Search

Background and Hypothesis Meta-analyses have shown that the majority of patients with schizophrenia who have not improved after 2 weeks of treatment with an antipsychotic drug are unlikely to fully respond later. We hypothesized that switching to another antipsychotic with a different receptor binding profile is an effective strategy in such a situation. Study Design In total, 327 inpatients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomized to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine (5–20 mg/day) or amisulpride (200–800 mg/day). Those patients who had not reached at least 25% Positive-and-Negative-Syndrome-Scale (PANSS) total score reduction from baseline after 2 weeks (the “non-improvers”) were rerandomized double-blind to either staying on the same compound (“stayers”) or to switching to the other antipsychotic (“switchers”) for another 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of patients in symptomatic remission between the combined “switchers” and the “stayers” after 8 weeks of treatment, analyzed by logistic regression. Study Results A total of 142 nonimprovers were rerandomized at week two. 25 (45.5 %) of the ‘stayers' compared to 41 (68.3 %) of the “switchers” reached remission at endpoint (p = .006). Differences in secondary efficacy outcomes were not significant, except for the PANSS negative subscore and the Clinical-Global-Impression-Scale. “Switchers” and “stayers” did not differ in safety outcomes. Conclusions Switching “non-improvers” from amisulpride to olanzapine or vice-versa increased remission rates and was safe. The superiority in the primary outcome was, however, not paralleled by significant differences in most secondary efficacy outcomes and the effect was only apparent at the last visit making replications of longer duration necessary.

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay of treatment of schizophrenia, and are known to reduce acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotics are effective for relapse prevention, compared to withdrawing these agents for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses, based on evidence from randomized trials. The current report of the update of the review is focused on some newly investigated outcomes: rates of remission and recovery, change in social functioning and in quality of life. The updated review included 75 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1959 to 2017, involving 9145 participants. Although some potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear and robust to a series of sensitivity analyses. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at 1 year (drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.45) and in reducing hospitalization (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.57). Quality of life appeared to be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573, SMD = −0.32, 95% CI = −0.57 to −0.07); the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD = −0.43, 95% CI = −0.53 to −0.34). Although based on data from fewer studies, maintenance treatment apparently increased the possibility to achieve remission of symptoms (drug 53%, placebo 31%; 7 RCTs, 867 participants; RR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.48) and to sustain it over 6 months (drug 36%, placebo 26%; 8 RCTs, 1807 participants; RR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.19). There were no data on recovery. Antipsychotic drugs as a group were associated with more participants experiencing side effects such as movement disorders (e.g., at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.85) and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH = 25, 95% CI = 20 to 50). For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs does not only prevent relapses and rehospitalizations, but that patients also benefit in terms of quality of life, functioning and sustained remission. These positive effects must be weighed against the backdrop of the adverse effects of antipsychotics.

The CATIE schizophrenia trial was a very influential randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Patients were followed for up to 18 months under treatment with a randomly assigned antipsychotic. The primary endpoint, time to discontinuation of treatment for any reason, is influenced by individual patient characteristics, external factors as well as effects of drug treatment. New insight is obtained by applying an innovative survival analysis based on constrained confidence partitioning (SA-C

Purpose People with a severe mental illness (SMI) are at particular risk of occupational exclusion. Among the approaches to occupational rehabilitation, supported employment (SE) has been proven to be the most effective. A requirement to enter SE-programs is that individuals must want to seek competitive employment. The aim of this work is to investigate the relationship between serious mental illness and the desire to work including potential predictors. Methods This is a cross-sectional observational study of patients with SMI aged 18–65 years (n = 397). Patients were interviewed by trained staff using standardised instruments. The relationship between potential predictors and a strong preference for employment were analysed using a hierarchic binary logistic regression model. Results Only about one-quarter (27.9%) of SMI patients is in competitive employment. Another quarter is unemployed (25.9%). Results show that the desire for competitive employment is strong among more than half of the SMI patients. Among the unemployed, two-thirds express a strong desire for work. These individuals are an ideal target group for SE interventions. Comorbid chronic physical illness, diagnosis, and the subjectively judged ability to work are associated with the desire for work. Conclusion Our data confirm a substantial exclusion of individuals with SMI from the workforce. In general, care needs for workplace interventions are not being met and leave much room for improvement. In addition to employment status, the desire for work should be routinely assessed. Study registration The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015801) and under the WHO-Platform “International Clinical Trials Registry Platform” (ICTRP) (https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00015801) under the registration number DRKS00015801 before the start of recruitment (Registration date: 21.02.2019).

Background Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health may contribute to greater patient satisfaction and is sometimes associated with better health outcomes. Here, SDM should not only involve service users and clinicians but also involve the service users' caregivers. Aim This study aimed to achieve better insight into the current SDM patterns of triads of service users, caregivers and clinicians in inpatient mental health care and the three parties' expectations towards the prospects of triadic SDM. Design The current research uses data from a representative cross‐sectional study on caregivers in psychiatric inpatient treatment. We analysed data on n = 94 triads of service users, their caregivers and their clinicians. Results All three parties acknowledge caregivers to be of great support to monitor the progress with mental disease. The caregiver's role during consultations is most often described as being an expert, receiving or providing information and supporting service users. However, caregivers at times try to seek support for themselves during caregiver‐clinician interaction, or their behaviour was described as unhelpful. The potential prospects of caregiver involvement are clearly acknowledged despite the low implementation of caregiver involvement in this sample (only in one‐third of the cases). Conclusion Triadic SDM rarely takes place in routine inpatient care. First, there should be a focus on interventions aiming at inviting caregivers to consultations. Only in the second step should a better conceptualisation of triadic SDM be undertaken. Public Contribution Early results were discussed with a local peer support group for caregivers of individuals living with mental illness.

Background Choosing an antipsychotic medication is an important medical decision in the treatment of schizophrenia. This decision requires risk-benefit assessments of antipsychotics, and thus, shared-decision making between physician and patients is strongly encouraged. Although the efficacy and side-effect profiles of antipsychotics are well-established, there is no clear framework for the communication of the evidence between physicians and patients. For this reason, we developed an evidence-based shared-decision making assistant (SDM-assistant) that presents high-quality evidence from network meta-analysis on the efficacy and side-effect profile of antipsychotics and can be used as a basis for shared-decision making between physicians and patients when selecting antipsychotic medications. Methods The planned matched-pair cluster-randomised trial will be conducted in acute psychiatric wards (n = 14 wards planned) and will include adult inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders (N = 252 participants planned). On the intervention wards, patients and their treating physicians will use the SDM-assistant, whenever a decision on choosing an antipsychotic is warranted. On the control wards, antipsychotics will be chosen according to treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome will be patients’ perceived involvement in the decision-making during the inpatient stay as measured with the SDM-Q-9. We will also assess therapeutic alliance, symptom severity, side-effects, treatment satisfaction, adherence, quality of life, functioning and rehospitalizations as secondary outcomes. Outcomes could be analysed at discharge and at follow-up after three months from discharge. The analysis will be conducted per-protocol using mixed-effects linear regression models for continuous outcomes and logistic regression models using generalised estimating equations for dichotomous outcomes. Barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the intervention will also be examined using a qualitative content analysis. Discussion This is the first trial to examine a decision assistant specifically designed to facilitate shared-decision making for choosing antipsychotic medications, i.e., SDM-assistant, in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia. If the intervention can be successfully implemented, SDM-assistant could advance evidence-based medicine in schizophrenia by putting medical evidence on antipsychotics into the context of patient preferences and values. This could subsequently lead to a higher involvement of the patients in decision-making and better therapy decisions. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00027316, registration date 26.01.2022).

