METHODS: Patients (N = 281) with schizophrenia who had completed a randomized, double-blind (DB), 6-week comparison of lurasidone (40 and 80 mg/day) and placebo were enrolled in a 26-week extension study in which all patients received open-label (OL), flexible doses of lurasidone (40 or 80 mg/day). Effectiveness was measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scale.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of patients completed the OL extension study; 16.7% discontinued early due to lack of effectiveness; and 10.3% due to adverse events. The most common adverse events were insomnia (11.3%), akathisia (11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (10.6%). Adverse events related to weight gain, metabolic parameters, prolactin, and ECG measures were uncommon. Mean change in the PANSS total score from the DB baseline to OL endpoint was -28.4, with mean improvement of -7.5 observed from baseline to OL endpoint, and with a PANSS responder rate of 73.7%.
DISCUSSION: The results of the current 26-week extension study found lurasidone to be a generally safe, well-tolerated, and effective long-term treatment for schizophrenia in Asian patients.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study has retrospectively compared the healthcare utilization and associated costs of pre- and post-PPIM treatment in 413 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder recruited from three major public hospitals providing psychiatric services in Hong Kong. Patients were categorized into early treatment (≤3 years since diagnosis) and chronic (>3 years) groups, and also whether they were receiving polypharmacy (POP).
RESULTS: It was found that patients who were started on early therapy with no POP had the most favourable outcomes. Overall results of the entire cohort, including both early and late treatments, indicate that there was a slight increase in annual in-patient days (IP) per patient and outpatient visit (OP) by 3.18 and 1.87, respectively, and a decrease in emergency room visit (ER) of 0.9 (p
METHODS: This cross-sectional survey across 15 Asian countries/territories collected socio-demographic and clinical data with standardized procedures between March and May 2016. The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were recorded with a standardized questionnaire.
RESULTS: Altogether 3,537 adult patients with schizophrenia were consecutively screened and enrolled in the survey. The mean age was 38.66 ± 11.55 years and 59.7% of the sample were male. The mean dose of antipsychotics in chlorpromazine equivalents (CPZeq) was 424 ± 376 mg/day; 31.3% and 80.8% received first- and second- generation antipsychotics, respectively and 42.6% had antipsychotic polypharmacy, 11.7% had antidepressants, 13.7% had mood stabilizers, 27.8% had benzodiazepines, and 45.6% had anticholinergics.
CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic prescription patterns in Asian adult patients with schizophrenia varied across countries. Regular surveys on psychotropic medications for schizophrenia are important to monitor pharmacotherapy practice in Asia.
METHODS: By using the results from the fourth survey of Research on Asian Prescription Patterns on antipsychotics, the rates of polypharmacy and combined medication use in each country were analyzed. Daily medications prescribed for the treatment of inpatients or outpatients with schizophrenia, including antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antiparkinson agents, were collected. Fifteen countries from Asia participated in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 3744 patients' prescription forms were examined. The prescription patterns differed across these Asian countries, with the highest rate of polypharmacy noted in Vietnam (59.1%) and the lowest in Myanmar (22.0%). Furthermore, the combined use of other medications, expressed as highest and lowest rate, respectively, was as follows: mood stabilizers, China (35.0%) and Bangladesh (1.0%); antidepressants, South Korea (36.6%) and Bangladesh (0%); anxiolytics, Pakistan (55.7%) and Myanmar (8.5%); hypnotics, Japan (61.1%) and, equally, Myanmar (0%) and Sri Lanka (0%); and antiparkinson agents, Bangladesh (87.9%) and Vietnam (10.9%). The average psychotropic drug loading of all patients was 2.01 ± 1.64, with the highest and lowest loadings noted in Japan (4.13 ± 3.13) and Indonesia (1.16 ± 0.68), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Differences in psychiatrist training as well as the civil culture and health insurance system of each country may have contributed to the differences in these rates. The concept of drug loading can be applied to other medical fields.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to 7 February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments to alleviate agitation in people with all-types dementia. Data were extracted using standardized forms and study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Data were pooled using meta-analysis. The primary outcome, efficacy, was 8-week response rates defined as a 50% reduction in baseline agitation score. The secondary outcome was treatment acceptability defined as treatment continuation for 8 weeks.
RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs comprising 5585 participants (30.9% male; mean ± standard deviation age, 81.8 ± 4.9 years) were included. Dextromethorphan/quinidine [odds ratio (OR) 3.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.63-5.66], risperidone (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.49-2.59) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class (OR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.02-2.53) were found to be significantly more efficacious than placebo. Haloperidol appeared less efficacious than nearly all comparators. Most treatments had noninferior treatment continuation compared to placebo, except oxcarbazepine, which was inferior. Findings were supported by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone, serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class and dextromethorphan/quinidine demonstrated evidence of efficacy for agitation in dementia, although findings for dextromethorphan/quinidine were based on a single RCT. Our findings do not support prescribing haloperidol due to lack of efficacy, or oxcarbazepine due to lack of acceptability. The decision to prescribe should be based on comprehensive consideration of the benefits and risks, including those not evaluated in this meta-analysis.