A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial investigating the efficacy of low-dose olanzapine in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with oxaliplatin-based and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy of a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) among female patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tract tumors. METHODS: Patients undergoing the oxaliplatin/irinotecan chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. The olanzapine group received a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine along with palonosetron and dexamethasone, while the control group received a standard two-combination regimen consisting of dexamethasone and palonosetron. The primary endpoints included the total protection (TP) rates for the entire age group and the subgroup aged 60 years and above. Secondary endpoints encompassed the total protection rates during the acute and delayed phases within the two age brackets, as well as the total control (TC) rates and complete remission (CR) rates across all three phases (total, acute, and delayed). Additionally, the study involved the assessment of quality of life and the collection of adverse events associated with the interventions. RESULTS: 1) Regarding the primary endpoint, the total phase TP rates within both the entire age group and the age group exceeding 60 years demonstrated superiority in the olanzapine group when compared to the control group (66.7% vs 37.25%, P = 0.003; 68.8% vs 44.4%, P = 0.044). 2) In terms of secondary endpoints, the olanzapine group exhibited superior acute phase TP rates in both age brackets when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The olanzapine group also demonstrated higher delayed-phase TP rates, TC rates across all three phases, and CR rates within the two age brackets, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the quality of life in the olanzapine group surpassed that of the control group for both age brackets (P < 0.05), characterized by enhanced appetite and a higher incidence of drowsiness in the patients treated with olanzapine when compared to those in the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine can enhance CINV induced by MEC regimen in female patients across all age groups, including the elderly, and therefore improve the quality of life for these patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html , identifier: ChiCTR20000368269, 25/08/2020.

Mortality risk and mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder: a propensity-score-weighted population-based cohort study in 2002-2018.

AIMS: Accumulating studies have assessed mortality risk associated with mood-stabilizers, the mainstay treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). However, existing data were mostly restricted to suicide risk, focused on lithium and valproate and rarely adequately adjusted for potential confounders. This study aimed to assess comparative mortality risk with all, natural and unnatural causes between lithium, valproate and three frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGA), with adjustment for important confounders. METHODS: This population-based cohort study identified 8137 patients with first-diagnosed BD, who had exposed to lithium (n = 1028), valproate (n = 3580), olanzapine (n = 797), quetiapine (n = 1975) or risperidone (n = 757) between 2002 and 2018. Data were retrieved from territory-wide medical-record database of public healthcare services in Hong Kong. Propensity-score (PS)-weighting method was applied to optimize control for potential confounders including pre-existing chronic physical diseases, substance/alcohol use disorders and other psychotropic medications. PS-weighted Cox proportional-hazards regression was conducted to assess risk of all-, natural- and unnatural-cause mortality related to each mood-stabilizer, compared to lithium. Three sets of sensitivity analyses were conducted by restricting to patients with (i) length of cumulative exposure to specified mood-stabilizer ≥90 days and its medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥90%, (ii) MPR of specified mood-stabilizer ≥80% and MPR of other studied mood-stabilizers <20% and (iii) monotherapy. RESULTS: Incidence rates of all-cause mortality per 1000 person-years were 5.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.5-7.6), 8.4 (7.4-9.5), 11.1 (8.3-14.9), 7.4 (6.0-9.2) and 12.0 (9.3-15.6) for lithium-, valproate-, olanzapine-, quetiapine- and risperidone-treated groups, respectively. BD patients treated with olanzapine (PS-weighted hazard ratio = 2.07 [95% CI: 1.33-3.22]) and risperidone (1.66 [1.08-2.55]) had significantly higher all-cause mortality rate than lithium-treated group. Olanzapine was associated with increased risk of natural-cause mortality (3.04 [1.54-6.00]) and risperidone was related to elevated risk of unnatural-cause mortality (3.33 [1.62-6.86]), relative to lithium. The association between olanzapine and increased natural-cause mortality rate was consistently affirmed in sensitivity analyses. Relationship between risperidone and elevated unnatural-cause mortality became non-significant in sensitivity analyses restricted to low MPR in other mood-stabilizers and monotherapy. Valproate- and lithium-treated groups did not show significant differences in all-, natural- or unnatural-cause mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that olanzapine and risperidone were associated with higher mortality risk than lithium, and further supported the clinical guidelines recommending lithium as the first-line mood-stabilizer for BD. Future research is required to further clarify comparative mortality risk associated with individual SGA agents to facilitate risk-benefit evaluation of alternative mood-stabilizers to minimize avoidable premature mortality in BD.

