11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of SGA-LAIs on Clinical, Cognitive, and Social Domains in Schizophrenia: Results from a Prospective Naturalistic Study

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We hypothesized that shifting from oral second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) to their long-acting injectable (LAI) counterpart would be beneficial for the psychopathological, cognitive, social, and general health domains in outpatients suffering from schizophrenia. We aimed to evaluate the prospective usefulness of SGA-LAI treatment by carrying out a head-to-head comparison of two different medications (i.e., aripiprazole monohydrate (Ari-LAI) and paliperidone palmitate 1 and 3 month (PP1M, PP3M)) in a real-world setting, assessing the effectiveness and tolerability of Ari-LAI and PP1M/PP3M over a 15 month follow-up. A total of 69 consecutive individuals affected by schizophrenia were screened for eligibility. Finally, 46 outpatients (29 treated with Ari-LAI, 13 with PP1M, and four with PP3M) were evaluated through clinical, functional, and neuropsychological assessment administrated at baseline and after 3-, 12-, and 15-month follow-up periods. Moreover, periodic general medical evaluations were carried out. We estimated an overall improvement over time on the explored outcomes, without differences with respect to the type of LAI investigated, and with a global 16.4% dropout rate. Our findings suggest that switching from oral SGA to SGA-LAIs represents a valid and effective treatment strategy, with significant improvements on psychopathological, cognitive, social, and clinical variables for patients suffering from schizophrenia, regardless of the type of molecule chosen.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for Schizophrenia

          The variable results of positive-negative research with schizophrenics underscore the importance of well-characterized, standardized measurement techniques. We report on the development and initial standardization of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for typological and dimensional assessment. Based on two established psychiatric rating systems, the 30-item PANSS was conceived as an operationalized, drug-sensitive instrument that provides balanced representation of positive and negative symptoms and gauges their relationship to one another and to global psychopathology. It thus constitutes four scales measuring positive and negative syndromes, their differential, and general severity of illness. Study of 101 schizophrenics found the four scales to be normally distributed and supported their reliability and stability. Positive and negative scores were inversely correlated once their common association with general psychopathology was extracted, suggesting that they represent mutually exclusive constructs. Review of five studies involving the PANSS provided evidence of its criterion-related validity with antecedent, genealogical, and concurrent measures, its predictive validity, its drug sensitivity, and its utility for both typological and dimensional assessment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 1: test selection, reliability, and validity.

            The lack of an accepted standard for measuring cognitive change in schizophrenia has been a major obstacle to regulatory approval of cognition-enhancing treatments. A primary mandate of the National Institute of Mental Health's Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative was to develop a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials of cognition-enhancing treatments for schizophrenia through a broadly based scientific evaluation of measures. The MATRICS Neurocognition Committee evaluated more than 90 tests in seven cognitive domains to identify the 36 most promising measures. A separate expert panel evaluated the degree to which each test met specific selection criteria. Twenty tests were selected as a beta battery. The beta battery was administered to 176 individuals with schizophrenia and readministered to 167 of them 4 weeks later so that the 20 tests could be compared directly. The expert panel ratings are presented for the initially selected 36 tests. For the beta battery tests, data on test-retest reliability, practice effects, relationships to functional status, practicality, and tolerability are presented. Based on these data, 10 tests were selected to represent seven cognitive domains in the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery. The structured consensus method was a feasible and fair mechanism for choosing candidate tests, and direct comparison of beta battery tests in a common sample allowed selection of a final consensus battery. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery is expected to be the standard tool for assessing cognitive change in clinical trials of cognition-enhancing drugs for schizophrenia. It may also aid evaluation of cognitive remediation strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

              (2014)
              Published research in English-language journals are increasingly required to carry a statement that the study has been approved and monitored by an Institutional Review Board in conformance with 45 CFR 46 standards if the study was conducted in the United States. Alternative language attesting conformity with the Helsinki Declaration is often included when the research was conducted in Europe or elsewhere. The Helsinki Declaration was created by the World Medical Association in 1964 (ten years before the Belmont Report) and has been amended several times. The Helsinki Declaration differs from its American version in several respects, the most significant of which is that it was developed by and for physicians. The term "patient" appears in many places where we would expect to see "subject." It is stated in several places that physicians must either conduct or have supervisory control of the research. The dual role of the physician-researcher is acknowledged, but it is made clear that the role of healer takes precedence over that of scientist. In the United States, the federal government developed and enforces regulations on researcher; in the rest of the world, the profession, or a significant part of it, took the initiative in defining and promoting good research practice, and governments in many countries have worked to harmonize their standards along these lines. The Helsinki Declaration is based less on key philosophical principles and more on prescriptive statements. Although there is significant overlap between the Belmont and the Helsinki guidelines, the latter extends much further into research design and publication. Elements in a research protocol, use of placebos, and obligation to enroll trials in public registries (to ensure that negative findings are not buried), and requirements to share findings with the research and professional communities are included in the Helsinki Declaration. As a practical matter, these are often part of the work of American IRBs, but not always as a formal requirement. Reflecting the socialist nature of many European counties, there is a requirement that provision be made for patients to be made whole regardless of the outcomes of the trial or if they happened to have been randomized to a control group that did not enjoy the benefits of a successful experimental intervention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                BSRCCS
                Brain Sciences
                Brain Sciences
                MDPI AG
                2076-3425
                April 2023
                March 29 2023
                : 13
                : 4
                : 577
                Article
                10.3390/brainsci13040577
                37190542
                33d8bb89-81bf-42b3-ab35-551d800cf38f
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article