P-287 - 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: 6.03). 10/2013; 10(10):CD009582. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009582.pub2
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Soumitra Shankar Datta, Dec 30, 2013
50 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Atypical antipsychotic medications have been the first line of treatment for adolescents with psychosis in the past couple of decades. Till the late 90s, there were very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of adolescents with psychosis, although a fifth of schizophrenia starts during adolescence. Most of the treatment guidelines for adolescents with psychosis were derived from data on adults. In the past 10 years, there has been increasing number of studies on adolescents with psychosis. The current paper summarizes the findings of trials on adolescents with psychosis in 4 groups: (a) atypical antipsychotic medications vs placebo, (b) atypical antipsychotic medication vs typical antipsychotic medications, (c) one atypical antipsychotic medication vs another atypical antipsychotic medication, and (d) Low dose vs standard dose of atypical antipsychotic medication. We included 13 RCTs, with a total of 1112 participants. Although our review suggest that atypical antipsychotic medications are as effective as typical antipsychotic medications as regards clinical efficacy, atypical antipsychotic medications have a preferred side effect profile and lesser drop-out rate from trials. Obviously, this is extremely important as treatment adherence is key to successful remission of psychotic symptoms and also in some case prevent relapse of illness. Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, and clozapine is often associated with weight gain. Aripiprazole is not associated with increased prolactin or with dyslipidemia. 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 trial should be longer term and have uniform ways of reporting side effects.
    Schizophrenia Bulletin 12/2013; 40(2). DOI:10.1093/schbul/sbt196 · 8.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the 1970s, clinicians have increasingly become more familiar with hyperprolactinemia (HPRL) as a common adverse effect of antipsychotic medication, which remains the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment for patients with schizophrenia. Although treatment with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a group is, compared with use of the first-generation antipsychotics, associated with lower prolactin (PRL) plasma levels, the detailed effects on plasma PRL levels for each of these compounds in reports often remain incomplete or inaccurate. Moreover, at this moment, no review has been published about the effect of the newly approved antipsychotics asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone on PRL levels. The objective of this review is to describe PRL physiology; PRL measurement; diagnosis, causes, consequences and mechanisms of HPRL; incidence figures of (new-onset) HPRL with SGAs and newly approved antipsychotics in adolescent and adult patients; and revisit lingering questions regarding this hormone. A literature search, using the MEDLINE database (1966-December 2013), was conducted to identify relevant publications to report on the state of the art of HPRL and to summarize the available evidence with respect to the propensity of the SGAs and the newly approved antipsychotics to elevate PRL levels. Our review shows that although HPRL usually is defined as a sustained level of PRL above the laboratory upper limit of normal, limit values show some degree of variability in clinical reports, making the interpretation and comparison of data across studies difficult. Moreover, many reports do not provide much or any data detailing the measurement of PRL. Although the highest rates of HPRL are consistently reported in association with amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone, while aripiprazole and quetiapine have the most favorable profile with respect to this outcome, all SGAs can induce PRL elevations, especially at the beginning of treatment, and have the potential to cause new-onset HPRL. Considering the PRL-elevating propensity of the newly approved antipsychotics, evidence seems to indicate these agents have a PRL profile comparable to that of clozapine (asenapine and iloperidone), ziprasidone and olanzapine (lurasidone). PRL elevations with antipsychotic medication generally are dose dependant. However, antipsychotics having a high potential for PRL elevation (amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone) can have a profound impact on PRL levels even at relatively low doses, while PRL levels with antipsychotics having a minimal effect on PRL, in most cases, can remain unchanged (quetiapine) or reduce (aripiprazole) over all dosages. Although tolerance and decreases in PRL values after long-term administration of PRL-elevating antipsychotics can occur, the elevations, in most cases, remain above the upper limit of normal. PRL profiles of antipsychotics in children and adolescents seem to be the same as in adults. The hyperprolactinemic effects of antipsychotic medication are mostly correlated with their affinity for dopamine D2 receptors at the level of the anterior pituitary lactotrophs (and probably other neurotransmitter mechanisms) and their blood-brain barrier penetrating capability. Even though antipsychotics are the most common cause of pharmacologically induced HPRL, recent research has shown that HPRL can be pre-existing in a substantial portion of antipsychotic-naïve patients with first-episode psychosis or at-risk mental state.
    CNS Drugs 03/2014; 28(5). DOI:10.1007/s40263-014-0157-3 · 5.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current treatments for schizophrenia function by blocking neurotransmission at dopamine D2 receptors. These compounds have proven highly effective for treatment of schizophrenia and especially for management of positive symptoms. A range of compounds and formulations are presently available, which permits tailoring of side effects to optimize treatment for individual subjects. Nevertheless, many patients suffer from persistent negative symptoms and neurocognitive deficits that contribute to persistent psychosocial impairments and long-term disability. At present, there are no approved pharmacological treatments for either negative symptoms or neurocognitive dysfunction. Instead, various behavioral approaches such as diet, exercise and cognitive remediation may be needed to help optimize cognitive function and mitigate symptoms. Furthermore, neuromodulation approaches, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are beginning to be employed both to minimize symptoms and to augment cognitive retraining approaches. At present, encouraging effects of tDCS on persistent auditory hallucinations have been reported, and if confirmed, may open the way for more widespread use of non-pharmacological treatments. At present, phase III studies remain ongoing for α7 nicotinic agonists in treatment of cognitive impairments and glycine reuptake inhibitors for suboptimal treatment response. Furthermore, preclinical studies suggest that glutamate-based treatment approaches may be effective if applied early in the illness. Future studies are needed to determine whether this will lead to effective approaches to halt illness progression for individuals at high clinical risk for schizophrenia.
    06/2014; 1(2). DOI:10.1007/s40501-014-0010-9
Show more