in addition to the background medication. The main assessment was change from baseline to 12 weeks on the PANSS and its sub-scales. There were no treatment-related side effects or adverse biochemical or haematological effects. Patients on 2 and 4 g/day E-E showed significant reductions in triglyceride levels which had been elevated by clozapine. In patients given 2 g/day E-E there were improvements on the PANSS and its sub-scales, but there was also a large placebo effect in patients on typical and new atypical antipsychotics and no difference between active treatment and placebo. In patients on clozapine, in contrast, there was little placebo response, but a clinically important and statistically significant effect of E-E on all rating scales. This effect was greatest at 2 g/day. There was a positive relationship between improvement on rating scales and rise in red blood cell arachidonic acid concentration. In order to measure the effect of industry-independent information on the prescribing of benzodiazepines in general practice, 128 primary practitioners were randomly allocated to three intervention groups after stratification by year of graduation. One third of the participating physicians were forwarded written information about the indications and limitations of benzodiazepines, another third received both written and oral information, and the remaining third (the control group) obtained no information at all. A comparison of the number of benzodiazepines prescribed per 100 patient contacts with prescription before and after the intervention showed an average decrease of 3% in the control group, of 14% in physicians who received only written information, and of 24% in physicians who were given additional oral information. Post hoc pair-wise comparisons revealed a significant difference at the 1% level in the number of benzodiazepines prescribed between physicians who received both written and oral information and the control group. A follow-up survey conducted 4 weeks after the intervention showed that the oral information campaign positively affected physicians' attitudes about the value of oral drug information from an industry-independent source. Hospitalized manic patients were withdrawn from psychoactive medications for 2 weeks after which they were randomized to double-blind treatment with carbamazepine plus lithium [CBZ-Li] or haloperidol plus lithium [HAL-Li] with benztropine. Unit dosages of Li 300 mg, CBZ 200 mg and HAL 2 mg were titrated to therapeutic plasma levels and maintained for 8 weeks. No rescue medications were permitted after 3 weeks. Standard ratings of psychopathology and side effects were accomplished weekly. Sixty patients entered the study but only 33 remained for randomization after drug washout. By 8 weeks both groups were improved from baseline without statistically reliable differences between them. However HAL-Li patients had more extrapyramidal side effects that were major reasons for dropout, whereas CBZ-Li patients were more often noncompliant and initially required more rescue medications. We conclude that either combination treatment can be beneficial but CBZ-Li has the advantage because of fewer neurologic side effects. The objectives of this randomized clinical trial were to investigate the impact of the discontinuation of long-term antipsychotics in residents with dementia in chronic care institutions and to identify clinical predictors of safe discontinuation. Subjects included 34 residents with dementia who were on antipsychotics for more than 6 months and whose behavior was currently stable. Subjects were randomized to either continue receiving their regular dosage of antipsychotics or to receive placebo for 6 months. Early withdrawal from the study was not statistically different between the groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-3.26), and though not significantly different, subjects in the placebo group were more likely to be withdrawn from the study because of worsening behavior (RR = 1.25, 95% Cl 0.33-4.76). Three subjects in the placebo group were withdrawn from the study due to worsening of extrapyramidal symptoms. The active treatment group had more behavioral problems (e.g., physical aggression towards others, p < .05) compared to the placebo group. The placebo group developed more apathy, but balancing this outcome was a relative improvement in cognitive functioning. Baseline antipsychotic dose was predictive of behavioral worsening upon discontinuation of long-term antipsychotic drugs. The primary limitation of the study was the small sample size. In conclusion, a trial of discontinuation of antipsychotics should be considered in this population. Twenty-seven long-term psychiatric inpatients maintained on neuroleptics with concomitant antiparkinsonian medication were entered into a study in which anticholinergic medication was gradually withdrawn in a randomized double-blind within-subjects design. The extrapyramidal symptoms of each patient were compared when taking their usual anticholinergic medication, when taking placebo and when taking no antiparkinsonian drug. The relapse rate on no medication was 14%, and if patients relapsed on no medication they also relapsed on placebo. The relapse rate was not significantly different on active medication. Nor were there significant differences in ratings of parkinsonism or dyskinesia. The lack of difference between double-blind and overt withdrawal does not mean that studies that find a much higher relapse rate are necessarily unaffected by nonspecific factors, as significant unblinding may occur in clinical trials.
The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area.