Atypical antipsychotics for psychosis in adolescents

Psychiatry, Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Linden House, St Mary's Hospital, Green Hill Road, Leeds, UK, LS12 3QE.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 10/2013; 10(10):CD009582. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009582.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Schizophrenia often presents in adolescence, but current treatment guidelines are based largely on studies of adults with psychosis. Over the past decade, the number of studies on treatment of adolescent-onset psychosis has increased. The current systematic review collates and critiques evidence obtained on the use of various atypical antipsychotic medications for adolescents with psychosis.
To investigate the effects of atypical antipsychotic medications in adolescents with psychosis. We reviewed in separate analyses various comparisons of atypical antipsychotic medications with placebo or a typical antipsychotic medication or another atypical antipsychotic medication or the same atypical antipsychotic medication but at a lower dose.
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 2011), which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies and contacted study authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies to ask for more information.
We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared atypical antipsychotic medication with placebo or another pharmacological intervention or with psychosocial interventions, standard psychiatric treatment or no intervention in children and young people aged 13 to 18 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, acute and transient psychoses or unspecified psychosis. We included studies published in English and in other languages that were available in standardised databases.
Review authors AK and SSD selected the studies, rated the quality of the studies and performed data extraction. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model. When possible, for binary data presented in the 'Summary of findings' table, we calculated illustrative comparative risks. We summated continuous data using the mean difference (MD). Risk of bias was assessed for included studies.
We included 13 RCTs, with a total of 1112 participants. We found no data on service utilisation, economic outcomes, behaviour or cognitive response. Trials were classified into the following groups.1. Atypical antipsychotics versus placeboOnly two studies compared one atypical antipsychotic medication with placebo. In one study, the number of non-responders treated with olanzapine was not different from the number treated with placebo (1 RCT, n = 107, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.10); however, significantly more (57% vs 32%) people left the study early (1 RCT, n = 107, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87) from the placebo group compared with the olanzapine group. With regard to adverse effects, young people treated with aripiprazole had significantly lower serum cholesterol compared with those given placebo (1 RCT, n = 302, RR 3.77, 95% CI 1.88 to 7.58).2. Atypical antipsychotics versus typical antipsychoticsWhen the findings of all five trials comparing atypical antipsychotic medications with a typical antipsychotic medication were collated, no difference in the mean end point Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score was noted between the two arms (5 RCTs, n = 236, MD -1.08, 95% CI -3.08 to 0.93). With regard to adverse effects, the mean end point serum prolactin concentration was much higher than the reference range for treatment with risperidone, olanzapine and molindone in one of the studies. However, fewer adolescents who were receiving atypical antipsychotic medications left the study because of adverse effects (3 RCTs, n = 187, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15) or for any reason (3 RCTs, n = 187, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.97).3. One atypical antipsychotic versus another atypical antipsychoticThe mean end point BPRS score was not significantly different for people who received risperidone compared with those who received olanzapine; however, the above data were highly skewed. Overall no difference was noted in the number of people leaving the studies early because of any adverse effects between each study arm in the three studies comparing olanzapine and risperidone (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.04). Specific adverse events were not reported uniformly across the six different studies included in this section of the review; therefore it was difficult to do a head-to-head comparison of adverse events for different atypical antipsychotic medications.4. Lower-dose atypical antipsychotic versus standard/higher-dose atypical antipsychoticThree studies reported comparisons of lower doses of the atypical antipsychotic medication with standard/higher doses of the same medication. One study reported better symptom reduction with a standard dose of risperidone as compared with a low dose (1 RCT, n = 257, RR -8.00, 95% CI -13.75 to -2.25). In another study, no difference was reported in the number of participants not achieving remission between the group receiving 10 mg/d and those who received 30 mg/d of aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 196, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.48). Similarly in the other study, authors reported no statistically significant difference in clinical response between the two groups receiving lower-dose (80 mg/d) and higher-dose (160 mg/d) ziprasidone, as reflected by the mean end point BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 17, MD -4.40, 95% CI -19.20 to 10.40).
No convincing evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotic medications are superior to typical medications for the treatment of adolescents with psychosis. However, atypical antipsychotic medications may be more acceptable to young people because fewer symptomatic adverse effects are seen in the short term. Little evidence is available to support the superiority of one atypical antipsychotic medication over another, but side effect profiles are different for different medications. Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine is often associated with weight gain. Aripiprazole is not associated with increased prolactin or with dyslipidaemia. Adolescents may respond better to standard-dose as opposed to lower-dose risperidone, but for aripiprazole and ziprasidone, lower doses may be equally effective. Future trials should ensure uniform ways of reporting.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Antipsychotic treatment in early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) lacks a rich evidence base, and efforts to rank different drugs concerning their efficacy have not proven any particular drug superior. In contrast to the literature regarding adult-onset schizophrenia (AOS), comparative effectiveness studies in children and adolescents are limited in number and size, and only a few meta-analyses based on conventional methodologies have been conducted.
    BMJ Open 10/2014; 4(10):e005708. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005708 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Typical and atypical antipsychotics are efficacious treatments for early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) with very subtle differences in their efficacy. Therefore, when choosing an antipsychotic, the side-effect profile of the individual antipsychotic needs to be taken into account. There is a growing body of neurobiological and genetic evidence for early-onset patients, but these findings have not yet translated into the clinic. Areas covered: The authors summarize the current treatment options for EOS and discuss the novel treatment options that are under evaluation. The authors focus specifically on Phase II and Phase III clinical trials. Expert opinion: Currently, there are no truly groundbreaking pharmacological treatment options emerging in EOS. There are several newer antipsychotic agents (iloperidone, lurasidone, asenapine, blonanserin) that are currently in clinical trials. It is unclear whether therapeutic efficacy of any of these agents will be superior or even similar to the existing treatment and the main differentiating factor between individual drugs remains to be their side-effect profile. Beyond these antipsychotics, oxytocin and N-acetylcysteine are the only new pharmacological treatment options that are being evaluated in EOS. Therefore, a major change in the treatment development paradigm is necessary to identify novel and efficacious drugs.
    Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs 06/2014; 23(11):1-10. DOI:10.1517/13543784.2014.933806 · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MINERVA PSICHIATRICA 143 with psychological and social interven-tions where available and appropriate. All antipsychotic medications, be it the older first generation antipsychotic medications or newer second generation antipsychotic medications, are associated with significant though different side effects. Prevention of short term side effects as acute dystonias and other extrapyramidal symptoms result in better treatment adherence. Prevention of hyperglycaemia and dyslipidaemias, as-sociated with antipsychotic medications in the longer term, lead to lesser medical morbidity. Heterogeneity of adverse event reporting is a problem for reviewers. It has been recommended that adverse event re-Antipsychotic medications are commonly used for several psychiatric conditions. Both first generation antipsychotic (FGA) medica-tions and second generation antipsychotic (SGA) medications are associated with a vari-ety of side effects that often jeopardise treat-ment and the quality of life of the patients receiving the medications. The side effects often lead to poor treatment adherence and ultimately relapse of the psychiatric illness for which they were prescribed. In the real world, often the potential side effects dictate the choice of medications more than other factors like clinical efficacy. Various risk fac-tors for specific side effects are now known. This article focuses on the strategies that a clinician may use to predict and prevent at least some of the side effects like extra py-ramidal symptoms, cardiac side effects, meta-bolic syndrome, dyslipidaemia and sexual dysfunctions in high risk patients. Primary and secondary preventive measures are dis-cussed in light of current evidence and clini-cal experience of using antipsychotic medica-tion.
    Minerva Psichiatrica 09/2014; 55(3):143-151.


Available from
May 22, 2014