Cognitive Outcomes in Nonacute Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics Versus Oral Antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Patients with schizophrenia often face challenges related to cognitive function, affecting their daily functioning and overall quality of life. The choice of antipsychotic treatment may play a crucial role in determining cognitive outcomes. STUDY QUESTION: Our study aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in cognitive ability between the patients with schizophrenia receiving oral antipsychotics (OAP) versus long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAI-APs). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study using analytical methods between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2022. Participants were divided into 2 groups: patients undergoing treatment with OAP and patients undergoing treatment with LAI-AP. All participants underwent version A of Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS). MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The primary objective was to compare cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia treated with LAI antipsychotics versus OAP using BACS. Primary outcome measures include overall BACS score, with secondary measures focusing on specific cognitive domains. This study contributes to the understanding of the cognitive effects of different antipsychotic formulations in schizophrenia treatment. RESULTS: Although there was a slightly higher intelligence quotient in the LAI-AP group (102.2 vs. 101.32, P = 0.5401), it was not statistically significant. Olanzapine was the most commonly prescribed antipsychotic, with 48% of patients in the LAI-AP group and 40% in the OAP group. The LAI-AP group outperformed in all BACS evaluations. The most notable difference was in the token motor task (57.78 ± 17.03 vs. 50.04 ± 18.82, P = 0.0335), while the Tower of London test showed the smallest difference (17.26 ± 2.61 vs. 15.48 ± 3.47, P = 0.0046). Regression analysis revealed no significant variance in intelligence quotient scores; however, a significant discrepancy in BACS scores was evident, favoring the LAI treatment for better cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of long-acting antipsychotic treatment in individuals with schizophrenia offers promising advantages in preserving cognitive function.

Atypical Antipsychotic Prescribing in Australian Children and Adolescents: A Survey of Medical Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: Prescriptions for atypical antipsychotics in children and adolescents are increasing globally. However, a precise understanding of the clinical variables and evidence that prescribers consider before using these agents is lacking. While empirical literature on the long-term safety and efficacy of these medications is available, the literature concerning their use in these younger age groups is relatively sparse. In this study, we examined the current prescribing patterns of medical professionals employed by a public health service in Australia. METHODS: A survey examining their current practice when prescribing atypical antipsychotics to children and adolescents was completed by 103 physicians. Questions were asked about commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotics, indications, dose ranges, target symptoms, duration of treatment, and the evidence base(s) used when making treatment decisions. RESULTS: Physicians prescribed atypical antipsychotics for a wide range of indications in this age group, with the most common agents being risperidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine. Adverse effects were reported as the main reason for treatment discontinuation. More than half of the respondents indicated that the most common source of guidance/evidence they referred to when initiating prescriptions were peers or expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents were prescribed a number of atypical antipsychotics for a variety of indications, with variable perceived confidence and a relatively heavy reliance on "own or peer experience" as opposed to good quality evidence. Challenges exist for both prescribers and policymakers, and further "head-to-head" studies are needed in this age group to ensure that a balance is maintained between therapeutic benefit and safety.

The effect of differences in trial design on estimates of efficacy of olanzapine in randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Differences in trial design may affect estimates of efficacy of psychotropic drugs. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate whether the use of Olanzapine (OLZ) as either investigational or control drug affects the observed efficacy of OLZ. METHODS: We performed a search for Randomized-Controlled Trials (RCTs) in which the efficacy of OLZ is assessed in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. We assessed overall efficacy of OLZ and performed subgroup analyses of studies with OLZ as intervention or comparator. Mixed-effect meta-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 25 RCTs included, OLZ was considered as investigational drug or active control in 13 and 12 studies, respectively. The reduction of PANSS score was greater in trials in which OLZ was used as investigational drug. Multivariate meta-regression models showed that a higher PANSS score at baseline and trial duration were the main predictors of greater PANSS score reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Trials with OLZ used as investigational drug differ from those of trials with OLZ as comparator for baseline PANSS scores and study duration; these differences may produce differences in estimates of efficacy. As a consequence, the severity of illness at enrollment and trial duration should be carefully considered to ensure the reliability of indirect comparisons among antipsychotics.

