Francesca Girlanda

Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia in routine clinical care: a randomized, controlled trial

This multisite study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole versus combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia who do not have an optimal response to clozapine. Patients continued to take clozapine and were randomly assigned to receive daily augmentation with aripiprazole or haloperidol. Physicians prescribed the allocated treatments according to usual clinical care. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included severity of symptoms on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and antipsychotic subjective tolerability on the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale. A total of 106 patients with schizophrenia were randomly assigned to treatment. After 3 months, we found no difference in the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment between the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (13.2% vs 15.1%, P = 0.780). The 3-month change of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (−5.9 vs −4.4 points, P = 0.523), whereas the 3-month decrease of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale total score was significantly higher in the aripiprazole group than in the haloperidol group (−7.4 vs −2.0 points, P = 0.006). These results suggest that augmentation of clozapine with aripiprazole offers no benefit with regard to treatment withdrawal and overall symptoms in schizophrenia compared with augmentation with haloperidol. However, an advantage in the perception of adverse effects with aripiprazole treatment may be meaningful for patients.

Aripiprazole versus haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a 12-month, randomized, naturalistic trial.

Background Long-term studies for patients with resistant schizophrenia are necessary to assess the effectiveness of combination strategies on persisting positive symptoms. Aims and Methods This multicenter, naturalistic, randomized, superiority study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00395915) aimed to compare clinical efficacy and tolerability of haloperidol versus aripiprazole as combination treatment with clozapine in patients with resistant schizophrenia. Results One hundred six patients were followed up for 12 months. After 12 months, the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was not significantly different between aripiprazole and haloperidol (37% vs 28%, respectively; P = 0.431). The change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (−7.0 vs −7.9, respectively; P = 0.389), whereas the tolerability total score decreased significantly more in the aripiprazole group (−7.2 vs −2.3; P = 0.008). Conclusions While the effectiveness of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic agent is not clearly demonstrated yet, results from this study suggest that augmentation with aripiprazole offers no substantial benefit over haloperidol in efficacy. Aripiprazole was perceived more tolerable than haloperidol, but it is uncertain how this finding may translate into the real world of clinical practice.

Guideline implementation strategies for specialist mental healthcare.

Purpose of review Clinical practice guidelines in mental healthcare are viewed as an essential asset if appropriately developed and implemented. The purpose of this article was to review the existing literature on how guidelines should be implemented to optimize their impact on provider performance and patient outcomes in specialist mental healthcare settings. Recent findings Findings from recent studies suggest a trend toward an improvement in process and patient outcomes following guideline implementation. However, studies are heterogeneous in terms of design, implementation strategies and outcome measures, making it very difficult to draw firm conclusions about which implementation strategy is effective in different healthcare contexts. Summary Current knowledge about how guidelines should be implemented is still sparse and inconclusive in mental healthcare. Future studies should attempt to employ more rigorous designs, including random allocation of patients or clusters of patients, to shed further light on this compelling issue. Research on guideline implementation strategies should additionally take into account potential barriers to knowledge translation, which can heavily influence the implementability of treatment recommendations.

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: a protocol for a randomised, independent, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial.

BackgroundData on therapeutic interventions following deliberate self harm (DSH) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are very scant and there is no unanimous consensus on the best pharmacological option for these patients. There is some evidence that lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of completed suicide in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, however no clear cut results have been found so far. The primary aim of the present study is to assess whether adding lithium to standard therapy is an effective treatment strategy to reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour in long term treatment of people with TRD and previous history of DSH.Methods/DesignWe will carry out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode will be allocated to add lithium to current therapy (intervention arm) or not (control arm). Following randomisation, treatment is to be taken daily for 1 year unless some clear reason to stop develops. Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up will constitute the composite primary outcome. To preserve outcome assessor blindness, an independent adjudicating committee, blind to treatment allocation, will anonymously review all outcome events.DiscussionThe results of this study should indicate whether lithium treatment is associated with lower risk of completed suicide and DSH in adult patients with treatment resistant unipolar depression, who recently attempted suicide.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550

The evidence–practice gap in specialist mental healthcare: systematic review and meta-analysis of guideline implementation studies

BACKGROUND Clinical practice guidelines are not easily implemented, leading to a gap between research synthesis and their use in routine care. AIMS To summarise the evidence relating to the impact of guideline implementation on provider performance and patient outcomes in mental healthcare settings, and to explore the performance of different strategies for guideline implementation. METHOD A systematic review of randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and before-and-after studies comparing guideline implementation strategies v. usual care, and different guideline implementation strategies, in patients with severe mental illness. RESULTS In total, 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies did not show a consistent positive effect of guideline implementation on provider performance, but a more consistent small to modest positive effect on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Guideline implementation does not seem to have an impact on provider performance, nonetheless it may influence patient outcomes positively.

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: results and lessons of an underpowered randomised clinical trial

BackgroundAs lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of deliberate self-harm (DSH) in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, we designed a pragmatic randomised trial to assess its efficacy in more than 200 patients with treatment-resistant depression. However, we randomised 56 patients only. The aim of this report is therefore twofold: first, to disseminate the results of this underpowered study which may be incorporated into future meta-analytical reviews; second, to analyse some critical aspects of the study which might explain failure to reach the target sample size.MethodsWe carried out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode were allocated to add lithium to usual care (intervention arm) versus usual care alone (control arm). Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up constituted the composite primary outcome.ResultsOf 58 patients screened for inclusion, 29 were allocated to lithium plus usual care and 27 were assigned to usual care without lithium. Six patients in the lithium plus usual care group and seven in the usual care group committed acts of DSH during the follow-up phase. The survival probability did not differ between the two treatment arms (Chi2 = 0.17, p =0.676). With regard to changes in the severity of depressive symptomatology from baseline to endpoint, no significant differences were detected.ConclusionsThe present study failed to achieve the minimum sample size needed to detect a clinically meaningful difference between the two treatment arms. Consequently, the finding that lithium, in addition to usual care, did not exert a positive effect in terms of reduction of DSH after 12 months of follow-up is likely due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference, if a difference existed. The dissemination of the results of this underpowered study will inform future meta-analytical reviews on lithium and suicide-related outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550