Since the introduction of chlorpromazine and throughout the development of the new-generation antipsychotic drugs (APDs) beginning with clozapine, the D(2) receptor has been the target for the development of APDs Pharmacologic actions to reduce neurotransmission through the D(2) receptor have been the only proven therapeutic mechanism for psychoses A number of novel non-D(2) mechanisms of action of APDs have been explored over the past 40 years but none has definitively been proven effective At the same time, the effectiveness of treatments and range of outcomes for patients are far from satisfactory The relative success of antipsychotics in treating positive symptoms is limited by the fact that a substantial number of patients are refractory to current medications and by their lack of efficacy for negative and cognitive symptoms, which often determine the level of functional impairment In addition, while the newer antipsychotics produce fewer motor side effects, safety and tolerability concerns about weight gain and endocrinopathies have emerged Consequently, there is an urgent need for more effective and better-tolerated antipsychotic agents, and to identify new molecular targets and develop mechanistically novel compounds that can address the various symptom dimensions of schizophrenia In recent years, a variety of new experimental pharmacological approaches have emerged, including compounds acting on targets other than the dopamine D(2) receptor However, there is still an ongoing debate as to whether drugs selective for singe molecular targets (that is, 'magic bullets') or drugs selectively non-selective for several molecular targets (that is, 'magic shotguns', 'multifunctional drugs' or 'intramolecular polypharmacy') will lead to more effective new medications for schizophrenia In this context, current and future drug development strategies can be seen to fall into three categories: (1) refinement of precedented mechanisms of action to provide drugs of comparable or superior efficacy and side-effect profiles to existing APDs; (2) development of novel (and presumably non-D(2)) mechanism APDs; (3) development of compounds to be used as adjuncts to APDs to augment efficacy by targeting specific symptom dimensions of schizophrenia and particularly those not responsive to traditional APD treatment In addition, efforts are being made to determine if the products of susceptibility genes in schizophrenia, identified by genetic linkage and association studies, may be viable targets for drug development Finally, a focus on early detection and early intervention aimed at halting or reversing progressive pathophysiological processes in schizophrenia has gained great influence This has encouraged future drug development and therapeutic strategies that are neuroprotective This article provides an update and critical review of the pharmacology and clinical profiles of current APDs and drugs acting on novel targets with potential to be therapeutic agents in the future

Pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: a critical review of the pharmacology and clinical effects of current and future therapeutic agents

Objectives In this monograph we examine the added value of new psychometric methods (Rasch measurement and Item Response Theory) over traditional psychometric approaches by comparing and contrasting their psychometric evaluations of existing sets of rating scale data. We have concentrated on Rasch measurement rather than Item Response Theory because we believe that it is the more advantageous method for health measurement from a conceptual, theoretical and practical perspective. Our intention is to provide an authoritative document that describes the principles of Rasch measurement and the practice of Rasch analysis in a clear, detailed, non-technical form that is accurate and accessible to clinicians and researchers in health measurement. Review methods A comparison was undertaken of traditional and new psychometric methods in five large sets of rating scale data: (1) evaluation of the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) in data from 666 participants in the Cannabis in Multiple Sclerosis (CAMS) study; (2) evaluation of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) in data from 1725 people with multiple sclerosis; (3) evaluation of test-retest reliability of MSIS-29 in data from 150 people with multiple sclerosis; (4) examination of the use of Rasch analysis to equate scales purporting to measure the same health construct in 585 people with multiple sclerosis; and (5) comparison of relative responsiveness of the Barthel Index and Functional Independence Measure in data from 1400 people undergoing neurorehabilitation. Results Both Rasch measurement and Item Response Theory are conceptually and theoretically superior to traditional psychometric methods. Findings from each of the five studies show that Rasch analysis is empirically superior to traditional psychometric methods for evaluating rating scales, developing rating scales, analysing rating scale data, understanding and measuring stability and change, and understanding the health constructs we seek to quantify. Conclusions There is considerable added value in using Rasch analysis rather than traditional psychometric methods in health measurement. Future research directions include the need to reproduce our findings in a range of clinical populations, detailed head-to-head comparisons of Rasch analysis and Item Response Theory, and the application of Rasch analysis to clinical practice.

https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2001725

Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods.

proved by the EAST Board of Directors, the Board of Regents of the ACCM and the Council of SCCM. Results: Key recommendations are listed by category, including (A) Indications for RBC transfusion in the general critically ill patient; (B) RBC transfusion in sepsis; (C) RBC transfusion in patients at risk for or with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome; (D) RBC transfusion in patients with neurologic injury and diseases; (E) RBC transfusion risks; (F) Alternatives to RBC transfusion; and (G) Strategies to reduce RBC transfusion. Conclusions: Evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of RBC transfusion in adult trauma and critical care will provide important information to critical care practitioners. (Crit Care Med 2009; 37:3124‐3157)

/pdf/clinical-practice-guideline-red-blood-cell-transfusion-in-11q31mos29.pdf

Clinical Practice Guideline: Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Adult Trauma and Critical Care

Objective: Whether there are differences in efficacy among second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia is a matter of heated debate. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded studies comparing second-generation antipsychotics head-to-head. Method: Searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s register (May 2007) and MEDLINE (September 2007) were conducted for randomized, blinded studies comparing two or more of nine second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. All data were extracted by at least three reviewers independently. The primary outcome measure was change in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; secondary outcome measures were positive and negative symptom subscores and rate of dropout due to inefficacy. The results were combined in a meta-analysis. Various sensitivity analyses and metaregressions were used to examine bias. Results: The analysis included 78 studies with 167 relevant arms and 13,558 part...