Precipitated opioid withdrawal in a patient started on olanzapine/samidorphan.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine/Samidorphan (Lybalvi®) is a novel oral agent for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. It was designed to reduce weight gain associated with olanzapine. Samidorphan is an analog of naltrexone, initially intended to treat substance use disorders by antagonizing mu, delta, and kappa opioid receptors. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 36-year-old who took their first dose of olanzapine/samidorphan shortly before calling for emergency services. The patient took diphenhydramine and an epinephrine autoinjector for what they thought was an allergic reaction but continued to have symptoms. EMS reported involuntary muscle movements thought to be due to dystonia from olanzapine. In the ED, they experienced generalized muscle spasms lasting for several seconds and diaphoresis. Initially, the staff treated for a presumed dystonic reaction to olanzapine and administered diphenhydramine 25 mg IV, diazepam 2 mg IV, midazolam 5 mg IV, and benztropine 1 mg IV without improvement. It was later determined that the patient took 16 mg of buprenorphine SL daily. With this information, precipitated opioid withdrawal was felt to be the likely cause of symptoms. The patient received 16 mg of buprenorphine for an initial Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score of 11 with repeat COWS of 6. Why should an emergency physician be aware of this? Initiating olanzapine/samidorphan in the setting of chronic opioid therapy may result in precipitated opioid withdrawal. Additional SL buprenorphine may be a reasonable treatment modality.

Olanzapine for young PEople with aNorexia nervosa (OPEN): A protocol for an open-label feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotics are routinely prescribed off-label for anorexia nervosa (AN) despite limited evidence. This article presents a protocol of a study aiming to assess the feasibility of a future definitive trial on olanzapine in young people with AN. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In an open-label, one-armed feasibility study, 55 patients with AN or atypical AN, aged 12-24, receiving outpatient, inpatient or day-care treatment who are considered for olanzapine treatment will be recruited from NHS sites based in England. Assessments will be conducted at screening, baseline and at 8-, 16 weeks, 6- and 12 months. Primary feasibility parameters will be proportions of patients who agree to take olanzapine and who adhere to treatment and complete study assessments. Qualitative methods will be used to explore acceptability of the intervention and study design. Secondary feasibility parameters will be changes in body mass index, psychopathology, side effects, health-related quality of life, carer burden and proportion of participants who would enrol in a future randomised controlled trial. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research via Health Technology Assessment programme. DISCUSSION: Olanzapine for young PEople with aNorexia nervosa will inform a future randomised controlled trial on the efficacy and safety of prescribing olanzapine in young people with AN.

Effectiveness of antipsychotics for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan (Phase-R).

PURPOSE: Delirium is a common and serious comorbidity in patients with advanced cancer, necessitating effective management. Nonetheless, effective drugs for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer remain unclear in real-world settings. Thus, the present study aimed to explore an effective pharmacotherapy for this condition. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan. The analysis included patients with advanced cancer who presented with agitated delirium and received pharmacotherapy. Agitation was defined as a score of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale for palliative care (RASS-PAL) of ≥ 1. The outcome was defined as -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 at 72 h after the initiation of pharmacotherapy. Multiple propensity scores were quantified using a multinomial logistic regression model, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for haloperidol, chlorpromazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. RESULTS: The analysis included 271 patients with agitated delirium, and 87 (32%) showed -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 on day 3. The propensity score-adjusted OR of olanzapine was statistically significant (OR, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 7.80; P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that olanzapine may effectively improve delirium agitation in patients with advanced cancer.