Some, but not all, studies have found longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) to be associated with poor response to treatment and more severe negative symptoms in schizophrenia. The aim of the current analysis was to investigate these parameters in a large cohort of patients in their first psychotic episode. The OPTiMiSE cohort included 446 patients with DUP up to two years, who were administered amisulpride for 4 weeks (Phase I). Patients who did not meet Andreasen remission criteria were randomized to double-blind continuation of amisulpride or olanzapine for 6 additional weeks in a blinded study (Phase II). Analyses showed that shorter DUP was associated with lower baseline CGI scores (p0.001, r = 0.184), PANSS total (p = 0.025, r = 0.106) and PANSS negative subscale scores (p = 0.023, r = 0.107). Remitters had a significantly shorter mean DUP compared to non-remitters both in Phase I (24.5 weeks ±24.3 vs. 35 weeks ± 32.2, p = 0.01, t=-2.521) and in Phase II (24.3 weeks ± 26.4 vs. 38.3 weeks ± 31.3, p = 0.031, t=-2.194). Logistic regression analyses showed a significant effect of DUP on treatment response both in phase I (p = 0.008) and phase II (p = 0.041). Linear regression analyses found that DUP significantly affects PANSS Total change at the end of phase I (p = 0.028) but not at the end of phase II (p = 0.236). Based on these findings, it is possible to conclude that shorter DUP is associated with better response to treatment, particularly during the first weeks after treatment initiation. These findings highlight the need for early identification of the first psychotic episode.

Background The German guideline on psychosocial interventions for people with severe mental disorders recommends a broad spectrum of evidence-based treatments. Structured implementation of the associated patient version of the guideline is missing to date. The study aims to assess whether structured implementation of a patient guideline improves the empowerment of patients with severe mental disorders, as well as knowledge, attitudes and experiences regarding psychosocial interventions, service use, treatment satisfaction, treatment needs, quality of life and burden of care. Methods The study is a multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled study with two parallel groups. Inpatients and day hospital patients (all sexes; 18–65 years) with severe mental disorders will be included. Additionally, relatives of patients with mental disorders (all sexes; ≥ 18 years) will be included. In the experimental group, the patient guideline will be implemented using a multimodal strategy. Participants in the control group will receive treatment as usual but will be made aware of the patient guideline. The primary outcome is the change of empowerment, assessed by using the ‘empowerment in the process of psychiatric treatment of patients with affective and schizophrenia disorders’ (EPAS) scale. In addition, knowledge, attitudes and experiences regarding psychosocial interventions will be assessed as secondary outcomes, as well as service use, satisfaction with care, patient need and quality of life and participation and social inclusion. For relatives, the perceived burden of care also will be recorded. Results will be analysed using hierarchical linear models. For the health economic evaluation, the incremental cost-utility ratios will be computed using the differences in total costs of illness and the differences in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) between study groups. Discussion The study will be the first to assess the effects of a structured implementation of the patient version of a psychiatric treatment guideline. The study has some limitations regarding the transferability of the results to other patients and other regions. Furthermore, problems with the recruitment of patients and relatives and with the implementation of intervention could occur during the study. Trial registration The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) under registration number DRKS00017577 (Date of registration: 23 October 2019.

Migration rates increase globally and require an adaption of national mental health services to the needs of persons with migration background. Therefore, we aimed to identify differences between persons with and without migratory background regarding (1) treatment satisfaction, (2) needed and received mental healthcare and (3) utilization of mental healthcare.In the context of a cross-sectional multicenter study, inpatients and day hospital patients of psychiatric settings in Southern Germany with severe affective and non-affective psychoses were included. Patients’ satisfaction with and their use of mental healthcare services were assessed by VSSS-54 and CSSRI-EU; patients’ needs were measured via CAN-EU.In total, 387 participants (migratory background: n = 72; 19%) provided sufficient responses for analyses. Migrant patients were more satisfied with the overall treatment in the past year compared to non-migrant patients. No differences between both groups were identified in met and unmet treatment needs and use of supply services (psychiatric, psychotherapeutic, and psychosocial treatment).Despite a comparable degree of met and unmet treatment needs and mental health service use among migrants and non-migrants, patients with migration background showed higher overall treatment satisfaction compared to non-migrants. The role of sociocultural and migrant-related factors may explain our findings.

Peer support is playing an increasing role in the treatment of severely mentally ill people. International findings are available on its effectiveness. However, little is known about knowledge, use and benefit assessment in Germany. This paper addresses this question and presents results from an observational study with 10 participating clinics in southern Germany.As part of the observational cross-sectional study with people with severe mental illness (IMPPETUS, N=359), sociodemographic and illness- and treatment-associated data were collected by trained study staff between March 2019 and September 2019. Binary logistic regression was used to analyse a possible association with peer support use.38% (N=138) of respondents reported knowledge about the possibility of peer support; 15% (N=55) affirmed its use. Use of peer support varied across sites (between 6.5 and 37.5%) and was associated with household income. Significantly less frequent use of peer support was among those with high versus low household income (OR=0.20 [95% CI: 0.06-0.68], p=0.01). Of respondents with peer support use (N=55), 78% reported perceiving peer support to be helpful or highly helpful.Peer support not only proves to be effective under study conditions with regard to various outcomes, but is also assessed as beneficial under routine conditions in a defined care region by the majority of users. However, only a few respondents knew and used the possibility of peer support.In order to implement peer support more strongly, information about this kind of service should be provided more effectively and a dialogue about successful implementation experiences should be initiated on a regional level.Genesungsbegleitung spielt in der Behandlung schwer psychisch erkrankter Menschen eine zunehmende Rolle. Zur Wirksamkeit liegen internationale Befunde vor. Über Wissen, Nutzung und Nutzenbewertung ist in Deutschland bisher wenig bekannt. Die vorliegende Arbeit geht dieser Frage nach und stellt Ergebnisse aus einer Beobachtungsstudie mit 10 teilnehmenden Zentren in Süddeutschland vor.Im Rahmen der beobachtenden Querschnittsstudie mit schwer psychisch erkrankten Menschen (IMPPETUS, N=359) wurden zwischen März und September 2019 soziodemografische sowie krankheits- und behandlungsassoziierte Daten erhoben. Mittels binär logistischer Regression wurde ein möglicher Zusammenhang mit der Nutzung von Genesungsbegleitung analysiert.38% (N=138) der Befragten gaben an, von der Möglichkeit der Genesungsbegleitung zu wissen; 15% (N=55) bejahten deren Nutzung. Eine Nutzung schwankte zwischen 6,5 und 37,5% über die Standorte und war mit dem Haushaltseinkommen verbunden. Deutlich seltener wurde Genesungsbegleitung von Personen mit einem hohen gegenüber Personen mit einem geringen Haushaltseinkommen genutzt (OR=0,20 [95% CI: 0,06–0,68], p=0,01). Von den Nutzenden (N=55) gaben 78% an, diese als hilfreich bzw. äußerst hilfreich wahrgenommen zu haben.Genesungsbegleitung erweist sich nicht nur unter Studienbedingungen hinsichtlich verschiedener Outcomes als wirksam, sondern wird auch unter Routinebedingungen in einer umschriebenen Versorgungsregion von der Mehrheit der Nutzenden als wirksam eingeschätzt. Allerdings müssen Wissen und Nutzung hinsichtlich einer Genesungsbegleitung unter (teil)stationär behandelten Personen als gering verteilt bewertet werden.Um Genesungsbegleitung stärker in die Praxis zu implementieren, muss wirksamer als bisher über dieses Unterstützungsangebot informiert und ein (über-)regionaler Austausch über erfolgreiche Implementierungserfahrungen angestrengt werden.

