Effect of smoking habits and concomitant valproic acid use on relapse in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia receiving clozapine: A 1-year retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: No study has investigated the impact of smoking habits and concomitant valproic acid (VPA) use on clinical outcomes in maintenance treatment with clozapine. Thus, we aimed to examine the effect of smoking habits and concomitant VPA use on relapse during the first year after discharge in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) receiving clozapine. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with TRS who were initiated on clozapine during hospitalization and discharged between April 2012 and January 2021 in two tertiary psychiatric hospitals in Japan. Relapse was defined as rehospitalization due to psychiatric exacerbation during the first year after discharge. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to analyze the effect of smoking habits and concomitant VPA use on relapse. Subgroup analyses were also conducted to examine potential interactions between smoking habits and concomitant VPA use. RESULTS: Among the included 192 patients, 69 (35.9%) met the criteria of relapse. While smoking habits (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-4.01; p < 0.01) independently increased the risk of relapse, a significant interaction for relapse risk was found between smoking habits and concomitant VPA use (p-interaction = 0.015). Concomitant VPA use may be an effective modifier of the increased relapse risk associated with smoking habits. Among patients who smoked, those using VPA concomitantly exhibited a higher risk of relapse (aHR, 5.32; 95% CI, 1.68-16.9; p < 0.01) than those not using VPA (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.73-2.70; p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the combination of smoking habits and concomitant VPA use may increase the risk of relapse after discharge. Future studies are required to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these findings, such as a decrease in clozapine blood levels.

Comparison between olanzapine and aripiprazole treatment for 104 weeks after hospital discharge in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a multicenter retrospective cohort study in a real-world setting.

RATIONALE: The long-term effectiveness of olanzapine and aripiprazole in real clinical conditions at flexible doses in patients after hospital discharge has not been evaluated yet. OBJECTIVES: This study was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients with schizophrenia (n = 398) were prescribed olanzapine (n = 303) or aripiprazole (n = 95) at hospital discharge. The continuation of olanzapine or aripiprazole at 26, 52, or 104 weeks after the hospital discharge were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model and adjusted for possible confounders. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed that the continuation of olanzapine at 26 (P = 0.001) and 52 weeks (P = 0.018) was significantly higher than that of aripiprazole but not at 104 weeks. Olanzapine was better than aripiprazole in efficacy at 26 (hazard ratio: 0.321, 95% confidence interval: 0.159-0.645, P = 0.001), 52 (hazard ratio: 0.405, 95% confidence interval: 0.209-0.786, P = 0.008), and 104 weeks (hazard ratio: 0.438, 95% confidence interval: 0.246-0.780, P = 0.005). Aripiprazole was better than olanzapine in tolerability at 104 weeks (hazard ratio: 4.574, 95% confidence interval: 1.415-14.787, P = 0.011). Rates after two years continuation of olanzapine and aripiprazole were not significantly different in patients with less than five years' duration of illness, but olanzapine was more commonly maintained for more than two years in those patients who had been ill for over five years' due to its greater efficacy. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine treatment showed better continuation rates at 26 and 52 after hospital discharge than aripiprazole, whereas maintenance with the two antipsychotics did not differ significantly at 104 weeks, due reduced tolerability of long-term olanzapine treatment.

