Amisulpride and olanzapine combination treatment versus each monotherapy in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia in Germany (COMBINE): a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining antipsychotics is common in schizophrenia treatment, despite evidence-based guidelines generally not recommending such practice. Otherwise, evidence remains inconclusive, especially regarding specific combinations. The trial aimed to test whether a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine is more effective than either intervention as a monotherapy. METHODS: A multicentre, 16-week, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at 16 psychiatric in-patient centres throughout Germany. Inclusion criteria were adults aged 18-65 years with non-first episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of at least 70 and at least two items of the positive symptoms subscale rated at least 4. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either amisulpride plus olanzapine, amisulpride plus placebo, or olanzapine plus placebo (1:1:1), and block randomisation was stratified by study site. To keep patients and investigators masked throughout the duration of the trial, amisulpride, olanzapine, and placebo were administered as identical capsules. Flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (amisulpride plus placebo, 200-800 mg per day) or olanzapine (olanzapine plus placebo, 5-20 mg per day) was compared with a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine. The primary outcome was symptom reduction measured by the PANSS total score after 8 weeks, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients randomly assigned to an intervention and receiving at least one study drug dose). As determined a priori, group differences were examined by t tests (Bonferroni-Holm-adjustment) followed by pre-planned Bayesian analyses as well as imputation methods based on mixed models to account for missing values and post-hoc ANCOVA adjusting for PANSS baseline scores. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01609153; the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00003603; and the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT-No. 2011-002463-20. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2012, and Dec 15, 2018, 13 692 patients were assessed for eligibility. 13 364 patients were excluded (including for not meeting inclusion criteria, declining to participate, or inappropriate reasons for changing pharmacological treatment), and 328 were then randomly assigned to an intervention group. 112 patients were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus placebo, and 107 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine plus placebo. 321 patients were analysed for the primary outcome in the modified intention-to-treat population after exclusion of screening failures and patients who did not receive the intervention (110 for amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 for amisulpride plus placebo, and 102 for olanzapine plus placebo). Among the 321 patients who were randomly assigned to intervention groups and analysed for the primary outcome, 229 (71%) were male, 92 (29%) were female; the mean age was 40·2 years (SD 11·7); and 296 (92%) were White and 25 (8%) were classified as other ethnicity. PANSS total score improved significantly more at 8 weeks in the amisulpride plus olanzapine group (-29·6 [SD 14·5]) than in the olanzapine plus placebo group (-24·1 [13·4], p=0·049, Cohen's d=0·396). A significant difference was not observed in reduction of PANSS total score between the amisulpride and olanzapine group compared with the amisulpride and placebo group (-25·2 [SD 15·9], p=0·095, Cohen's d=0·29). After 8 weeks and 16 weeks, sexual dysfunction, weight, and waist circumference increase were significantly higher for patients receiving amisulpride plus olanzapine than for those receiving amisulpride plus placebo, with no differences in serious adverse events. Two patients died during study participation; one randomly assigned to the amisulpride plus olanzapine group, and one assigned to the olanzapine plus placebo group (both assessed with no relation to treatment). INTERPRETATION: The advantages of amisulpride plus olanzapine have to be weighed against a higher propensity for side-effects. The use of this specific combination therapy could be an alternative to monotherapy in certain clinical situations, but side-effects should be considered. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

[Antipsychotic Polypharmacy in the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia in Nine Psychiatric Hospitals of the Landschaftsverband Rheinland, Germany]. / Antipsychotische Polypharmazie in der Behandlung von Patientinnen und Patienten mit Schizophrenie am Beispiel von neun psychiatrischen Fachkliniken des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotics are the cornerstone in the treatment of schizophrenia and are primarily recommended as monotherapy by evidence-based guidelines. Nevertheless, antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) is prevalent in routine practice and APP is also used as a quality indicator since 2016 in quality management programs. OBJECTIVE: Based on routine data of nine psychiatric hospitals of the Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR)/Germany the prevalence of APP was determined and correlated with factors of routine healthcare in order to monitor the adoption of APP and to discuss its feasibility as a quality indicator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All cases with schizophrenia (ICD-10 F20.x; ≥ 18 years) discharged between June 1st, 2016, and June 1st, 2017, (in-patient and day clinic) were extracted from an established research database shared by all nine hospitals and analyzed regarding APP prevalence at the time of discharge. RESULTS: Based on 6,788 cases, the prevalence of APP was 55.5 % with an average of 2.4 antipsychotics (SD = 0.6) administered simultaneously. In multivariate analyses, significant predictors for APP were: gender (male > female), the number of days in hospital (long > short), involuntary treatment (no > yes) and the location of the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high proportion of polypharmacy in inpatient schizophrenia patients and significant differences between hospitals. The use of the results as a quality indicator (criteria ≥ 2 antipsychotics) remains dependent on the background of the individual treatment courses, which cannot be adequately represented by the existing routine data. The LVR has been using the quality indicator of ≥ 3 antipsychotics since 2018, which is discussed as a more appropriate approach for future evaluations.