Combining antipsychotics is common in schizophrenia treatment, despite evidence-based guidelines generally not recommending such practice. Otherwise, evidence remains inconclusive, especially regarding specific combinations. The trial aimed to test whether a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine is more effective than either intervention as a monotherapy.A multicentre, 16-week, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at 16 psychiatric in-patient centres throughout Germany. Inclusion criteria were adults aged 18-65 years with non-first episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of at least 70 and at least two items of the positive symptoms subscale rated at least 4. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either amisulpride plus olanzapine, amisulpride plus placebo, or olanzapine plus placebo (1:1:1), and block randomisation was stratified by study site. To keep patients and investigators masked throughout the duration of the trial, amisulpride, olanzapine, and placebo were administered as identical capsules. Flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (amisulpride plus placebo, 200-800 mg per day) or olanzapine (olanzapine plus placebo, 5-20 mg per day) was compared with a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine. The primary outcome was symptom reduction measured by the PANSS total score after 8 weeks, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients randomly assigned to an intervention and receiving at least one study drug dose). As determined a priori, group differences were examined by t tests (Bonferroni-Holm-adjustment) followed by pre-planned Bayesian analyses as well as imputation methods based on mixed models to account for missing values and post-hoc ANCOVA adjusting for PANSS baseline scores. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01609153; the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00003603; and the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT-No. 2011-002463-20.Between June 15, 2012, and Dec 15, 2018, 13 692 patients were assessed for eligibility. 13 364 patients were excluded (including for not meeting inclusion criteria, declining to participate, or inappropriate reasons for changing pharmacological treatment), and 328 were then randomly assigned to an intervention group. 112 patients were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus placebo, and 107 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine plus placebo. 321 patients were analysed for the primary outcome in the modified intention-to-treat population after exclusion of screening failures and patients who did not receive the intervention (110 for amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 for amisulpride plus placebo, and 102 for olanzapine plus placebo). Among the 321 patients who were randomly assigned to intervention groups and analysed for the primary outcome, 229 (71%) were male, 92 (29%) were female; the mean age was 40·2 years (SD 11·7); and 296 (92%) were White and 25 (8%) were classified as other ethnicity. PANSS total score improved significantly more at 8 weeks in the amisulpride plus olanzapine group (-29·6 [SD 14·5]) than in the olanzapine plus placebo group (-24·1 [13·4], p=0·049, Cohen's d=0·396). A significant difference was not observed in reduction of PANSS total score between the amisulpride and olanzapine group compared with the amisulpride and placebo group (-25·2 [SD 15·9], p=0·095, Cohen's d=0·29). After 8 weeks and 16 weeks, sexual dysfunction, weight, and waist circumference increase were significantly higher for patients receiving amisulpride plus olanzapine than for those receiving amisulpride plus placebo, with no differences in serious adverse events. Two patients died during study participation; one randomly assigned to the amisulpride plus olanzapine group, and one assigned to the olanzapine plus placebo group (both assessed with no relation to treatment).The advantages of amisulpride plus olanzapine have to be weighed against a higher propensity for side-effects. The use of this specific combination therapy could be an alternative to monotherapy in certain clinical situations, but side-effects should be considered.German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

As the course of schizophrenic disorders is often chronic, treatment guidelines recommend continuous maintenance treatment to prevent relapses, but antipsychotic drugs can cause many side effects. It, therefore, seems reasonable to try to reduce doses in stable phases of the illness or even try to stop medication. We conducted a 26 weeks, randomized, rater blind, feasibility study to examine individualized antipsychotic dose reduction versus continuous maintenance treatment (Register Number: NCT02307396). We included chronic, adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who were treated with any antipsychotic drug except clozapine, who had not been hospitalized in the last 3 years and who were in symptomatic remission at baseline. The primary outcome was relapse of positive symptoms. Symptom severity, social functioning and side effects were also examined as secondary outcomes. 20 patients were randomized. Relapse rates in the two groups were not significantly different. No patient had to be hospitalized. One patient in the control group dropped out. The mean reduction of antipsychotic dose in the individualized dose-reduction group was 42%, however only one patient discontinued drug completely. There were no significant differences in efficacy or safety outcomes. This randomized trial provides evidence, that reduction of antipsychotic medication in chronic stable schizophrenic patients may be feasible. The results need to be confirmed in a larger trial with a longer follow-up period. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00406-020-01109-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Just as the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) and other national psychiatric societies, the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) has published a position statement about religiosity and spirituality in psychiatry and psychotherapy, in which it demands patient orientation and spiritual competency in psychiatric professions. Previous research has shown that lack of competency is the major barrier against implementing spiritual care into clinical practice.The aim of this study was to examine spiritual care in psychiatry and psychotherapy. An evaluation of how health professionals in psychiatry gauge the spiritual care competency of their professional group and which variables influence this judgement.A total of 391 psychiatric nursing personnel, 75 psychiatrists, 119 therapists from diverse professions and 62 others, i.e. 647 working in German and Austrian hospitals completed the German version of the spiritual care competency questionnaire (SCCQ).Nursing personnel, older and spiritually more experienced persons gauged the spiritual competency of their own professional group comparatively higher and judged less frequently that they have no responsibility in this field. Nursing personnel reported the lack of suitable rooms as a barrier against implementation of spiritual care more often than other professional groups. Judging the spiritual competency of one's own professional group higher is associated with higher values in the SCCQ factors self-experience and proactive opening up, team spirit, perception and documentation competency.The responsibility of healthcare professions for spiritual care in psychiatry and psychotherapy is still a controversial issue among German-speaking psychiatric professional groups. This is partially due to a lack of competency in this domain.HINTERGRUND: Ebenso wie die World Psychiatric Association (WPA) und andere nationale psychiatrische Fachgesellschaften hat auch die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN) ein Positionspapier zu Religiosität und Spiritualität (R/Sp) in Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie veröffentlicht, in dem sie Patientenzentrierung und spirituelle Kompetenz (SpK) der psychiatrischen Berufe fordert. Es ist bekannt, dass Kompetenzmangel das wichtigste Hindernis für die Implementierung von Spiritual Care (SpC) in die klinische Praxis darstellt.Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist die praxisnahe Untersuchung der SpK in Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. Wie schätzen psychiatrisch Tätige die SpK ihrer eigenen Berufsgruppe ein und welche Variablen beeinflussen dieses Urteil?Insgesamt 391 psychiatrische Pflegekräfte, 75 Psychiater, 119 Therapeuten verschiedener Professionen und 62 andere (n = 647) aus Krankenhäusern in Deutschland und Österreich füllten den SpC Competency Questionnaire (SCCQ) aus.Pflegekräfte, ältere und spirituell erfahrenere Personen schätzen die SpK der eigenen Berufsgruppe vergleichsweise höher ein und meinen seltener, diesbezüglich nicht zuständig zu sein. Pflegende nennen häufiger als andere Berufsgruppen das Fehlen geeigneter Räumlichkeiten als Hindernis für die Implementierung von SpC. Höhere Einschätzung der SpK der eigenen Berufsgruppe geht mit höheren Werten in den SCCQ-Faktoren „Selbsterfahrung und proaktive Öffnung“, „Team-Spirit“, „Wahrnehmungs‑/Dokumentationskompetenz“ einher.Die Zuständigkeit der Gesundheitsberufe für SpC in Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie wird unter den deutschsprachigen psychiatrischen Berufsgruppen noch kontrovers diskutiert. Dies hängt mit mangelnder Kompetenz in diesem Feld zusammen.

This study sought to evaluate a new stated-preference instrument to prioritize multiple treatment goals among people with recent onset schizophrenia.A draft survey instrument was developed to assess preferences for 13 key treatment goals that were identified based on the literature. The survey incorporates best-worst scaling (BWS), which shows repeated subsets comprising 4 of the 13 goals, and respondents identify which is most important and which is least important to them. Pre-test interviews were conducted in the UK, Italy, and Germany among people aged 18 to 35 diagnosed with schizophrenia within the past 5 years. Specifically, participants completed the instrument online in their native language, followed by a telephone interview to provide feedback on the clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the survey. The interview data were analyzed to assess interpretation and content validity of the survey.Fifteen participants (five per country) provided feedback (mean age = 31; 60% male). Feedback was comparable across countries and confirmed that the key treatment goals assessed were relevant and meaningful. Probing by interviewers ascertained that respondents interpreted the questions appropriately and identified the treatment goals that were most and least important to them. Based on the characterization of the goals, a conceptual model was developed illustrating hypothesized associations among them.The results confirm that the BWS methodology and key treatment goals in this new instrument are appropriate for use in recent onset schizophrenia. These results will help guide measurement of patient-relevant endpoints in future studies.