Perceptions toward issues in cancer care for people with mental illness among psychiatric care providers: A questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce cancer care disparities in people with mental illness, this study aimed to quantify psychiatric care providers' perceptions regarding issues that are insufficiently addressed or difficult to address. METHODS: Psychiatric care providers at 23 psychiatric hospitals in Japan were surveyed using mail questionnaires. Respondents were asked to rate 15 items with four categories related to insufficiencies/difficulties in cancer care for patients with mental illness on a five-point Likert scale. We analyzed the proportion of respondents who answered "insufficient/difficult" for each item. RESULTS: A total of 255 (76.3%) psychiatric care providers responded. For questions related to the skills and attitudes of psychiatric professionals, 48.3%-58.4% of respondents perceived that efforts for supporting cancer screening and treatment were insufficient. For the questions related to collaborations between cancer and psychiatric care providers, 75.3% of respondents perceived that inpatient visits between psychiatric and cancer hospitals were insufficient. For the questions related to in-psychiatric-hospital medical systems, 50.2%-87.2% of respondents perceived that support for screening, diagnosis/treatment, and palliative care for psychiatric inpatients were insufficient/difficult. 41.9%-57.4% of respondents perceived that social services in the community were insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: This study clarified the level of insufficiency/difficulty perceived by psychiatric care providers regarding issues related to cancer care for people with mental illness. Psychiatric care providers are required to have knowledge and skills in cancer screening and treatment. To improve access to cancer prevention, treatment, and palliative care, it may be helpful to establish systems to promote coordination between cancer hospitals and psychiatric hospitals.

Issues of cancer care in people with mental disorders as perceived by cancer care providers: A quantitative questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce cancer care disparities, this study aimed to clarify the difficulties in cancer care for people with mental disorders as perceived by cancer care providers. METHODS: Cancer care providers at 17 designated cancer hospitals in Japan were surveyed using mail questionnaires. Respondents were asked to rate 29 items related to difficulties or insufficiencies in cancer care for patients with mental disorders on a five-point Likert scale. We analyzed the proportion of respondents who answered "difficult/insufficient" in each item. We also calculated the proportions of responders stratified according to the presence of psychiatric support systems within their hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 388 (58.4%) cancer care providers responded. Among the issues related to "difficulties in diagnosing and treating cancer," support for decision-making, assessment of treatment adherence, and assessment of physical symptoms were perceived as most difficult (73.5%-81.5% of respondents). Among the issues related to 'difficulties or insufficiencies in collaboration among multidisciplinary health care providers,' the issue of advance consultation and sharing information with the patient's primary psychiatric care provider was perceived as most difficult (52.2%). Among the issues related to "insufficiencies of in-hospital and community medical systems," education to provide reasonable accommodation was perceived as most insufficient (47.4%). The perceived difficulties of over half of the issues varied significantly between hospitals depending on the level of psychiatric support systems. CONCLUSIONS: This study clarified the difficulties of cancer care in patients with mental disorders as perceived by cancer care providers. Some issues may be resolved by psychiatric liaison teams.

Patients' acceptability and implementation outcomes of a case management approach to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening for people with schizophrenia: a qualitative secondary analysis of a mixed-method randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the efficacy of case management (CM) interventions to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening for patients with schizophrenia. This study aimed to clarify patients' acceptability of the intervention and the helpful components of the intervention. Simultaneously, the study aimed to determine the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the intervention from the perspective of psychiatric care providers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a secondary qualitative analysis of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of the CM approach to encourage participation in cancer screening for people with schizophrenia. The intervention comprised education and patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening. Interviews were conducted with patients who received the intervention and staff from two psychiatric hospitals in Japan who delivered the intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 172 patients with schizophrenia who participated in the trial, 153 were included. In addition, three out of six providers were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a structured interview, the case manager asked participants about patient acceptability and the helpful components of the intervention. Content analysis was conducted for the responses obtained, and the number of responses was tabulated by two researchers. For the interviews with the providers, opinions obtained from verbatim transcripts were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: Forty-three of the 56 patients perceived that the intervention was acceptable. For the intervention component, inperson counselling with an explanation of the screening process by psychiatric care providers was most frequently reported by the patients as helpful (48 of the 68 respondents). Psychiatric care providers evaluated the intervention as acceptable, appropriate and easy to understand and administer. However, providing the intervention to all patients simultaneously was considered difficult with the current human resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the CM intervention was perceived as acceptable by patients and acceptable and appropriate by psychiatric care providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000036017.