Investigating the efficacy and safety of olanzapine prophylaxis for opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (JORTC-PAL20): a study protocol for an open-label, single-arm exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: In opioid therapy for cancer pain, opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) occur in 20%-40% of patients during initial opioid treatment or increasing opioid doses. OINV result in failure to achieve pain relief due to poor opioid adherence. Therefore, antiemetics are used to prevent OINV, but their efficacy and safety in this context have not yet been fully elucidated. Olanzapine is a promising antiemetic for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-arm, single-centre exploratory study will evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine in patients with cancer pain who are withholding initial regular opioid therapy. Thirty-five patients will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving complete control (CC) of OINV during 5 days of opioid treatment. CC was defined as the absence of emetic episodes, no need for rescue medication to treat nausea, and minimal or no nausea (3 or less on an 11-point categorical scale). Secondary endpoints include the complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication during the overall assessment period, the time from opioid initiation to first emetic episode, the time from opioid initiation to first rescue antiemetic administration, and adverse events graded by Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 1.0 and CTCAE version 5.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by National Cancer Center Hospital Certified Review Board. The results will be used as preliminary data to conduct a validation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCTs031220008.

Pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926. FINDINGS: Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies. FUNDING: None.

Association between olanzapine plasma concentrations and treatment response: A systematic review, meta-analysis and individual participant data meta-analysis.

AIMS: By meta-analysing pooled studies and available individual participant data, we aim to provide new insight on olanzapine therapeutic drug monitoring in schizophrenia. METHOD: We conducted a computerized search of bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane library, Web of Science and PsycINFO) to identify studies that assessed the relationship between olanzapine plasma concentration and the change in patients' clinical scores. We investigated this relationship with olanzapine plasma level 12h00 post-intake using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 7 studies were included in the pooled data analysis (781 patients). We found no difference in oral dose between responders and non-responders but a significantly higher concentration of 4.50 µg/L in responders (p < 0.01). Olanzapine concentration above the thresholds identified in each study was associated with response (odd ratio = 3.50, p = 0.0007). We identified that non-responder patients showed greater inter-individual variability than responders. In the individual data analysis (159 patients), we found no relationship between dose and clinical response but an association between plasma level and response in the shape of a parabolic curve. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve found a threshold of 22.07 µg/L to identify responders (96% sensitivity, 86% specificity) and a threshold of 56.47 µg/L to identify a decreased probability of response. CONCLUSION: In contrast to oral dose, our work confirmed that plasma olanzapine levels are associated with clinical response and should therefore be used to optimise treatment. We determined a treatment response threshold of 22.07 µg/L and suggest that a concentration above the therapeutic window may result in a decreased response.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis on comparative efficacy, acceptability, and safety of treatments in acute bipolar mania in youths.

BACKGROUND: The evidence of treatment options' efficacy on acute bipolar manic episodes is relatively less in youths than adults. We aimed to compare and rank the drug's efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety for acute mania in children and adolescents. METHOD: We systematically reviewed the double-blinded, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs or placebo for acute manic episodes of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents using PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and https://clinicaltrials.gov from inception until November 20, 2022. Response to treatment was the primary outcome, and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted (PROSPERO 2022: CRD42022367455). RESULTS: Of 10,134 citations, we included 15 RCTs, including 2372 patients (47 % female), 15 psychotropic drugs, and the placebo. Risperidone 0.5-2.5 mg/day, aripiprazole 30 mg/day olanzapine, quetiapine 400 mg/day, quetiapine 600 mg/day, asenapine 5 mg/day, asenapine 10 mg, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole 10 mg were found to be effective (in comparison with placebo) in children and adolescents, respectively (τ2 = 0.0072, I2 = 10.2 %). The tolerability of aripiprazole 30 mg/day was lower than risperidone 0.5-2.5 mg/day and olanzapine. Oxcarbazepine had the highest discontinuation due to the adverse effects risk ratio. LIMITATIONS: Efficacy ranking of the treatments could be performed by evaluating relatively few RCT results, and only monotherapies were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety are changing with the doses of antipsychotics for children and adolescents with acute bipolar manic episodes. Drug selection and optimum dosage should be carefully adjusted in children and adolescents.

Real-World Effectiveness of High-Dose Olanzapine and Clozapine for Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia in Japan: A Retrospective Bidirectional Mirror-Image Study.