Background The present study aimed at answering three research questions: (a) Does shared decision making (SDM) yield similar effects for patients with involuntary admission or incidents of aggression compared to patients with voluntary admission or without incidents of aggression? (b) Does SDM reduce the number of patients with incidents of aggression and the use of coercive measures? (c) Does the use of coercion have a negative impact on patients’ perceived involvement in decision making? Methods We used data from the cluster-randomized SDM-PLUS trial in which patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in 12 acute psychiatric wards of 4 German psychiatric hospitals either received an SDM-intervention or treatment as usual. In addition, data on aggression and coercive measures were retrospectively obtained from patients’ records. Results The analysis included n = 305 inpatients. Patient aggression as well as coercive measures mostly took place in the first days of the inpatient stay and were seldom during the study phase of the SDM-PLUS trial. Patients who had been admitted involuntarily or showed incidents of aggression profited similarly from the intervention with regard to perceived involvement, adherence, and treatment satisfaction compared to patients admitted voluntarily or without incidents of aggression. The intervention showed no effect on patient aggression and coercive measures. Having previously experienced coercive measures did not predict patients’ rating of perceived involvement. Conclusion Further research should focus on SDM-interventions taking place in the very first days of inpatients treatment and potential beneficial long effects of participatory approaches that may not be measurable during the current inpatient stay.

Background Prescription rates for long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations remain relatively low in Europe despite improved adherence over alternative oral antipsychotic treatments. This apparent under-prescription of LAI antipsychotics may have multiple contributing factors, including negative mental health practitioner attitudes towards the use of LAIs. Methods The Antipsychotic Long acTing injection in schizOphrenia (ALTO) non-interventional study (NIS), conducted across several European countries, utilised a questionnaire that was specifically designed to address physicians’ attitudes and beliefs towards the treatment of schizophrenia with LAI antipsychotics. Exploratory principal component analysis (PCA) of feedback from the questionnaire aimed to identify and characterize the factors that best explained the physicians’ attitudes towards prescription of LAIs. Results Overall, 136/234 solicited physicians returned fully completed questionnaires. Physicians’ mean age was 48.5 years, with mean psychiatric experience of 20.0 years; 69.9% were male, 84.6% held a consultant position, and 91.9% had a clinical specialty in general adult care. Most physicians considered themselves to have a high level of clinical experience with LAI antipsychotics (77.2%), with an increased rate of LAI antipsychotics prescription over the last 5 years (59.6%). Although the majority of physicians (69.9%) declared feeling no difference in stress levels when offering LAI compared to oral antipsychotics, feelings of ‘no/more stress’ versus ‘less stress’ was found to influence prescription patterns. PCA identified six factors which collectively explained 66.1% of the variance in physician feedback. Multivariate analysis identified a positive correlation between physicians willing to accept usage of LAI antipsychotics and the positive attitude of colleagues (co-efficient 3.67; p = 0.016). Conclusions The physician questionnaire in the ALTO study is the first to evaluate the attitudes around LAI antipsychotics across several European countries, on a larger scale. Findings from this study offer an important insight into how physician attitudes can influence the acceptance and usage of LAI antipsychotics to treat patients with schizophrenia.

This report presents the rationale and design of a multi-center clinical trial that examines the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic combination treatment in acutely ill schizophrenia patients compared to antipsychotic monotherapy. Antipsychotic combination treatment is common in clinical practice worldwide, despite clinical guidelines generally not recommending such practice due to lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Olanzapine has a related chemical structure and comparable receptor-binding profile as clozapine, which demonstrated superior efficacy in combination studies, but has a more unfavorable side-effect profile compared to olanzapine. Amisulpride and olanzapine have shown promising therapeutic efficacy in meta-analyses in monotherapy for people with schizophrenia. Combining amisulpride and olanzapine, complementary receptor-binding properties may enhance efficacy and possibly reduce (or at least not augment) side effects due to the different receptor profiles and metabolization pathways. Accordingly, we hypothesize that patients treated with amisulpride plus olanzapine show greater improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 8 weeks versus either monotherapy. A randomized, double-blind controlled trial is performed at 16 German centers comparing flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (400-800 mg/day), and olanzapine (10-20 mg/day) and amisulpride-olanzapine co-treatment. Sample size was calculated to be n = 101 per treatment arm, assuming an effect size of 0.500 and a two-sided alpha = 0.025 and beta = 0.90. Recruitment for this trial started in June 2012. Until December 2018, 328 patients have been randomized. Trial conduct has been extended to reach the projected sample size. Publication of the study results is expected in 2019 informing an evidence-based recommendation regarding specific antipsychotic combination treatment.

Patient involvement (shared decision making ) and caregiver involvement (family involvement, etc.) are mostly seen as different aspects of care, and efforts to integrate them are limited. This Open Forum posits that both approaches are critical and that caregiver involvement should always be considered during shared decision making, potentially as an integral component. The authors argue that the two approaches can overlap and work synergistically rather than antagonistically. When caregiver involvement is integrated into shared decision making, caregivers may assume any of a variety of roles and need to develop certain competencies to better engage in decision making.

Background:The Antipsychotic Long-acTing injection in schizOphrenia (ALTO) study was a non-interventional study across several European countries examining prescription of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics to identify sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients receiving and physicians prescribing LAIs. ALTO was also the first large-scale study in Europe to report on the use of both first- or second-generation antipsychotic (FGA- or SGA-) LAIs.Methods:Patients with schizophrenia receiving a FGA- or SGA-LAI were enrolled between June 2013 and July 2014 and categorized as incident or prevalent users. Assessments included measures of disease severity, functioning, insight, well-being, attitudes towards antipsychotics, and quality of life.Results:For the 572 patients, disease severity was generally mild-to-moderate and the majority were unemployed and/or socially withdrawn. 331/572 were prevalent LAI antipsychotic users; of whom 209 were prescribed FGA-LAI. Paliperidone was the most commonly prescribed SGA-LAI (56% of incident users, 21% of prevalent users). 337/572 (58.9%) were considered at risk of non-adherence. Prevalent LAI users had a tendency towards better insight levels (PANSS G12 item). Incident FGA-LAI users had more severe disease, poorer global functioning, lower quality of life, higher rates of non-adherence, and were more likely to have physician-reported lack of insight.Conclusions:These results indicate a lower pattern of FGA-LAI usage, reserved by prescribers for seemingly more difficult-to-treat patients and those least likely to adhere to oral medication.

Shared decision making has found its way into mental health care to a limited extent only, and especially "challenging" patients do not benefit from this approach. The authors describe barriers to shared decision making among mental health professionals and among patients. They propose an integrative approach-SDM-PLUS-that fosters shared decision making in mental health settings. SDM-PLUS empowers both patients and mental health care providers. Patients are empowered to become more active and self-confident and to acquire greater skills in regard to health literacy and communication. Providers are trained in analyzing decisional situations and are empowered to use a wider array of communication strategies to optimize patient participation.

Background The concept of dose equivalence of depot medication is important for many scientific and clinical purposes. Methods A systematic literature search on four second-generation antipsychotics available as long-acting injectable drugs and haloperidol was conducted. We used the minimum effective dose method which is based on randomized fixed dose studies where the smallest dose which was significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome was declared as minimum effective dose. We calculated equivalent doses from acute phase studies but we also reported the minimum effective doses found in relapse prevention studies. Results The acute phase minimum effective doses/olanzapine equivalents were: aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg (300 mg aripiprazole)/4wks/0.71; aripiprazole 400 mg/4 weeks/0.95 (aripiprazole maintena); paliperidone palmitate 25 mg/4 weeks/0,06; risperidone 25 mg/2 weeks/0,12; RBP-7000 90 mg/4 weeks/0,21; olanzapine 210 mg/2 weeks/1. Conclusions The minimum effective dose method is an operationalized and evidence-based approach for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence which can also be applied to long-acting injectable formulations. Doses may not have been chosen low enough to find the truly minimum effective dose. Comparisons with other methods will be necessary to come to ultimate conclusions.

The use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) in schizophrenia is usually restricted to patients in long-term treatment, who prefer them to oral antipsychotics, and to patients with multiple relapses who have a history of non-adherence. However, preliminary evidence from patients in the early phases of the disease suggest that second generation LAIs may be superior to second generation oral medications with regard to the control of negative symptoms and psychosocial functioning. Moreover, several studies have found that psychiatrists are generally reluctant to prescribe LAI antipsychotics and under-estimate their acceptability by patients. Key elements to take into account when offering a LAI in the early course of schizophrenia should include their potential superiority in allowing early detection of non-adherence and in reducing the number of rehospitalisations and relapses.