A randomized double-blind controlled trial to assess the benefits of amisulpride and olanzapine combination treatment versus each monotherapy in acutely ill schizophrenia patients (COMBINE): methods and design.

This report presents the rationale and design of a multi-center clinical trial that examines the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic combination treatment in acutely ill schizophrenia patients compared to antipsychotic monotherapy. Antipsychotic combination treatment is common in clinical practice worldwide, despite clinical guidelines generally not recommending such practice due to lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Olanzapine has a related chemical structure and comparable receptor-binding profile as clozapine, which demonstrated superior efficacy in combination studies, but has a more unfavorable side-effect profile compared to olanzapine. Amisulpride and olanzapine have shown promising therapeutic efficacy in meta-analyses in monotherapy for people with schizophrenia. Combining amisulpride and olanzapine, complementary receptor-binding properties may enhance efficacy and possibly reduce (or at least not augment) side effects due to the different receptor profiles and metabolization pathways. Accordingly, we hypothesize that patients treated with amisulpride plus olanzapine show greater improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 8 weeks versus either monotherapy. A randomized, double-blind controlled trial is performed at 16 German centers comparing flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (400-800 mg/day), and olanzapine (10-20 mg/day) and amisulpride-olanzapine co-treatment. Sample size was calculated to be n = 101 per treatment arm, assuming an effect size of 0.500 and a two-sided alpha = 0.025 and beta = 0.90. Recruitment for this trial started in June 2012. Until December 2018, 328 patients have been randomized. Trial conduct has been extended to reach the projected sample size. Publication of the study results is expected in 2019 informing an evidence-based recommendation regarding specific antipsychotic combination treatment.

Hormone replacement therapy with L-thyroxine promotes working memory and concentration in thyroidectomized female patients after differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

Objective: It is well established that long-term hypothyroidism is associated with cognitive deficits. Based on recent literature, we hypothesized that pharmacologically induced euthyroidism would lead to improved cognitive performance compared to a hypothyroid state. Methods: We analyzed data from 14 nondepressed thyroidectomized female patients after differentiated thyroid carcinoma during hypothyroidism (due to a four-week withdrawal of thyroid hormone, T1) and euthyroidism brought about by substitution with L-thyroxine (T2). At both measurement points, patients completed a cognitive test battery as our dependent measure and Beck's Depression Inventory to control depressive states. Results: A Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed a significant improvement in the Rey­Osterrieth complex figure test (cognitive reproduction), Z = −3.183, p = 0.001, and the D2 concentration score, Z = −1.992, p = 0.046 in euthyroidism compared to hypothyroidism. Conclusions: Our results confirm that hormone replacement therapy with L-thyroxine promotes cognitive reproduction and concentration in thyroidectomized female patients after differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

Attitudes Toward Long-Term Medication Use-A Comparison Between Concerned Populations and a Sample From the German General Population: An Example of Real World Evidence.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to investigate the difference in attitudes toward psychiatric drugs, long-term medication, and depot formulations between psychiatric patients and patient-related groups and the German general public. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Different groups (n = 50 patients, n = 34 relatives of patients, n = 42 psychiatrists, n = 70 medical students, and n = 58 psychiatric nursing professionals) were surveyed using a questionnaire to investigate their attitude toward depot medication and compared with matched participants from the German general public. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Patients did not differ from their matched controls regarding their attitude toward potential reasons to reject a depot, whereas psychiatrists (P = 0.002) and nursing staff (P = 0.003) were more concerned about patients fearing an injection than their matched controls. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses were significantly more concerned about giving an (intragluteal) injection because of concerns about patients' fears of this administration method than their matched controls. In contrast, patients' concerns about receiving an injection did not differ from their matched controls. Furthermore, we found that psychiatrists tended to believe that giving an injection might be time-consuming than giving oral medication. These results may emphasize the fact that the low rate of depot medication use is derived from subjective reservations of medical staff rather than actual negative attitudes or fears of patients.