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08030368

A Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Comparisons of Second-Generation Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Schizophrenia

The evidence suggested that SMBG is of limited clinical effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in people with T2DM on oral agents, or diet alone, and is therefore unlikely to be cost-effective. SMBG may lead to improved glycaemic control only in the context of appropriate education - both for patients and health-care professionals - on how to respond to the data, in terms of lifestyle and treatment adjustment. Also, SMBG may be more effective if patients are able to self-adjust drug treatment. Further research is required on the type of education and feedback that are most helpful, characteristics of patients benefiting most from SMBG, optimal timing and frequency of SMBG, and the circumstances under which SMBG causes anxiety and/or depression.

/pdf/self-monitoring-of-blood-glucose-in-type-2-diabetes-45kw710uqp.pdf

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review.

Objectives: To determine the clinical and costeffectiveness of different classes of antipsychotic drug treatment in people with schizophrenia responding inadequately to, or having unacceptable side-effects from, their current medication.
Design: Two pragmatic, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were undertaken. The first RCT (band 1) compared the class of older, inexpensive conventional drugs with the class of new atypical drugs in people with schizophrenic disorders, whose current antipsychotic drug treatment was being changed either because of inadequate clinical response or owing to side-effects. The second RCT (band 2) compared the new (non-clozapine) atypical drugs with clozapine in people whose medication was being changed because of poor clinical response to two or more antipsychotic drugs. Both RCTs were four-centre trials with concealed randomisation and three follow-up assessments over 1 year, blind to treatment.
Setting: Adult mental health settings in England.
Participants: In total, 227 participants aged 18?65 years (40% of the planned sample) were randomised to band 1 and 136 (98% of the planned sample) to band 2.
Interventions: Participants were randomised to a class of drug. The managing clinician selected the individual drug within that class, except for the clozapine arm in band 2. The new atypical drugs included risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine and amisulpride. The conventional drugs included older drugs, including depot preparations. As in routine practice, clinicians and participants were aware of the identity of the prescribed drug, but clinicians were asked to keep their participating patient on the randomised medication for at least the first 12 weeks. If the medication needed to be changed, the clinician was asked to prescribe another drug within the same class, if possible.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Quality of Life Scale (QLS). Secondary clinical outcomes included symptoms [Positive and Negative
Syndrome Scale (PANSS)], side-effects and participant satisfaction. Economic outcomes were costs of health and social care and a utility measure.
Results: Recruitment to band 1 was less than anticipated (40%) and diminished over the trial. This appeared largely due to loss of perceived clinical equipoise (clinicians progressively becoming more convinced of the superiority of new atypicals). Good follow-up rates and a higher than expected correlation between QLS score at baseline and at follow-up meant that the sample as recruited had 75% power to detect a difference in QLS score of 5 points between the two treatment arms at 52 weeks. The recruitment to band 2 was approximately as planned. Follow-up assessments were completed at week 52 in 81% of band 1 and 87% of band 2 participants. Band 1 data showed that, on the QLS and symptom measures, those participants in the conventional arm tended towards greater improvements. This suggests that the failure to find the predicted advantage for new atypicals was not due to inadequate recruitment and statistical
power in this sample. Participants reported no clear preference for either class of drug. There were no statistically significant differential outcomes for participants entering band 1 for reasons of treatment intolerance to those entering because of broadly defined treatment resistance. Net costs over the year varied widely, with a mean of �18,850 in the conventional drug group and �20,123 in the new atypical group, not a statistically significant difference. Of these costs, 2.1% and 3.8% were due to antipsychotic drug costs in the conventional and atypical group, respectively. There was a trend towards participants in the conventional drug group scoring more highly on the utility measure at 1 year. The results for band 2 showed an advantage for commencing clozapine in quality of life (QLS) at trend
level (p = 0.08) and in symptoms (PANSS), which was statistically significant (p = 0.01), at 1 year. Clozapine showed approximately a 5-point advantage on PANSS
total score and a trend towards having fewer total extrapyramidal side-effects. Participants reported at 12 weeks that their mental health was significantly better with clozapine than with new atypicals (p < 0.05). Net costs of care varied widely, but were higher than in band 1, with a mean of �33,800 in the clozapine group and �28,400 in the new atypical group. Of these costs, 4.0% and 3.3%, respectively,
were due to antipsychotic drug costs. The increased costs in the clozapine group appeared to reflect the licensing requirement for inpatient admission for commencing the drug. There was a trend towards higher mean participant utility scores in the clozapine group.
Conclusions: For band 1, there is no disadvantage in terms of quality of life and symptoms, or associated costs of care, over 1 year in commencing conventional
antipsychotic drugs rather than new atypical drugs. Conventional drugs were associated with nonsignificantly better outcomes and lower costs. Drug costs represented a small proportion of the overall costs of care (<5%). For band 2, there is a statistically significant advantage in terms of symptoms but not quality of life over 1 year in commencing clozapine rather than new atypical drugs, but with increased associated costs of care. The results suggest that conventional antipsychotic drugs, which are substantially cheaper, still have a place in the treatment of patients unresponsive to, or intolerant of, current medication. Further analyses of this data set are planned and further research is recommended into
areas such as current antipsychotic treatment guidance, valid measures of utility in serious mental illness, lowdose ?conventional? treatment in first episode
schizophrenia, QLS validity and determinants of QLS score in schizophrenia, and into the possible financial and other mechanisms of rewarding clinician
participation in trials.

Randomised controlled trials of conventional antipsychotic versus new atypical drugs, and new atypical drugs versus clozapine, in people with schizophrenia responding poorly to, or intolerant of, current drug treatment.

Hannah Lloyd

Papers

Randomised controlled trials of conventional antipsychotic versus new atypical drugs, and new atypical drugs versus clozapine, in people with schizophrenia responding poorly to, or intolerant of, current drug treatment.