Treatment with long-acting depot antipsychotics may yield beneficial effects with regard to long-term adherence and long term outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. However, the implementation of depot treatment is rather low in many settings. Research on this issue helped identifying various potential reasons for this pattern including patient refusal and negative attitudes of psychiatrists. Nevertheless no definite conclusion exists as to what actually hinders the wider implementation of depot treatment. To date there are no studies that surveyed this issue with regard to concrete patients and from both perspectives, of the psychiatrists and the related patients. In the present analysis we therefore analyzed psychiatrists׳ and patients׳ behavior regarding depot prescription in N=213 individual doctor-inpatient-dyads in German psychiatric hospitals. A high number of patients (30%) were actually prescribed depot at discharge, even more were informed about the possibility of depot treatment by their psychiatrists (47%). Moreover, 50% of the surveyed patients were generally open toward receiving depot antipsychotics. However, for the high number of patients not receiving depot (70%) the psychiatrists׳ arguments against depot were often implausible and therefore many more patients might be suitable for receiving depot treatment. Psychiatrists׳ hesitation to discuss and implement depot might also be founded in concerns regarding patients׳ acceptance of depot medication. Here doctors should be empowered by teaching communication strategies that may help to convince patients accept treatment.

For many psychiatric conditions outcomes of standard care still fall short of outcomes that are possible according to research literature. One of the major reasons is patient׳s non-adherence to long-term medication. We performed a mirror image interventional study involving patients suffering from affective (N=219) or psychotic disorders (N=210) who participated in an integrated care program focusing on treatment adherence. The main outcome variable was the number of inpatients days during the integrated care program compared to the time before the program. The integrated care project studied showed a drop of inpatient days of approx. 75% within the 18-months observation period for both groups. In the affective (psychotic) sample inpatients days dropped from M=47.1 days (M=62.2 days) in the 18 months before the program to M=10.8 days (M=15.3 days) during the adherence program. Patients with affective disorders additionally profited with regard to symptom reduction, quality of life and self-reported adherence. Thus, a complex intervention addressing frequent weaknesses of routine psychiatric outpatient care and focussing on adherence and linking up outpatient services is effective with regard to the reduction of inpatient days for patients with affective and patients with schizophrenic disorders.

Treatment with antipsychotic medication is an important element of relapse prevention in the management of schizophrenia, and can reduce inpatient stays. Recently, the long-acting atypical antipsychotic paliperidone long-acting injectable (PLAI), a once-monthly LAI antipsychotic, was approved for treatment of schizophrenia in Germany. To estimate, based on a previously published model, the cost effectiveness of PLAI compared with other common antipsychotic treatment strategies in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in Germany. A Markov decision analytic model was adapted to the German healthcare system. The model considers the cost effectiveness for PLAI as a maintenance treatment for patients with schizophrenia from the payer perspective. The patients transition between eight health states on a monthly basis over a 5-year time horizon. As therapeutic strategies, PLAI, quetiapine, risperidone long-acting injections (RLAI), oral olanzapine, oral risperidone, zuclopenthixol decanoate, olanzapine long-acting injections (OLAI), oral typical and oral atypical were compared. Probability of relapse, level of adherence, side effects and treatment discontinuation were derived from the Swedish original model. Input factors regarding resource use and costs were estimated and adjusted for the German healthcare system. A probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using cost-effectiveness scatter plots was performed to visualize the robustness of the results. In base-case scenario, PLAI is superior to RLAI in gained quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and avoided relapses. Relative to all other treatment strategies, PLAI is more effective with regard to gained QALYs and avoided relapses but results in higher treatment costs over a 5-year horizon in base-case scenario. The results were tested in PSA. If a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000 is assumed, for example, PLAI can be considered to be cost effective compared with RLAI in about 92.5 % of cases regarding gained QALYs, and in 78.6 % of cases regarding avoided relapse. Compared with OLAI, in about 94.4 % of cases regarding gained QALYs and in 99.9 % of cases regarding avoided relapse, cost effectiveness can be considered. Comparing PLAI and zuclopenthixol decanoate, cost effectiveness can be assumed in about 90.4 % of cases regarding gained QALYs, and in all cases regarding avoided relapse. PLAI dominates RLAI and compared with the other treatment strategies PLAI has shown to be more effective but results in higher costs in base-case scenario.

Depot formulations are not widely used in everyday practice. This study aimed to assess psychiatrists' attitudes toward the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in schizophrenia. We interviewed 113 French psychiatrists about the factors that influenced their prescription of LAI antipsychotics. Multidimensional and cluster analyses were used to detect correlations. The most important factor against the use of LAI antipsychotics is a sufficient estimated compliance with the oral formulation. For first-generation LAI, the main factor is the risk for extrapyramidal symptoms; and for second-generation LAI, it is the unavailability of the equivalent oral formulation. Four factors incite the psychiatrists to prescribe LAI. Two different clusters of patients can also be identified. Most factors influencing the clinicians' attitudes toward the use of LAI antipsychotics are shared in many countries. Conversely, some attitudes related to organizational aspects, particularly the relevance of health care costs, may vary from one country to another.

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of how doctors and patients interact with each other. It aims at changing the traditional power asymmetry between doctors and patients by strengthening the exchange of information and the decisional position of the patient. Although SDM is generally welcomed by mental health patients as well as by mental health professionals its implementation in routine care, especially in the more acute settings, is still lacking. SDM-PLUS has been developed as an approach that addresses both patients and mental health professionals and aims at implementing SDM even for the very acutely ill patients. Methods The SDM-PLUS study will be performed as a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial in acute psychiatric wards. On wards allocated to the intervention group personnel will receive communication training (addressing how to implement SDM for various scenarios) and patients will receive a group intervention addressing patient skills for SDM. Wards allocated to the control condition will continue treatment as usual. A total sample size of 276 patients suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder on 12 wards is planned. The main outcome parameter will be patients’ perceived involvement in decision making during the inpatient stay measured with the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire. Secondary objectives include the therapeutic relationship and long term outcomes such as medication adherence and rehospitalization rates. In addition, process measures and qualitative data will be obtained to allow for the analysis of potential barriers and facilitators of SDM-PLUS. The primary analysis will be a comparison of SDM-Q-9 sum scores 3 weeks after study inclusion (or discharge, if earlier) between the intervention and control groups. To assess the effect of the intervention on this continuous primary outcome, a random effects linear regression model will be fitted with ward (cluster) as a random effect term and intervention group as a fixed effect. Discussion This will be the first trial examining the SDM-PLUS approach for patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in very acute mental health inpatient settings. Within the trial a complex intervention will be implemented that addresses both patients and health care staff to yield maximum effects. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00010880. Registered 09 August 2016.