Cancer care for people with mental disorders: A qualitative survey among cancer care and psychiatric care professionals in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: It is widely assumed that there are multiple levels (from individual to policy level) of problems involving disparities in cancer care for people with mental disorders. However, few studies have comprehensively investigated issues as perceived by medical professionals. The purpose of the present study was to identify a wide range of issues in cancer care for people with mental disorders and offer corresponding solutions for both cancer care professionals and psychiatric care professionals. METHODS: We distributed open-ended questionnaires to 754 healthcare professionals in various medical facilities, including designated cancer hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, and other local healthcare/welfare facilities. Participants were asked to describe issues in cancer care for people with mental disorders. RESULTS: Of the 754 recruited professionals, 439 (58.2%) responded to the questionnaire. Sixty-one issues were extracted and categorized into 10 categories: patient factors; isolation and lack of support; obstacles to transport; socioeconomic factors; attitudes of psychiatric professionals; medical system of psychiatric hospitals; attitudes of cancer care professionals; medical system of designated cancer hospitals; regional cancer medical systems; and lack of coordination among multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. Forty-eight specific solutions were summarized into 12 goals. CONCLUSIONS: The present study widely identified issues causing disparities in cancer care for patients with mental disorders. We found that the issues extended from the patient level to the public-policy level. Our findings suggest the need for a multidisciplinary approach that includes both cancer and psychiatric care professionals to address the gap in cancer care for people with mental disorders.

Encouraging participation in colorectal cancer screening for people with schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy of a case management approach to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening among people with schizophrenia. METHODS: This was a randomized, parallel group trial. We recruited outpatients with schizophrenia aged 40 years or over from two psychiatric hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment as usual or case management intervention plus treatment as usual using a web-based system. Attending clinicians and participants were unmasked to the allocation. Case management included education and patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening using a fecal occult blood test. Treatment as usual included direct mail government recommendations. The primary endpoint was participation in colorectal cancer screening assessed using municipal records. We also assessed the secondary endpoint of participation in other cancer screenings (lung, gastric, breast, and cervical). RESULTS: Between 3 June and 9 September 2019, 172 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the case management plus treatment as usual group (n = 86) or treatment as usual group (n = 86). One participant was ineligible and another withdrew consent; both were excluded from analysis. A significantly higher proportion of participants received colorectal cancer screening in the case management plus treatment as usual group than in the treatment as usual group (40 [47.1%] of 85 participants vs. 10 [11.8%] of 85 participants, p < 0.0001). The proportion of lung cancer screening also increased. No serious adverse events associated with the study intervention occurred. CONCLUSION: The case management intervention to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening was effective for patients with schizophrenia.

Association between previous high-dose antipsychotic therapy and brexpiprazole discontinuation after the initiation of brexpiprazole in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

The objective of this study was to identify the factors associated with brexpiprazole discontinuation after initiating brexpiprazole in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. All patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were started on brexpiprazole in our institution between May 2018 and April 2019 were retrospectively screened. The continuation rate of brexpiprazole during a follow-up period of 16 weeks was examined. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of brexpiprazole discontinuation. During the follow-up period, 52 out of 120 patients (43.4%) discontinued brexpiprazole. Thirty-three subjects discontinued due to a lack of efficacy, eight more due to intolerability and a further 11 for other reasons. The continuation rate of brexpiprazole among patients who were previously on high-dose antipsychotics (chlorpromazine-equivalent doses > 800 mg) was significantly lower than that in those who were previously on low-dose antipsychotics (chlorpromazine-equivalent doses ≤ 800 mg). The Cox regression analysis showed that only having been subject to a high dose of their previous antipsychotics was independently associated with an increased risk of brexpiprazole discontinuation (P < 0.001). Patients who were previously on high-dose antipsychotics discontinued brexpiprazole mainly due to inefficacy. Previous high-dose antipsychotic therapy is an independent risk factor for brexpiprazole discontinuation in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

A randomised controlled trial of a case management approach to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening for people with schizophrenia in psychiatric outpatient clinics: study protocol for the J-SUPPORT 1901 (ACCESS) study.