Attitudes Concerning Antipsychotic Depot Medication in the German General Population: A Representative Telephone Survey.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of schizophrenia with depot medication has advantages compared with oral medication, and among these include an improved compliance. Despite such advantages, prescription rates in many European countries are lower than 20%. The aim of this survey was to study the attitudes toward depot medication among the German general population. To the best of our knowledge, only selective samples have been investigated up until now. METHODS: A representative sample of 754 people were interviewed via telephone by a professional market research and polling organization. The questionnaire queried demographic characteristics, experience with medication, and the treatment of mental disorders. Subjects' attitudes toward medication in general, long-term medication, and depot medication were surveyed. RESULTS: Most (66.7%) of the subjects stated that they would be willing to receive depot medication. Subjects who experienced the treatment of mental disorders were more likely to be willing to receive depot medication. Among the reasons for not using depot medication, "fear of injection" (66.3%) and "more self-control when taking medication as tablets" (48.9%) were stated as the most frequent reasons. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a good acceptance of antipsychotic depot medication among the German general population in terms of willingness to receive such treatment. We argue that the clinical practitioners' assumptions that depot formulations would be refused by many patients are unsubstantiated.

A cross-continental analysis of weight gain, psychiatric diagnoses and medication use during inpatient psychiatric treatment. The international study on physical illness in mentally ill.

Weight gain among psychiatric inpatients is a widespread phenomenon. This change in body mass index (BMI) can be caused by several factors. Based on recent research, we assume the following factors are related to weight gain during psychiatric inpatient treatment: psychiatric medication, psychiatric diagnosis, sex, age, weight on admission and geographic region of treatment. 876 of originally recruited 2328 patients met the criteria for our analysis. Patients were recruited and examined in mental health care centres in Nigeria (N = 265), Japan (N = 145) and Western-Europe (Denmark, Germany and Switzerland; N = 466). There was a significant effect of psychiatric medication, psychiatric diagnoses and geographic region, but not age and sex, on BMI changes. Geographic region had a significant effect on BMI change, with Nigerian patients gaining significantly more weight than Japanese and Western European patients. Moreover, geographic region influenced the type of psychiatric medication prescribed and the psychiatric diagnoses. The diagnoses and psychiatric medication prescribed had a significant effect on BMI change. In conclusion, we consider weight gain as a multifactorial phenomenon that is influenced by several factors. One can discuss a number of explanations for our findings, such as different clinical practices in the geographical regions (prescribing or admission strategies and access-to-care aspects), as well as socio-economic and cultural differences.

Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in female and male patients at risk of psychosis.

Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) is one of the most common factors underlying the high rate of mortality observed in patients with schizophrenia. Recent research on this topic revealed that many of the patients studied were, in fact, in a medicated state. As such, it is unclear whether MetS is causally associated with the disorder itself or the medication used to treat it. In this study, patients with a clinically high risk of expressing first episode psychosis (CHR) were examined regarding the prevalence of MetS. N=144 unmedicated and antipsychotic-naïve CHR patients, aged between 18 and 42years and suffering from unmanifested prodromal symptoms, were compared with a cohort of N=3995 individuals from the "German Metabolic and Cardiovascular Risk Study" (GEMCAS). A slightly higher prevalence of individual MetS criteria was observed in the CHR group compared to the GEMCAS sample; specifically, the following were noted: a higher blood pressure (35.0% vs. 28.0%), increased waist circumference (17.6% vs. 15.1%), and increased fasting blood glucose (9.4% vs. 4.0%) in CHR patients. Additionally, the rate of reduced HDL cholesterol concentrations was lower in the control group (20.2% vs. 13.3%).