Summary Background Relapse prevention with antipsychotic drugs compared with placebo in patients with schizophrenia has not been sufficiently addressed by previous systematic reviews. We aimed to assess the association between such drugs and various outcomes in patients with schizophrenia to resolve controversial issues. Methods We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register for reports published before Nov 11, 2008; and PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for those before June 8, 2011. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. Randomised trials of patients with schizophrenia continued on or withdrawn from any antipsychotic drug regimen after stabilisation were eligible. Our primary outcome was relapse between 7 and 12 months. We also examined safety and various functional outcomes. We used the random effects model and verified results for the primary outcome with a fixed effects model. Heterogeneity was investigated with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Findings We identified 116 suitable reports from 65 trials, with data for 6493 patients. Antipsychotic drugs significantly reduced relapse rates at 1 year (drugs 27% vs placebo 64%; risk ratio [RR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·33–0·49; number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] 3, 95% CI 2–3). Fewer patients given antipsychotic drugs than placebo were readmitted (10% vs 26%; RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·27–0·55; NNTB 5, 4–9), but less than a third of relapsed patients had to be admitted. Limited evidence suggested better quality of life (standardised mean difference −0·62, 95% CI −1·15 to −0·09) and fewer aggressive acts (2% vs 12%; RR 0·27, 95% CI 0·15–0·52; NNTB 11, 6–100) with antipsychotic drugs than with placebo. Employment data were scarce and too few deaths were reported to allow significant differences to be identified. More patients given antipsychotic drugs than placebo gained weight (10% vs 6%; RR 2·07, 95% CI 2·31–3·25), had movement disorders (16% vs 9%; 1·55, 1·25–1·93), and experienced sedation (13% vs 9%; 1·50, 1·22–1·84). Substantial heterogeneity in size of effect was recorded. In subgroup analyses, number of episodes, whether patients were in remission, abrupt or gradual withdrawal of treatment, length of stability before trial entry, first-generation or second-generation drugs, and allocation concealment method did not significantly affect relapse risk. Depot preparations reduced relapse (RR 0·31, 95% CI 0·21–0·41) more than did oral drugs (0·46, 0·37–0·57; p=0·03); depot haloperidol (RR 0·14, 95% CI 0·04–0·55) and fluphenazine (0·23, 0·14–0·39) had the greatest effects. The effects of antipsychotic drugs were greater in two unblinded trials (0·26, 0·17–0·39) than in most blinded studies (0·42, 0·35–0·51; p=0·03). In a meta-regression, the difference between drug and placebo decreased with study length. Interpretation Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs benefits patients with schizophrenia. The advantages of these drugs must be weighed against their side-effects. Future studies should focus on outcomes of social participation and clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality of these drugs. Funding German Ministry of Education and Research.

ObjectiveDespite good clinical evidence, depot antipsychotics are only seldom prescribed to patients with first episode schizophrenia. The present study aims at investigating psychiatrists’ reasons for this reservation.MethodWe surveyed 198 psychiatrists on their attitude toward offering depot treatment to first episode patients (FEP). Participants scored the extent of influence of individual factors on their decision on a seven-point-scale, additional data on their prescription practice and estimation of the relapse risk of FEP were collected.ResultsPsychiatrists reported that only three out of 12 factors were of influence. These were the limited availability of different second generation antipsychotic depot drugs, the frequent rejection of the depot offer by the patients and the patients’ skepticism based on the lack in experience of a relapse.ConclusionsThere is actually little specific reason for not prescribing depot to FEP according to the current survey. For those factors being reported to be of influence, psychoeducation, including profound information on depot treatment, the development of additional SGA depot drugs and the standard offer of depot treatment to all FEP in a shared-decision-making may be considered.

Psychiatric pharmacotherapy with olanzapine is commonplace. We investigated the influence of CYP1A2*1F (-163A, rs762551) and serotonergic polymorphisms on olanzapine serum concentrations and clinical outcome in a naturalistic clinical setting. Included were 124 Caucasian psychiatric inpatients treated with olanzapine for at least 4 weeks with steady-state serum concentrations available for 73 patients. The CYP1A2*1F polymorphism was reported to affect the inducibility of CYP1A2. In our study population, CYP1A2*1F/*1F genotype alone resulted in a 22% reduction of dose-/body weight-normalized olanzapine serum concentrations compared to homo- and heterozygote carriers of CYP1A2*1A (both groups without inducers). This effect was independent of the well-known effect of inducing agents (here tobacco smoke and carbamazepine which led to on average 28% lower concentrations in CYP1A2*1A carriers and 26% lower concentrations in CYP1A2*1F/*1F carriers). Consistently, patients with the CYP1A2*1F/*1F genotype taking inducers had 22% lower concentrations compared to CYP1A2*1A carriers taking inducers. The influence of genotype alone remained significant after Bonferroni's post hoc test. Higher olanzapine concentrations were significantly correlated with better improvement of paranoid and depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenic disorders (Spearman's r=0.5, P=0.026 and P=0.006, respectively). No relationship between serum concentrations and the side effects (DOTES) score was detected. However, patients with the 5-HTR2A intron 2 (rs7997012) AA genotype suffered from more pronounced side effects compared to carriers of the GA or GG genotype (P=0.018 and P=0.002). Short-term weight gain under olanzapine therapy was significantly lower for 5-HTR2C -759 T-allele carriers (P=0.011). Our data suggest that the CYP1A2*1F/*1F genotype exhibits a significant influence on olanzapine concentrations independent of other inducing factors. Thus, CYP1A2*1F genotyping may be useful for clinical treatment decisions given the fact that olanzapine serum concentrations correlated with treatment response. Side effects and weight gain, however, seem to be more influenced by serotonergic polymorphisms.

Many patients do not respond to the first antipsychotic drug prescribed, but require multiple trials with different drugs before response is achieved. Current treatment guidelines vary substantially in their recommendations as to how long clinicians should wait before an antipsychotic treatment attempt should be considered as failed and the compound switched. It has, however, recently been shown that poor early response to an antipsychotic is associated with continuous poor later response in the course of the same treatment attempt. This finding suggests that patients who do experience poor early response might benefit from a switch in antipsychotic medication as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation. In the SWITCH trial, 350 patients suffering from an acute episode of schizophrenia are randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine or amisulpride. The primary endpoint is symptomatic remission at week 8. Patients not experiencing at least minor response after 2 weeks are randomized again to either staying on the initially assigned drug or being switched to the alternative compound for another 6 weeks. In case early switching proves superior to maintaining treatment, time wasted for unsuccessful treatment attempts could be minimized, patients' outcomes improved, duration of hospital stays reduced, and thus overall treatment expenses saved. The current report will present the methods of the trial, focusing on various specific features which could be adopted by future studies.

The concept of dose equivalence is important for many purposes. The classical approach published by Davis in 1974 subsequently dominated textbooks for several decades. It was based on the assumption that the mean doses found in flexible-dose trials reflect the average optimum dose which can be used for the calculation of dose equivalence. We are the first to apply the method to second-generation antipsychotics.We searched for randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia that examined 13 oral second-generation antipsychotics, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine (last search June 2014). We calculated the mean doses of each drug weighted by sample size and divided them by the weighted mean olanzapine dose to obtain olanzapine equivalents.We included 75 studies with 16 555 participants. The doses equivalent to 1 mg/d olanzapine were: amisulpride 38.3 mg/d, aripiprazole 1.4 mg/d, asenapine 0.9 mg/d, chlorpromazine 38.9 mg/d, clozapine 30.6 mg/d, haloperidol 0.7 mg/d, quetiapine 32.3mg/d, risperidone 0.4 mg/d, sertindole 1.1 mg/d, ziprasidone 7.9 mg/d, zotepine 13.2 mg/d. For iloperidone, lurasidone, and paliperidone no data were available.The classical mean dose method is not reliant on the limited availability of fixed-dose data at the lower end of the effective dose range, which is the major limitation of "minimum effective dose methods" and "dose-response curve methods." In contrast, the mean doses found by the current approach may have in part depended on the dose ranges chosen for the original trials. Ultimate conclusions on dose equivalence of antipsychotics will need to be based on a review of various methods.

BACKGROUND: Most of the 13 542 trials contained in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register just tested the general efficacy of pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. Studies on the subsequent treatment steps, which are essential to guide clinicians, are largely missing. This knowledge gap leaves important questions unanswered. For example, when a first antipsychotic failed, is switching to another drug effective? And when should we use clozapine? The aim of this article is to review the efficacy of switching antipsychotics in case of nonresponse. We also present the European Commission sponsored "Optimization of Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Europe" (OPTiMiSE) trial which aims to provide a treatment algorithm for patients with a first episode of schizophrenia. METHODS: We searched Pubmed (October 29, 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined switching the drug in nonresponders to another antipsychotic. We described important methodological choices of the OPTiMiSE trial. RESULTS: We found 10 RCTs on switching antipsychotic drugs. No trial was conclusive and none was concerned with first-episode schizophrenia. In OPTiMiSE, 500 first episode patients are treated with amisulpride for 4 weeks, followed by a 6-week double-blind RCT comparing continuation of amisulpride with switching to olanzapine and ultimately a 12-week clozapine treatment in nonremitters. A subsequent 1-year RCT validates psychosocial interventions to enhance adherence. DISCUSSION: Current literature fails to provide basic guidance for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia. The OPTiMiSE trial is expected to provide a basis for clinical guidelines to treat patients with a first episode of schizophrenia.

