54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Time to discontinuation of atypical versus typical antipsychotics in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia

      research-article

      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

          Background

          There is an ongoing debate over whether atypical antipsychotics are more effective than typical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. This naturalistic study compares atypical and typical antipsychotics on time to all-cause medication discontinuation, a recognized index of medication effectiveness in the treatment of schizophrenia.

          Methods

          We used data from a large, 3-year, observational, non-randomized, multisite study of schizophrenia, conducted in the U.S. between 7/1997 and 9/2003. Patients who were initiated on oral atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) or oral typical antipsychotics (low, medium, or high potency) were compared on time to all-cause medication discontinuation for 1 year following initiation. Treatment group comparisons were based on treatment episodes using 3 statistical approaches (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox Proportional Hazards regression model, and propensity score-adjusted bootstrap resampling methods). To further assess the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were performed, including the use of (a) only 1 medication episode for each patient, the one with which the patient was treated first, and (b) all medication episodes, including those simultaneously initiated on more than 1 antipsychotic.

          Results

          Mean time to all-cause medication discontinuation was longer on atypical (N = 1132, 256.3 days) compared to typical antipsychotics (N = 534, 197.2 days; p < .01), and longer on atypicals compared to typicals of high potency (N = 320, 187.5 days; p < .01), medium potency (N = 140, 213.5 days; p < .01), and low potency (N = 74, 208.7 days; p < .01). Among the atypicals, only clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone had significantly longer time to all-cause medication discontinuation compared to typicals, regardless of potency level, and compared to haloperidol with prophylactic anticholinergic treatment. When compared to perphenazine, a medium-potency typical antipsychotic, only clozapine and olanzapine had a consistently and significantly longer time to all-cause medication discontinuation. Results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses.

          Conclusion

          In the usual care of schizophrenia patients, time to medication discontinuation for any cause appears significantly longer for atypical than typical antipsychotics regardless of the typical antipsychotic potency level. Findings were primarily driven by clozapine and olanzapine, and to a lesser extent by risperidone. Furthermore, only clozapine and olanzapine therapy showed consistently and significantly longer treatment duration compared to perphenazine, a medium-potency typical antipsychotic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

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

          A meta-analysis of the efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics.

          Consensus panel recommendations regarding choice of an antipsychotic agent for schizophrenia differ markedly, but most consider second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a homogeneous group. It has been suggested that SGAs seem falsely more efficacious than first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) as a result of reduced efficacy due to use of a high-dose comparator, haloperidol. We performed (1) a meta-analysis of randomized efficacy trials comparing SGAs and FGAs, (2) comparisons between SGAs, (3) a dose-response analysis of FGAs and SGAs, and (4) an analysis of the effect on efficacy of an overly high dose of an FGA comparator. Literature search of clinical trials between January 1953 and May 2002 of patients with schizophrenia from electronic databases, reference lists, posters, the Food and Drug Administration, and other unpublished data. We included 124 randomized controlled trials with efficacy data on 10 SGAs vs FGAs and 18 studies of comparisons between SGAs. Two of us independently extracted the sample sizes, means, and standard deviation of the efficacy data. Using the Hedges-Olkin algorithm, the effect sizes of clozapine, amisulpride, risperidone, and olanzapine were 0.49, 0.29, 0.25, and 0.21 greater than those of FGAs, with P values of 2 x 10-8, 3 x 10-7, 2 x 10-12, and 3 x 10-9, respectively. The remaining 6 SGAs were not significantly different from FGAs, although zotepine was marginally different. No efficacy difference was detected among amisulpride, risperidone, and olanzapine. We found no evidence that the haloperidol dose (or all FGA comparators converted to haloperidol-equivalent doses) affected these results when we examined its effect by drug or in a 2-way analysis of variance model in which SGA effectiveness is entered as a second factor. Some SGAs are more efficacious than FGAs, and, therefore, SGAs are not a homogeneous group.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Relapse prevention in schizophrenia with new-generation antipsychotics: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

            The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the potential of new-generation antipsychotic drugs to improve adherence and decrease relapse rates in patients with schizophrenia. Randomized, controlled trials comparing new-generation antipsychotic drugs with placebo and/or conventional antipsychotics were identified. Data on relapse, general treatment failure, and dropout due to adverse events were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis. Because few trials were available for each individual drug, the effects of new-generation antipsychotic drugs as a group were analyzed. The analysis of six placebo comparisons, involving a total of 983 patients, clearly demonstrated that new-generation antipsychotic drugs are effective for relapse prevention. Eleven studies with a total of 2,032 patients provided comparative data on relapse/treatment failure for new-generation and conventional antipsychotics. The analysis revealed that rates of relapse and overall treatment failure were modestly but significantly lower with the newer drugs. Whether this advantage was partly mediated by improved adherence to treatment remains unclear. No significant superiority in terms of fewer dropouts due to adverse events was found for the newer drugs. Furthermore, a number of methodological problems were identified. Overall, the currently available data suggest that new-generation antipsychotics have the potential to reduce relapse rates. Methodological issues to be addressed in future trials include the choice of comparator, use of appropriate doses, application of clinically relevant relapse criteria, monitoring of adherence, and minimization of dropouts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              New generation antipsychotics versus low-potency conventional antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              The clearest advantage of new generation, atypical antipsychotics is a reduced risk of extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), compared with conventional compounds. These findings might have been biased by the use of the high-potency antipsychotic haloperidol as a comparator in most of the trials. We aimed to establish whether the new drugs induce fewer EPS than low-potency conventional antipsychotics. We did a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials in which new generation antipsychotics had been compared with low-potency (equivalent or less potent than chlorpromazine) conventional drugs. We included studies that met quality criteria A or B in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, and assessed quality with the Jadad scale. The primary outcome of interest was the number of patients who had at least one EPS. We used risk differences and 95% CIs as measures of effect size. We identified 31 studies with a total of 2320 participants. Of the new generation drugs, only clozapine was associated with significantly fewer EPS (RD=-0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.4, p=0.008) and higher efficacy than low-potency conventional drugs. Reduced frequency of EPS seen with olanzapine was of borderline significance (-0.15, -0.31 to -0.01, p=0.07). Only one inconclusive trial of amisulpride, quetiapine, and risperidone and no investigations of ziprasidone and sertindole were identified, but some evidence indicates that zotepine and remoxipride do not lead to fewer EPS than low-potency antipsychotics. Mean doses less than 600 mg/day of chlorpromazine or its equivalent had no higher risk of EPS than new generation drugs. As a group, new generation drugs were moderately more efficacious than low-potency antipsychotics, largely irrespective of the comparator doses used. Optimum doses of low-potency conventional antipsychotics might not induce more EPS than new generation drugs. Potential advantages in efficacy of the new generation drugs should be a factor in clinical treatment decisions to use these rather than conventional drugs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                2006
                21 February 2006
                : 6
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
                Article
                1471-244X-6-8
                10.1186/1471-244X-6-8
                1402287
                16504026
                f7a5254d-c0e8-434b-8821-4bfde47b3d6c
                Copyright © 2006 Ascher-Svanum et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 July 2005
                : 21 February 2006
                Categories
                Research Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

                Comments

                Comment on this article