Issues that may determine the outcome of antipsychotic trials: industry sponsorship and extrapyramidal side effect. Shared decision making and long-term outcome in schizophrenia treatment. An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the discontinuation of long-term antipsychotics in dementia. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. The European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST): rationale and design of the trial. The dementia antipsychotic withdrawal trial (DART-AD): long-term follow-up of a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. No long-term effect of behavioral treatment on psychotropic drug use for agitation in Alzheimer's disease patients.
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. Compliance with antipsychotic medication is a major issue in schizophrenia treatment, and noncompliance with antipsychotic treatment is closely related to relapse and rehospitalization. An enhanced involvement of patients with schizophrenia in treatment decisions ("shared decision making") is expected to improve long-term compliance and reduce rehospitalizations. The aim of the present analysis was to study whether shared decision making (SDM) in antipsychotic drug choice would influence long-term outcome.
                From February 2003 to January 2004, psychiatric state hospital inpatients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (ICD-10; N = 107) were recruited for the trial using a cluster-randomized controlled design. An SDM program on antipsychotic drug choice consisting of a decision aid and a planning talk between patient and physician was compared with routine care with respect to long-term compliance and rehospitalizations (6-month and 18-month follow-up).
                On the whole, we found high rates of noncompliance and rehospitalization. There were no differences between intervention and control groups in the univariate analyses. However, when controlling for confounding factors in a multivariate analysis, there was a positive trend (p = .08) that patients in the SDM intervention had fewer rehospitalizations. Additionally, a higher desire of the patient for autonomy and better knowledge at discharge were associated with higher hospitalization rates.
                The intervention studied showed a positive trend but no clear beneficial effect on long-term outcomes. A more thorough implementation of SDM (e.g., iterative administration of decision aid) might yield larger effects. Those patients with higher participation preferences are at higher risk for poor treatment outcomes and therefore require special attention. Strategies to match these patients' needs might improve compliance and long-term outcomes. The effect of funding source on the outcome of randomized controlled trials has been investigated in several medical disciplines; however, psychiatry has been largely excluded from such analyses. In this article, randomized controlled trials of second generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia are reviewed and analyzed with respect to funding source (industry vs. non-industry funding).
                A literature search was conducted for randomized, double-blind trials in which at least one of the tested treatments was a second generation antipsychotic. In each study, design quality and study outcome were assessed quantitatively according to rating scales. Mean quality and outcome scores were compared in the industry-funded studies and non-industry-funded studies. An analysis of the primary author's affiliation with industry was similarly performed.
                Results of industry-funded studies significantly favored second generation over first generation antipsychotics when compared to non-industry-funded studies. Non-industry-funded studies showed a trend toward higher quality than industry-funded studies; however, the difference between the two was not significant. Also, within the industry-funded studies, outcomes of trials involving first authors employed by industry sponsors demonstrated a trend toward second generation over first generation antipsychotics to a greater degree than did trials involving first authors employed outside the industry (p=0.05).
                While the retrospective design of the study limits the strength of the findings, the data suggest that industry bias may occur in randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia. There appears to be several sources by which bias may enter clinical research, including trial design, control of data analysis and multiplicity/redundancy of trials. 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. 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. Most studies comparing second generation antipsychotics with classical neuroleptics have been conducted in more or less chronic schizophrenia patients. Such studies were usually conducted in highly selected samples, and were generally designed and financed by the manufacturer of the drug tested. These and other facts have stimulated discussions regarding the effectiveness of the new generation of antipsychotics.
                The aim of the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST) is to compare treatment with amisulpride, quetiapine, olanzapine and ziprasidone to a low dose of haloperidol in an unselected sample of first episode schizophrenia patients with minimal prior exposure to antipsychotics.
                500 patients between the ages of 18-40 meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder are randomly allocated to one year of treatment with one of the drugs under study. The primary outcome measure is retention in treatment, defined as time to discontinuation of study drug. Loss of retention can be the result of insufficient clinical effect, or lack of tolerability or acceptance. Secondary measures include changes in different dimensions of psychopathology, side effects, compliance, social needs, quality of life, substance abuse and cognitive functions.
                At present, more than 400 patients have been recruited and randomized in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland: The study should be finished by the end of 2006 and it is expected that results will yield relevant clinical information with regard to the effectiveness of the second generation antipsychotics. This effort represents the first independently designed trans-European schizophrenia treatment trial. Data from 12-week placebo-controlled trials have led to mounting concerns about increased mortality in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) who are prescribed antipsychotics; however, there are no mortality data from long-term placebo-controlled trials. We aimed to assess whether continued treatment with antipsychotics in people with AD is associated with an increased risk of mortality.
                Between October, 2001, and December, 2004, patients with AD who resided in care facilities in the UK were enrolled into a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel, two-group treatment discontinuation trial. Participants were randomly assigned to continue with their antipsychotic treatment (thioridazine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, trifluoperazine, or risperidone) for 12 months or to switch their medication to an oral placebo. The primary outcome was mortality at 12 months. An additional follow-up telephone assessment was done to establish whether each participant was still alive 24 months after the enrollment of the last participant (range 24-54 months). Causes of death were obtained from death certificates. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT) and modified intention to treat (mITT). This trial is registered with the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials/National Research Register, number ISRCTN33368770.
                165 patients were randomised (83 to continue antipsychotic treatment and 82 to placebo), of whom 128 (78%) started treatment (64 continued with their treatment and 64 received placebo). There was a reduction in survival in the patients who continued to receive antipsychotics compared with those who received placebo. Cumulative probability of survival during the 12 months was 70% (95% CI 58-80%) in the continue treatment group versus 77% (64-85%) in the placebo group for the mITT population. Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality for the whole study period showed a significantly increased risk of mortality for patients who were allocated to continue antipsychotic treatment compared with those allocated to placebo (mITT log rank p=0.03; ITT p=0.02). The hazard ratio for the mITT group was 0.58 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.95) and 0.58 (0.36 to 0.92) for the ITT population. The more pronounced differences between groups during periods of follow up longer than 12 months were evident at specific timepoints (24-month survival 46%vs 71%; 36-month survival 30%vs 59%).
                There is an increased long-term risk of mortality in patients with AD who are prescribed antipsychotic medication; these results further highlight the need to seek less harmful alternatives for the long-term treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in these patients.
                UK Alzheimer's Research Trust. 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). Th determine if teaching caregivers behavior management techniques (BMTs) reduces long-term psychotropic use in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, we examined 12-month follow-up data from a 4-month randomized study comparing placebo, BMTs, trazodone, and haloperidol for the treatment of agitated behaviors in persons with AD. After 4 months, treatment was allowed with any agent. Between 42.8% and 51% of AD patients received additional psychotropics between 4 and 12 months. The relative risk of being prescribed any psychotropic drug after the 4-month trial was at or about 1.0 for subjects in each drug arm or placebo arm versus BMTs. We concluded that teaching caregivers BMTs did not diminish long-term prescription of psychotropic drugs.
The results of this review are inconclusive. Whether the use of new generation antipsychotics really makes the treatment less off putting and enhances long-term compliance is unclear. Pragmatic, well-designed and reported long-term trials would be useful to answer this question.