INTRODUCTION: One of the reasons for the high mortality rate from cancer in people with schizophrenia is delay in diagnosis. Many studies have shown lower cancer screening rates in people with schizophrenia; however, there are no interventions for people with schizophrenia to increase cancer screening. Therefore, we developed a case management (CM) intervention to encourage participation in cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of CM to encourage participation in cancer screening for people with schizophrenia, with particular focus on colorectal cancer screening by faecal occult blood testing, compared with usual intervention (UI), namely, municipal public education. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an individually randomised, parallel group trial with blinded outcome assessments. The participants will be randomly allocated to either the CM plus UI group or UI alone group in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based program at a data management centre. The primary end point of the study is participation in colorectal cancer screening in the year of intervention, which will be assessed based on municipal records. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is performed in accordance with Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects published by Japan's Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology and the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare and the modified Act on the Protection of Personal Information as well as the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee at the Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Okayama University Hospital on 23 April 2019 (approval number: RIN1904-003). The findings of this trial will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000036017.

Incidence and predictors of acute akathisia in severely ill patients with first-episode schizophrenia treated with aripiprazole or risperidone: secondary analysis of an observational study.

RATIONALE: In the antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia with little medication history, especially in drug-naïve cases, predictors of side effects are important. However, predictors of antipsychotic-induced akathisia remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the incidence and predictors of acute akathisia in severely ill patients with first-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders (FES). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of our retrospective observational study. Data were obtained from 129 consecutive patients with FES involuntarily hospitalized in a tertiary psychiatric public hospital and treated with aripiprazole or risperidone. The primary outcome was the presence of acute akathisia during the first 1 month. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to examine significant predictors of the onset of akathisia. RESULTS: Acute akathisia was diagnosed in 54 patients (42%). Neither antipsychotics (aripiprazole or risperidone), duration of untreated psychosis, iron deficiency, sex, age nor baseline symptomatic severity was identified as an independent predictor of akathisia. Rapid risperidone initiation significantly increased the onset of akathisia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 6.47; 95%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94-21.65; p = 0.002), but rapid aripiprazole initiation did not (adjusted HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.50-2.31; p = 0.84). A significant interaction was found between rapid antipsychotic initiation and the risk of akathisia with aripiprazole versus risperidone (p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Severely ill patients with FES initiating aripiprazole or risperidone could have a high risk for akathisia. Rapid risperidone initiation should be avoided because of the risk for akathisia, and careful monitoring of akathisia may be necessary for all patients initiating aripiprazole.

Psychiatric diagnosis and other predictors of experienced and anticipated workplace discrimination and concealment of mental illness among mental health service users in England.

PURPOSE: This study aims to examine whether psychiatric diagnosis is associated with likelihoods of experienced and anticipated workplace discrimination and the concealment of psychiatric diagnoses. METHODS: 5924 mental health service users in England were interviewed as part of the Viewpoint survey between 2009 and 2014 using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale. Associations of psychiatric diagnosis with experienced and anticipated work-related discrimination or the concealment of mental illness were examined with the use of logistic regression models. RESULTS: 25.6% of the participants reported experiencing discrimination in at least one work-related domain, contrasting with the 53.7% who anticipated workplace discrimination and the 72.9% who had concealed their mental illness. There was strong evidence that patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder had a decreased risk of experienced discrimination in keeping a job compared to those with depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder or personality disorder. Furthermore, patients with depression were more likely to report anticipated discrimination in applying for education or training compared to those with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. In addition, patients with depression were more likely to conceal their mental illness compared to those with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that psychiatric diagnosis is a predictor of experienced and anticipated workplace discrimination and the concealment of mental illness and that more support is needed for employees with common mental disorders and their employers to enable better workplace outcomes for this group.

Two-year effectiveness of risperidone and aripiprazole in the maintenance treatment of patients with recent-onset or chronic schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders: a retrospective multicenter study.

