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

BACKGROUND: As 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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 REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.

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.

BACKGROUND: Data 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/DESIGN: We 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. DISCUSSION: The 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 REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.

Making the use of psychotropic drugs more rational through the development of GRADE recommendations in specialist mental healthcare.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology has often been used by international or national health authorities, or scientific societies, for developing evidence-based treatment recommendations. However, the GRADE approach has never been used by practicing physicians who aim at harmonizing their prescribing behaviours paying due attention to the best available evidence. This paper describes the experience of a working group of psychiatrists who adopted the GRADE approach to develop clinical recommendations on the use of psychotropic drugs in specialist mental healthcare. CASE DESCRIPTION: The project was conducted in the Department of Mental Health of Verona, Italy, a city located in the north of Italy. At the beginning of 2012, psychiatrists with a specific interest in the rational use of psychotropic drugs were identified and appointed as members of a Guideline Development Group (GDG). The first task of the GDG was the identification of controversial areas in the use of psychotropic drugs, the definition of scoping questions, and the identification of outcomes of interest. The GDG was supported by a scientific secretariat, who searched the evidence, identified one or more systematic reviews matching the scoping questions, and drafted GRADE tables. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: On the basis of efficacy, acceptability, tolerability and safety data, considering the risk of bias and confidence in estimates, and taking also into consideration preferences, values and practical aspects in favour and against the intervention under scrutiny, a draft recommendation with its strength was formulated and agreed by GDG members. Recommendations were submitted for consideration to all specialists of the Department, discussed in two plenary sessions open to the whole staff, and finally approved at the end of 2012. CONCLUSION: The present project of guideline development raised several challenging and innovating aspects, including a "bottom-up" approach, as it was motivated by reasons that found agreement among specialists, those who developed the recommendations were those who were supposed to follow them, and values, preferences and feasibility issues were considered paying due attention to local context variables.

Rationale and design of an independent randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of aripiprazole or haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: One third to two thirds of people with schizophrenia have persistent psychotic symptoms despite clozapine treatment. Under real-world circumstances, the need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine has been cited as the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination treatment strategies. In a clinical area where the pressing need of providing therapeutic answers has progressively increased the occurrence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, despite the lack of robust evidence of its efficacy, we sought to implement a pre-planned protocol where two alternative therapeutic answers are systematically provided and evaluated within the context of a pragmatic, multicentre, independent randomised study. METHODS/DESIGN: The principal clinical question to be answered by the present project is the relative efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole compared with combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with an incomplete response to treatment with clozapine over an appropriate period of time. This project is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial that follow patients over a period of 12 months. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months is the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: The implementation of the protocol presented here shows that it is possible to create a network of community psychiatric services that accept the idea of using their everyday clinical practice to produce randomised knowledge. The employed pragmatic attitude allowed to randomly allocate more than 100 individuals, which means that this study is the largest antipsychotic combination trial conducted so far in Western countries. We expect that the current project, by generating evidence on whether it is clinically useful to combine clozapine with aripiprazole rather than with haloperidol, provides physicians with a solid evidence base to be directly applied in the routine care of patients with schizophrenia.

Decision models in the evaluation of psychotropic drugs : useful tool or useless toy?

A current contribution in the European Journal of Health Economics employs a decision model to compare health care costs of olanzapine and risperidone treatment for schizophrenia. The model suggests that a treatment strategy of first-line olanzapine is cost-saving over a 1-year period, with additional clinical benefits in the form of avoided relapses in the long-term. From a clinical perspective this finding is indubitably relevant, but can physicians and policy makers believe it? The study is presented in a balanced way, assumptions are based on data extracted from clinical trials published in major psychiatric journals, and the theoretical underpinnings of the model are reasonable. Despite these positive aspects, we believe that the methodology used in this study-the decision model approach-is an unsuitable and potentially misleading tool for evaluating psychotropic drugs. In this commentary, taking the olanzapine vs. risperidone model as an example, arguments are provided to support this statement.

Head-to-head comparison of the costs of atypical antipsychotics: a systematic review.

In many countries, prescribing guidelines recommend the use of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in the first-line treatment of individuals with newly diagnosed schizophrenia. This recommendation has increased the utilisation of these agents and, consequently, produced a progressive increase in the proportion of total direct costs in schizophrenia accounted for by drug therapy. In this still-evolving context of care, it becomes relevant to critically investigate the literature base on the relative cost effectiveness of each SGA in comparison with the others, the purpose being to ascertain whether the data reveal any one agent to be truly more cost effective than the others.A systematic search of economic evaluations comparing two or more SGAs yielded 19 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were retrospective database or chart review analyses, six were observational prospective or mirror-image studies, and two were randomised clinical trials. Olanzapine and risperidone were compared in 16 studies, two studies compared clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone, and one compared clozapine and risperidone. While experimental studies indicated an absence of differences among the SGAs in terms of total expenditure, database analyses found contrasting evidence. These latter studies, although susceptible to bias and confounding, should theoretically provide an added dimension, in that they are based on observations from 'real world' practice. However, there were too many potential threats to the validity of these analyses to draw a firm conclusion that any one agent is truly more cost effective than the others. In this uncertain situation, clinicians and policy makers should be aware that indirect evidence from independent randomised controlled trials comparing individual SGAs with haloperidol suggested similar cost effectiveness. As healthcare providers in different settings are ultimately the ones who pay for new innovations, it seems appropriate that they commission research into the cost effectiveness of SGAs.