BACKGROUND: Clozapine is considered the gold standard medication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). However, given that clozapine treatment is associated with the burden of regular blood monitoring and the risk of life-threatening adverse effects, high-dose olanzapine can serve as an alternative treatment. We conducted a bidirectional mirror-image study to evaluate the effectiveness of high-dose olanzapine compared with clozapine. METHODS: We included patients with TRS who switched from olanzapine to clozapine or switched from clozapine to olanzapine, and received high-dose (>20 mg/d) olanzapine treatment for ≥4 weeks at Yamanashi Prefectural Kita Hospital. We obtained data on hospitalization, seclusion, and modified electroconvulsive therapy (mECT) during the clozapine phase and the olanzapine phase. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were included. When patients switched from high-dose olanzapine to clozapine (n = 32), significant reductions were found in the total days of seclusion, the total number of mECT, and the number of patients who received mECT at least once. When patients switched from clozapine to high-dose olanzapine (n = 12), a significant reduction was found in the number of patients who received mECT at least once. When data from both directions of treatment were combined, significant reductions were found in the total days of seclusion, the total number of mECT, and the number of patients who received mECT at least once in favor of clozapine. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that high-dose olanzapine may not be as effective as clozapine for patients with TRS in real-world practice. However, it should be noted that there are unique circumstances that restrict the use of clozapine in Japan.

Relationship between C-reactive protein and antipsychotics levels in schizophrenic patients infected with COVID-19.

In the context of the COVID-19, inflammation emerges as a prominent characteristic. C-reactive protein (CRP) serves as a commonly employed marker for the evaluation of inflammation. This study aimed to examine the correlation between CRP levels and antipsychotic drug concentrations in patients diagnosed with SCZ during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 186 SCZ patients were included in this study, which utilized electronic medical records. The collected data encompassed SCZ diagnoses based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria, respiratory symptoms, and treatments. Laboratory assessments involved the measurement of CRP levels and monitoring of blood drug concentrations. The most prevalent symptoms observed in the patient cohort were fever (59.14%), cough (52.15%), fatigue (45.7%), sore throat (46.24%), runny nose (28.49%), and stuffy nose (25.27%). The levels of CRP during the infection period were significantly higher compared to both the prophase and anaphase of infection (all p < 0.001). The serum levels of clozapine, olanzapine, aripiprazole, quetiapine, and risperidone were elevated during the infection period (all p < 0.001). During the anaphase of infection, patients exhibited higher serum levels of clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone (all p < 0.001) compared to the infection period, but there was no significant change in serum levels of aripiprazole and quetiapine. Multiple regression analysis revealed a statistically significant positive correlation (P < 0.0001) between CRP and clozapine concentration. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial to adjust the dosage based on drug serum concentration to prevent intoxication or adverse drug reactions.

A multicenter, single-arm, open-label interventional study of adherence to brexpiprazole during switching from previous antipsychotic drugs in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

The rate of medication persistence was examined in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder during switching from previously administered antipsychotics to brexpiprazole, a new dopamine D2 receptor partial agonist. A multicenter, single-arm, open-label 24-week interventional study was conducted, consisting of two 12-week consecutive periods: an initial switch (by plateau cross-titration) with the subsequent period, followed by a second maintenance period. Prior antipsychotics were olanzapine or risperidone/paliperidone. The primary and secondary outcome measures were medication persistence rates after the first 12 weeks and changes from baseline in the Specific Levels of Functioning Scale (SLOF), Subjective Well-being under Neuroleptic drug treatment Short form (SWNS), and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, respectively. In total, 79 patients were administered brexpiprazole and the medication persistence rate at 12 weeks was 78.5%, which was significantly higher than the predefined threshold of 65%. Regarding the prior medication, the persistence rate at 12 weeks was 84.6% for olanzapine and 72.5% for risperidone/paliperidone. Significant improvements from baseline were observed in the SLOF, SWNS, and PANSS scores. There were no adverse events of concern. Thus, brexpiprazole appeared to be a suitable antipsychotic on switching from olanzapine, risperidone, or paliperidone.