Predictive factors and clinical biomarkers for treatment in patients with chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis with a central sensitisation component.

AIMS: The aim of this non-systematic review was to provide a practical guide for clinicians on the evidence for central sensitisation in chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain and how this pain mechanism can be addressed in terms of clinical diagnosis, investigation and treatment. METHODS: The authors undertook a non-systematic review of the literature including a MEDLINE search (search terms included central sensitisation, osteoarthritis, osteoarthrosis) for relevant and current clinical studies, systematic reviews and narrative reviews. Case reports, letters to the editor and similar literature sources were excluded. Information was organised to allow a pragmatic approach to the discussion of the evidence and generation of practical recommendations. RESULTS: There is good evidence for a role of central sensitisation in chronic OA pain in a subgroup of patients. Clinically, a central sensitisation component in chronic OA pain can be suspected based on characteristic pain features and non-pain features seen in other conditions involving central sensitisation. However, there are currently no diagnostic inventories for central sensitisation specific to OA. Biomarkers may be helpful for confirming the presence of central sensitisation, especially when there is diagnostic uncertainty. Several non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments may be effective in OA patients with central sensitisation features. Multimodal therapy may be required to achieve control of symptoms. DISCUSSION: Clinicians should be aware of central sensitisation in patients with chronic OA pain, especially in patients presenting with severe pain with unusual features.

Predictors of pharmacological treatment outcomes with atomoxetine or methylphenidate in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder from China, Egypt, Lebanon, Russian Federation, Taiwan, and United Arab Emirates.

BACKGROUND: The reduced availability of data from non-Western countries limits our ability to understand attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment outcomes, specifically, adherence and persistence of ADHD in children and adolescents. This analysis assessed predictors of treatment outcomes in a non-Western cohort of patients with ADHD treated with atomoxetine or methylphenidate. METHODS: Data from a 12-month, prospective, observational study in outpatients aged 6-17 years treated with atomoxetine (N = 234) or methylphenidate (N = 221) were analysed post hoc to determine potential predictors of treatment outcomes. Participating countries included the Russian Federation, China, Taiwan, Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Lebanon. Factors associated with remission were analysed with stepwise multiple logistic regression and classification and regression trees (CART). Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment assessed differences in atomoxetine persistence among initial-dose cohorts. RESULTS: In patients treated with atomoxetine who had available dosing information (N = 134), Cox proportional hazards revealed lower (< 0.5 mg/kg) initial dose was significantly associated with shorter medication persistence (p < 0.01). multiple logistic regression analysis revealed greater rates of remission for atomoxetine-treated patients were associated with age (older), country (United Arab Emirates) and gender (female) (all p < 0.05). CART analysis confirmed older age and lack of specific phobias were associated with greater remission rates. For methylphenidate, greater baseline weight (highly correlated with the age factor found for atomoxetine) and prior atomoxetine use were associated with greater remission rates. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may help clinicians assess factors upon initiation of ADHD treatment to improve course prediction, proper dosing and treatment adherence and persistence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Observational study, therefore no registration.

Predicting the course and outcome of bipolar disorder: a review.

Despite of advances in pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, bipolar disorder often entails multiple relapses and impaired psychological functioning. The extent to which modern treatments have influenced the natural course of a mental disorder is uncertain. Prediction of the course and outcome of bipolar disorders continues to be challenging, despite the multiple research efforts worldwide. Due to a lack of laboratory diagnostic tests and biomarkers, psychiatric interview and examination provide the basis for outcome prediction. While considered to have more favorable prognosis than schizophrenia, it is not uncommon for bipolar disorder to include persisting alterations of psychosocial functioning. Although long-term symptomatic remission does not guarantee functional recovery, it may have a favorable impact on long-term overall prognosis. The high degree of treatment resistance in patients with bipolar disorder highlights the need to develop better identification of outcome predictors, prognosis and treatment intervention, designed to reverse or prevent this illness burden. This review summarizes the main factors involved in predicting the course and outcome of bipolar disorder.

Factors associated with achieving minimally symptomatic status by patients with schizophrenia: results from the 3-year intercontinental schizophrenia outpatients health outcomes study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe factors associated with achieving a minimally symptomatic status outcome in outpatients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Data were analysed from a 3-year, prospective observational study that examined outcomes in 7658 patients with schizophrenia. Minimally symptomatic status was defined as a postbaseline score of 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impressions Severity Scale-Schizophrenia version (CGI-SCH). RESULTS: Baseline CGI-SCH score had the strongest association with minimally symptomatic status followed by age, geographical region and hospitalisation status. The probability of becoming minimally symptomatic was consistently higher in the olanzapine and risperidone monotherapy groups compared with the clozapine, quetiapine or haloperidol groups [corrected]. The olanzapine group achieved the minimally symptomatic status in a shorter period of time than the other treatment groups (p < or = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of patients achieving a minimally symptomatic status was greater in younger patients with lower baseline clinical severity and in patients whose treatment included olanzapine.