Olanzapine long-acting injection (OLAI) is a sustained-release depot antipsychotic for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. Our objective was to explain the pharmacokinetics of OLAI to provide clinical insight. Simulation models and data from clinical trials are presented. Olanzapine concentrations were observed immediately upon injection. Half-life was ∼30 days, controlled by the slow rate of intramuscular absorption rather than the 30-h elimination rate-based half-life of oral olanzapine. As each injection builds on the drug still being released from previous injections, concentrations increase gradually until a steady state is reached after ∼3 months. Concentrations were similar to oral olanzapine and proportional to the dose; the average steady-state concentrations (10th-90th percentile) for the 150, 210, and 300 mg/2-week doses were 16-32, 15-55, and 20-67 ng/ml, respectively, and those for the 300 and 405 mg/4-week doses were 19-48 and 19-62 ng/ml, respectively. Peak concentrations most often occurred at 2-4 days after injection. Peak-to-trough fluctuation was greater for the 4-week dosing interval than the 2-week one, with no apparent clinical ramifications for these differences. Trough concentrations were above the lower end of the therapeutic range, even at the first injection. Long-term use up to 6 years indicated no additional accumulation. The impact of smoking and sex was similar, but less pronounced than for oral olanzapine.

The Paliperidone ER Treatment in Acute Intervention (PERTAIN) study was designed to explore treatment response, tolerability, and safety of flexible doses of paliperidone ER in patients with schizophrenia admitted for an acute exacerbation. This paper addresses a secondary analysis of PERTAIN data designed to explore predictors for treatment response, flexible dosing, and concomitant benzodiazepine use. This prospective, multicenter, phase 3b, open-label, single-arm, 6-week study used flexible doses of paliperidone ER (3 to 12mg once daily) to treat patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, reflecting more closely daily clinical practice. Predictive models were evaluated for paliperidone ER flexible dosing, treatment response, and concomitant treatment with benzodiazepines as distinct independent variables. For the analysis of explanatory variables, a stepwise logistic regression was used, taking into account patient age, gender, body mass index, diagnosis and duration of schizophrenia, number of prior hospitalizations, psychotic symptoms (PANSS), disease severity (CGI-S), and patient functioning (PSP) at baseline. Early response (defined as response within 2weeks of treatment initiation) was also used as a predictor. Clinical response (defined as ≥30% decrease in PANSS total score and ≥1 point decrease in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint) was predicted by early clinical response (p

Background: Clinicians need to know the right antipsychotic dose for optimized treatment, and the concept of dose equivalence is important for many clinical and scientific purposes. Methods: We refined a method presented in 2003, which was based on the minimum effective doses found in fixed-dose studies. We operationalized the selection process, updated the original findings, and expanded them by systematically searching more recent literature and by including 13 second-generation antipsychotics. To qualify for the minimum effective dose, a dose had to be significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome of at least one randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose trial. In a sensitivity analysis, 2 positive trials were required. The minimum effective doses identified were subsequently used to derive olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine equivalents. Results: We reviewed 73 included studies. The minimum effective daily doses/olanzapine equivalents based on our primary approach were: aripiprazole 10 mg/1.33, asenapine 10 mg/1.33, clozapine 300 mg/40, haloperidol 4 mg/0.53, iloperidone 8 mg/1.07, lurasidone 40 mg/5.33, olanzapine 7.5 mg/1, paliperidone 3 mg/0.4, quetiapine 150 mg/20, risperidone 2 mg/0.27, sertindole 12 mg/1.60, and ziprasidone 40 mg/5.33. For amisulpride and zotepine, reliable estimates could not be derived. Conclusions: This method for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence entails an operationalized and evidence-based approach that can be applied to the various antipsychotic drugs. As a limitation, the results are not applicable to specific populations such as first-episode or refractory patients. We recommend that alternative methods also be updated in order to minimize further differences between the methods and risk of subsequent bias.

We present the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia based on a simple algorithm that starts with the most important decisions starting from the choice of an antipsychotic drug for an acutely ill patient and ends with maintenance treatment. It represents experts opinions, a formal guideline development process was not followed. Concerning acute treatment we present recommendations for the choice of drug in acutely patients, the treatment of agitated patients, persistent depression, negative symptoms and treatment resistance. Concerning maintenance treatment with antipsychotics we discuss indication, choice of drug, continuous versus intermittent treatment, duration of relapse prevention and dose.

Objective : Recently risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) was approved for alternative injection into the deltoid muscle in addition to the already established injection into the gluteal muscle. For the first time two different injection locations of a long-acting antipsychotic injection can be offered to patients. Their actual acceptance is of key interest. Experimental procedures : We surveyed 60 patients stabilized on gluteal RLAI therapy in our depot outpatient clinic. Participants were offered the possibility of switching to the alternative deltoid injection in a standardized manner. Prior to switching patients scored the extent of perceived pain and experienced level of shame through the present gluteal injection therapy on a 7-point-scale. Patients choosing to switch were followed up after three months and asked to report on their individual experience. Results : Switching to the deltoid application was chosen by 34 out of 60 patients. Three months later 15 patients were still receiving deltoid injections. The main reason for their staying with the deltoid injection was improved practicability as reported by these patients and 13 out of 15 patients clearly preferred the new location over the gluteal application. The main reason for returning to the gluteal injection was the pain experienced through the injection in the deltoid. Patients' initial decision whether to switch was not correlated with either perceived pain or the experienced level of shame through the preceding gluteal injections. Conclusions : The application of RLAI in the deltoid muscle is viewed as an alternative to the injection in the gluteal muscle by a considerable number of patients. Nevertheless, some patients experience increased injection pain through this application location while others perceive the switch as beneficial in terms of practicability. Therefore offering both injection locations with their respective pros and cons should become standard in the RLAI treatment offered.

We describe the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and have arranged the manuscript as a simple algorithm which starts from the choice of an antipsychotic drug for an acutely ill patient and concludes with the most important questions about maintenance treatment. In acutely ill patients the choice of drug is mainly based on pragmatic criteria. Among many strategies used for agitated patients, haloperidol plus promethazine is the best examined one. In case of persistent depression or negative symptoms treatment includes antidepressants, and some second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) have been found somewhat superior to first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs) in these domains. If an antipsychotic is suspected to be ineffective, several factors need to be checked before action is taken. Few trials have addressed strategies such as switching the drug or increasing the dose in case of non-response. Clozapine remains the gold-standard for treatment-refractory patients, while none of the numerous augmentation strategies that have been examined by randomized controlled trials can be generally recommended. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs effectively reduces relapse rates. Small, not definitive, studies have shown that withdrawing antipsychotics from patients who have been stable for up to 6 yr leads to more relapses than continuing medication. In effect, continuous treatment is more effective than intermittent strategies. The identification of optimum doses for relapse prevention with FGAs has proven difficult, and there is little randomized data on SGAs. Although the randomized evidence on a superiority of depot compared to oral treatment is not ideal, this approach suggests obvious advantages in assuring compliance.

Objective Non-adherence is a major problem in the treatment of schizophrenia. Depot antipsychotic drugs are thought to reduce relapse rates by improving adherence, but a systematic review of long-term studies in outpatients is not available. Method We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane reviews on depot medication, and the reference sections of included studies for randomised controlled trials lasting at least 12 months in outpatients that compared depot with oral antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Data on relapse (primary outcome), rehospitalisation, non-adherence, and dropout due to any reason, inefficacy of treatment and adverse events were summarised in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool, and publication bias with funnel plots. Results Ten studies with 1700 participants met the inclusion criteria. Depot formulations significantly reduced relapses with relative and absolute risk reductions of 30% and 10%, respectively (RR 0.70, CI 0.57–0.87, NNT 10, CI 6–25, P = 0.0009), and dropout due to inefficacy (RR 0.71, CI 0.57–0.89). Limited data on non-adherence, rehospitalisation and dropout due to any reason and adverse events revealed no significant differences. There were several potential sources of bias such as limited information on randomisation methods, problems of blinding and different medications in the depot and oral groups. Other studies reduced a potential superiority of depot by excluding non-adherent patients. Discussion Depot antipsychotic drugs significantly reduced relapse. Due to a number of methodological problems in the single trials the evidence is, nonetheless, subject to possible bias.