This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of risperidone (RIS) versus aripiprazole (ARP) in patients with recent-onset or chronic schizophrenia during maintenance treatment and to examine the interaction between illness duration and the effectiveness of the treatment. All adult patients with schizophrenia and related disorders discharged from four psychiatric hospitals between 2006 and 2012 were screened and the 2-year continuation rates of monotherapy using RIS or ARP after discharge were examined retrospectively. The treatment continuation of the two drugs in patients with recent-onset (illness duration <5 years) or chronic schizophrenia (illness duration ≥5 years) and the moderator effect of illness duration on the effectiveness of the treatment were analyzed. Of 328 patients, 233 received RIS and 95 received ARP. No significant difference was found between the two drugs in the treatment continuation for the entire sample. However, there was a significant difference favoring ARP in the recent-onset subgroup mainly because of differences in tolerability, whereas RIS tended to present better outcomes in patients with chronic illness. Furthermore, there was a significant variation in the effectiveness of the treatment between recent-onset and chronic schizophrenia. Our results suggest that illness duration is an important moderator in terms of the long-term effectiveness of the two drugs.

Optimal Dosing of Risperidone and Olanzapine in the Maintenance Treatment for Patients With Schizophrenia and Related Psychotic Disorders: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the optimal tolerability dose ranges of risperidone (RIS) and olanzapine (OLZ) administered during schizophrenia maintenance phase. METHODS: Two-year continuation rates of prescription at discharge were examined using a retrospective cohort study method. Adult patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, receiving antipsychotic monotherapy with RIS or OLZ at discharge, were included. The primary outcome measures were the time to treatment discontinuation and 2-year continuation rates at 4 modal dose ranges of each drug. We estimated the optimal tolerability dose ranges by comparing the continuation rates at various modal doses. RESULTS: Of 648 patients, 344 received RIS and 304 received OLZ. The RIS 2-year continuation rates at 4 daily modal dose ranges were significantly different (0.5-2.5 mg: 46.0%, 3.0-5.0 mg: 40.0%, 5.5-7.5 mg: 30.0%, and 8.0-10.0 mg: 28.0%), with the difference favoring RIS at lower doses (0.5-5.0 mg) more than higher doses (5.5-10.0 mg). In contrast, there were no significant differences among OLZ 4 modal dose ranges (2.5-7.5 mg: 49.1%, 10.0-15.0 mg: 42.6%, 17.5-22.5 mg: 40.9%, and 25.0-30.0 mg: 39.0%). The time to treatment discontinuation significantly favored OLZ over RIS. However, it did not significantly differ between RIS and OLZ at lower doses. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that the optimal tolerability dose range during maintenance treatment is 0.5 to 5.0 mg/d for RIS and 2.5 to 30 mg/d for OLZ, and that RIS at lower doses is comparable with OLZ at lower doses.

Efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics in patients at ultra-high risk and those with first-episode or multi-episode schizophrenia.

AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the speed of response, doses, and safety of treatment with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in patients at ultra-high risk (UHR) compared to those with schizophrenia. METHODS: A 12-week open-label, prospective study of SGAs was performed in UHR patients and those with first-episode schizophrenia (FES) and multi-episode schizophrenia (MES). The subjects were 14-30 years old and were recruited at Zikei Hospital, Okayama, Japan from December 1, 2006 to December 1, 2011. Treatment was carried out in a natural setting in an open-label format, but clinical evaluation was performed blind. The clinical rating scales include the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale (CGI-S). RESULTS: UHR (n = 17), FES (n = 23), and MES (n = 21) patients all showed significant improvements on the GAF, PANSS, and CGI-S. However, the UHR patients showed significantly greater improvement on the GAF at weeks 4, 8, and 12 compared to the other groups, and a significantly lower modal dose of SGAs (chlorpromazine equivalent: 183 [201.1] mg/day, mean [SD]) was needed for improvement in the UHR group. Each group was also prescribed anticholinergic agents during the study period and the UHR group had significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms (only 6%) compared with the FES group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that UHR patients have a better response to SGAs compared to patients with schizophrenia, and that these drugs can be given safely by minimizing the dosage of SGAs and using anticholinergic agents.