A prospective observational study of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in Asia: baseline characteristics of symptom severity and treatment options in a paediatric population.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the burden and management of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in East Asia, this subanalysis of the baseline characteristics of a large prospective, observational, nonrandomized study investigating the relationships between symptom severity, treatments, co-morbidities, and health outcomes provides information about the diagnosis of, and treatment patterns for, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in this region. METHODS: Outpatients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms participated in this 12-month study performed in China, Korea, and Taiwan. Patients were grouped according to whether they received conventional treatment or no or other treatment. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptom severity and co-morbidities were assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions-Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-Severity scale and Child Symptom Inventory-4: Parent Checklist (categories B to J) / Adolescent Symptom Inventory-4: Parent Checklist (categories L and O), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients aged 6 to 18 years were enrolled. Investigators were psychiatrists (69%) and paediatricians (31%), who used the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (86%), the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (6%), and other attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnostic criteria (8%) for diagnosis. Pharmacotherapy was the most commonly prescribed treatment (n = 251; 50%), and treated patients were older (9.1 vs. 8.2 years; p < 0.001) and more severely ill (Clinical Global Impressions-Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder- Severity scale, 4.6 vs. 4.2; p < 0.001) than those who were not treated. Anxiety and oppositional co-morbidities were commonly reported. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide an insight into the demographics, diagnosis, and treatment of paediatric patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in East Asia, and provide a baseline for assessing changes in treatment practices in this population.

Worldwide-Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (W-SOHO): baseline characteristics of pan-regional observational data from more than 17,000 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the Worldwide-Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (W-SOHO) patient population at study entry, focusing on illness burden and prescribing practices across regions. METHODS: The SOHO study was a 3-year, prospective, observational study designed to assess costs and outcomes associated with antipsychotic use in outpatients initiating or changing antipsychotic (with an emphasis on olanzapine compared with other antipsychotics). SOHO was conducted in 10 European countries and 27 other countries as Intercontinental SOHO (IC-SOHO). Data from all countries have been pooled to produce the W-SOHO dataset. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia (CGI-SCH) severity scores, psychotropic medication use, adverse events, social interaction, housing and employment status, self-perceived health state (EuroQoL EQ-5D scale and Visual Analogue Scale, EQ-VAS), and reasons for initiation/change of antipsychotic. RESULTS: The W-SOHO database comprises 17,384 patients from six regions; East Asia (n = 1223), Central and Eastern Europe (n = 2175), Northern Europe (n = 4291), Southern Europe (n = 5788), Latin America (n = 2566), North Africa and the Middle East (n = 1341). Overall, patients were 38 +/- 13 years old (mean +/- SD), moderately ill (mean CGI-SCH overall score of 4.4 +/- 1.0) with a median duration of illness of 7 years (interquartile range 1-16 years); 43% were female, 10% were receiving antipsychotic medication for the first time. Adverse events were prevalent across all regions; on average, 50% (range 41-59%) of patients taking antipsychotics exhibited extrapyramidal symptoms at baseline, and 62% (34-67%) of patients reported sexual dysfunction in the previous month. On average, only 19% (16-23%) of patients were in paid employment and as many as 69% were living in dependent housing. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inherent diversity in these patients and the health care systems supporting them, there are striking cross-regional similarities in baseline characteristics for most measures. Not all countries are represented; regional comparisons may not be valid outside of the countries studied.

Intramuscular olanzapine vs. intramuscular short-acting antipsychotics: safety, tolerability and the switch to oral antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia or acute mania.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the safety, tolerability and switch to oral medication in patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia who received intramuscular (IM) olanzapine or other IM antipsychotics for the treatment of acute agitation. METHODS: Patients (N = 2011) from 15 countries participated in this prospective, observational, non-interventional study. Inpatients requiring treatment with at least one IM injection of a short-acting antipsychotic were assessed at baseline and within 7 days after the first IM injection. Treatment groups comprised: (i) patients prescribed IM olanzapine at baseline; and (ii) patients prescribed any other IM antipsychotic medication at baseline. Outcome measures included: treatment-emergent adverse events, concomitant psychotropic medication and the time taken to switch to oral medication. RESULTS: Fewer patients in the IM olanzapine group experienced an adverse event than patients in the other IM antipsychotic group (34.4% vs. 46.2%, p < 0.001). The most frequently reported adverse events in both groups were: sedation, Parkinsonism, disturbance in attention, akathisia, dystonia and orthostatic hypotension. Fewer patients in the IM olanzapine group used anticholinergics (13.9% vs. 42.5%, p < 0.001) or anxiolytics/hypnotics (47.6% vs. 51.6%, p = 0.023). Patients in the IM olanzapine group switched to oral medication earlier than patients in the other IM antipsychotic group (median time = 46.5 vs. 48.0 h, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that IM olanzapine may have a favourable impact on individual patients. However, the high rate of oral concomitant medication used throughout the study limits these findings from being associated with IM olanzapine alone.

Can increased food intake improve psychosis? A brief review and hypothesis.

Weight gain, diabetes, and changes in serum lipid profiles have been reported during treatment with typical and atypical antipsychotics. An association between diabetes and psychotic disorders was described long before the introduction of pharmacological agents for the treatment of schizophrenia. Several theories have been proposed to explain the baseline weight increase and metabolic disturbances in schizophrenia. Some studies suggest that increased food intake may improve psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia but there have been conflicting results. Available clinical and basic research findings are discussed to evaluate the hypothesis that increased food intake may decrease sensitivity to dopamine signaling in the striatum. More research is needed to evaluate this potential link. However, basic animal research and evolutionary approaches can provide insights into metabolic disturbances associated with schizophrenia.