Antipsychotic depots are less frequently prescribed than oral compounds. In an experimental study involving N=106 psychiatrists we studied how much more effective with respect to relapse prevention depot antipsychotics have to be compared to oral antipsychotics before they are chosen for prescription. Most psychiatrists have to judge depot as clearly superior with respect to relapse prevention before they recommend it to patients. If psychiatrists judge depot as unpleasant for the patients and do not see much need for checking their patients' compliance they are less likely to prescribe depot. Other psychiatrist-related factors (e.g. age, gender, and work experience) did not influence attitudes toward depot.

Background The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review. Objectives To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019). Selection criteria We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. Data collection and analysis We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model. Main results The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50). Authors' conclusions For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

Objective: Shared decision making is advocated as a way of involving patients in medical decisions, but it can be achieved only when both patients and physicians commit to sharing decisions. This study explored psychiatrists’ views of shared decision making in schizophrenia treatment. Method: A structured questionnaire was given to 352 psychiatrists at the 2007 congress of the German Society of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Nervous Diseases to determine their self-reported decisionmaking styles. Approximately half of the psychiatrists (N=181) were then asked to rate how 19 patient characteristics would influence whether they would share in decision making, and the other half (N=171) were asked whether 19 decision topics would be suitable for shared decision making. Results: Of the 352 participating psychiatrists, 51% reported regularly applying shared decision making, but decisionmaking styles were tailored to individual patients and decision topics. Shared decision making was seen as useful for well-informed and compliant patients and for those who currently dislike their antipsychotic, but it was not seen as useful in cases of potentially reduced decisional capacity. Psychosocial matters (for example, work therapy, future housing, and psychotherapy) were considered more suitable for shared decision making than were medical and legal decisions (for example, hospitalization, prescription of antipsychotics, and diagnostic procedures). Conclusions: It should be clarified whether and how patients with schizophrenia can be empowered and educated so they can share important treatment decisions. (Psychiatric Services 60:1107–1112, 2009)

The cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) isoenzyme metabolizes about 25% of clinically used drugs. The impact of CYP2D6 metabolizer status on therapeutic outcome was assessed in 365 psychiatric in-patients treated with neuroleptics or antidepressants. Length of hospitalization and response onset were prolonged for patients receiving CYP2D6 drugs. Intermediate metabolizers (IMs) receiving CYP2D6 doses above the population median had more side effects after 4 weeks than extensive metabolizers with above-median doses (9/13, 69% vs 4/23, 17%, P = 0.003), than IMs with below-median doses (5/22, 23%, P = 0.012) and IMs with other medication (24/84, 29%, P = 0.009). The Clinical Global Impression scale response was lower for IMs treated with CYP2D6 drugs (3/42, 7%) than for IMs with other medication (21/84, 25%, P = 0.017) probably due to increased side effects. Identification of IM status (38% of study population) may help to reduce side effects and length/cost of hospitalization. Thus, not only poor and ultrarapid metabolizer but also IMs may benefit from CYP2D6 genotyping. This is of paramount interest since it greatly improves cost/benefit estimations for pretreatment CYP2D6 screening.

OBJECTIVE: In order to choose the best treatment option, physicians have to inform themselves and their patients about both the benefits and risks of available treatment options equally. Our study aims to investigate whether psychiatrists actually do conduct such a balanced information search and presentation. METHOD: Psychiatrists' information search and information presentation to a patient with schizophrenia were studied using two separate experiments. In both, participants were presented with hypothetical case vignettes and descriptions of fictitious antipsychotics. RESULTS: When searching for information, psychiatrists looked more for risks than benefits of antipsychotic treatment options (t = -3.4, df = 74, P = 0.001). However, when informing a patient, they named more benefits than risks (t = 17.1, df = 224, P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: The risk-biased information search presumably follows the principle of'primum non nocere'. The benefit-biased information presentation might be motivated by the wish to persuade patients to accept the proposed therapy.

The prescription rate of antipsychotic depots for patients suffering from schizophrenia is currently low. Among these patients the assumable acceptance rate of depot as treatment of choice is markedly higher, but psychiatrists do report that patients frequently reject the offer of depot treatment. In a first step to highlight this contradiction we aimed at identifying attributes of patients that indicate their qualification for depot treatment in the eyes of the psychiatrists.We surveyed 201 psychiatrists about their evaluation of patients' attributes potentially influencing their qualification for depot treatment. Multidimensional and cluster analyses were applied to detect associated attributes. A second sample of further 248 psychiatrists was asked about their proposal of depot treatment to patients depending on the number of relapses in the past.Two clusters of attributes were identified characterizing patients' qualification for depot treatment. In cluster I episodes of non-compliance and relapses in the past were considered as favoring the qualification. cluster II included a high level of insight, openness to drug treatment and profound knowledge about the disease representing attributes that increase patients' qualification. Patients were significantly more likely to be offered depot treatment after their fourth reexacerbation compared to their first relapse.Attributes comprised in cluster I highly qualify a patient for depot treatment which is in line with the current prescription stereotype. This conservative notion of depot use is supplemented by an alternative cluster II patient profile. Patients fitting this cluster also potentially qualify for depot treatment according to the surveyed psychiatrists and should be offered depot in clinical routine considering the advantages of this form of administration.

Every year numerous reports on antipsychotic drug trials are being published in neuropsychiatric journals, adding new information to our knowledge in the field. The information however is often hard for the reader to interpret, sometimes contradictory to comparable available studies and leaves more questions open than it actually answers. Although the overall quality of the studies is rather good, there are manifold options for further improvement in the conception, conduct, and reporting of antipsychotic drug trials. In this survey, we address methodological challenges such as the limited generalizability of outcomes due to patient selection and sample size; the vague or even lacking definition of key outcome parameters such as response, remission or relapse, insufficient blinding techniques, the pitfalls of surrogate outcomes and their assessment tools; the varying complex statistical approaches; and the challenge of balancing various ways of reporting outcomes. The authors present practical examples to highlight the current problems and propose a concrete series of suggestions on how to further optimize antipsychotic drug trials in the future.

In spite of their well known advantages, depot antipsychotics are seldom prescribed in the treatment of schizophrenia. A frequently stated reason is the patient's objection to depot treatment. We questioned 300 patients in nine psychiatric hospitals shortly before their discharge about their preferences in the mode of administration of antipsychotic treatment, taking earlier depot experience into account. 145 patients were naive to depot treatment, 95 had experienced a depot earlier and 60 were currently on a depot medication. Acceptance of depot treatment in relapse prevention was 73% in patients currently being treated with a depot and 45% in depot-experienced patients, compared with 23% in depot-naive participants. Participants, depending on their experience with the formulation, acknowledged suggested potential advantages of depot treatment. Preference of depots as favorable antipsychotic treatment depends on the patient's experience with the formulation. A considerable number of patients would accept a depot drug as a long-term treatment option. The gap between patients' acceptance and the low prescription rates can be narrowed by offering antipsychotic depots to more patients.

Background: Since 2002, a second-generation depot antipsychotic has been available that potentially combines the advantages of depot administration and the favorable aspects of the so-called "atypical" antipsychotics. Nevertheless, long-acting injectable formulations are seldom prescribed in the treatment of schizophrenia. Method: We surveyed 350 psychiatrists at an international conference as to their reasons for not prescribing a first- or second-generation depot antipsychotic for their patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Results: The most important factor opposing depot prescription pertaining to both classes is a presumed sufficient compliance with oral antipsychotic treatment. First-generation depots are avoided due to the threat of extrapyramidal side effects, whereas second-generation long-acting injectable drugs are considered to be associated with high treatment costs. Less than 36% of participants' patients have ever been offered antipsychotic depot treatment. Conclusion: Aversions to prescribing depot treatment are frequent among psychiatrists and appear to be unrelated to the antipsychotic class. The stated reasons for not prescribing depots are generally not supported by the current evidence, and further studies are urgently needed to clarify the advantages of depot treatment.