METHODS: A prospective study was performed for a period of 1 year among 180 newly diagnosed schizophrenics, aged 20-60 years to observe the symptoms, medication adherence and side effects. Morisky-Green-Levine Scale was used to evaluate medication adherence, LUNSER for side effects and PANSS to measure positive and negative symptoms. Data were analyzed using SPSS.
RESULTS: Positive symptoms (Male: Baseline 36.14 vs. endpoint 23.58, Female: 35.29 vs. 23.74) and negative symptoms (Males 27.9 vs. 20.05, Females 28.41 vs. 20.2) of schizophrenia were equally reduced after a follow up of 1 year in both the genders. Male population suffered more accumulative side effects (11.4 in males vs. 6.40 in females), extrapyramidal symptoms such as tardive dyskinesia and tremors (1.21 in males vs. 0.57 in females) and other side effects as compared to women (p ≤ .005). Males were found poorly adherent to antipsychotic treatment than females (93.3% in males vs. 6.7% in females (p ≤ .005).
CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing practices should not overlook sex specific factors like hormonal changes, altered brain morphology and socioeconomic factors that may be responsible for the difference in the response to the course of schizophrenia.
METHODS: A systematic review of published and unpublished studies were carried out. Included studies described the development of explicit criteria for PIM use in older adults and provided a list of medications that should be considered inappropriate. PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus searches were conducted. The PIMs were analyzed according to the general conditions, disease-specific conditions, and drug-drug interaction classes. The qualities of the included studies were assessed using a nine-point evaluation tool. The kappa agreement index was used to evaluate the level of agreement between the identified explicit PIM tools.
RESULTS: The search yielded 1206 articles, and 15 studies were included in our analysis. Thirteen criteria were identified in East Asia and two in South Asia. Twelve out of the 15 criteria were developed using the Delphi method. We identified 283 PIMs independent of medical conditions and 465 disease-specific PIMs. Antipsychotics were included in most of the criteria (14/15), followed by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (13/15), antihistamines (13/15), sulfonylureas (12/15), benzodiazepines (11/15), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) (11/15). Only one study fulfilled all the quality components. There was a low kappa agreement (k = 0.230) between the included studies.
CONCLUSION: This review included 15 explicit PIM criteria, which most listed antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antihistamines as potentially inappropriate. Healthcare professionals should exercise more caution when dealing with these medications among older patients. These results may help healthcare professionals in Asian nations to create regional standards for the discontinuation of potentially harmful drugs for elderly patients.
METHODS: This double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 study consisted of a 1-week observation period during which patients were treated with two patches of placebo, followed by a 6-week double-blind period where patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive once-daily blonanserin 40 mg, blonanserin 80 mg, or placebo patches. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the total Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) score. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: Between December 2014 and October 2018, patients were recruited and randomly assigned to blonanserin 40 mg (n = 196), blonanserin 80 mg (n = 194), or placebo (n = 190); of these, 77.2% completed the study. Compared with placebo, blonanserin significantly improved PANSS total scores at 6 weeks (least square mean [LSM] difference vs placebo: -5.6 with blonanserin 40 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.6, -1.6; adjusted p = 0.007, and - 10.4 with blonanserin 80 mg; 95% CI -14.4, -6.4; adjusted p
METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, observational study involving 339 patients from Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression Severity scale (CGI-S), and safety parameters were assessed.
RESULTS: 62% of patients responded to olanzapine treatment, defined a priori as a reduction in BPRS of > 40% from baseline. Following the 8-week treatment period, the BPRS total, BPRS positive, BPRS negative, and CGI-S scores decreased by 18.7 (95% CI: 17.4, 20.2), 6.1 (5.6, 6.6), 2.9 (2.6, 3.2), and 1.5 points (median 1.0), respectively (p < 0.0001). In total, 31 of the 339 patients (9.1%) failed to complete the study according to the study description. Loss to follow-up and personal conflict were the most common reasons for discontinuation. There were 30 treatment-emergent adverse events with six serious cases, assessed as unrelated to study drug, reported.
CONCLUSION: This study further demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine in actual clinical practice settings, in reducing the severity of psychopathological symptoms in Asian patients with schizophrenia.