Antipsychotic dose, dopamine D2 receptor occupancy and extrapyramidal side-effects: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

Antipsychotic drugs differ in their propensity to cause extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), but their dose-effects are unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. We searched multiple electronic databases up to 20.02.2023 for fixed-dose studies investigating 16 second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol (all formulations and administration routes) in adults with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. The primary outcome was the number of participants receiving antiparkinsonian medication, and if not available, the number of participants with extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS) and the mean scores of EPS rating scales were used as proxies. The effect-size was odds ratio (ORs) compared with placebo. One-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analyses with restricted cubic splines were conducted to estimate the dose-response curves. We also examined the relationship between dopamine D2 receptor (D2R) occupancy and ORs by estimating occupancies from administrated doses. We included data from 110 studies with 382 dose arms (37193 participants). Most studies were short-term with median duration of 6 weeks (range 3-26 weeks). Almost all antipsychotics were associated with dose-dependent EPS with varied degrees and the maximum ORs ranged from OR = 1.57 95%CI [0.97, 2.56] for aripiprazole to OR = 7.56 95%CI [3.16, 18.08] for haloperidol at 30 mg/d. Exceptions were quetiapine and sertindole with negligible risks across all doses. There was very low quality of findings for cariprazine, iloperidone, and zotepine, and no data for clozapine. The D2R occupancy curves showed that the risk increased substantially when D2R occupancy exceeded 75-85%, except for D2R partial agonists that had smaller ORs albeit high D2R occupancies. In conclusion, we found that the risk of EPS increases with rising doses and differs substantially in magnitude among antipsychotics, yet exceptions were quetiapine and sertindole with negligible risks. Our data provided additional insights into the current D2R therapeutic window for EPS.

Mortality in patients with schizophrenia in Japan.

PURPOSE: Patients with schizophrenia have a higher mortality risk than the general population. However, no recent studies have investigated mortality in patients with schizophrenia in Japan. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study to evaluate excess mortality and risk factors for mortality in patients with schizophrenia in Japan. METHODS: We included patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at Yamanashi Prefectural Kita Hospital between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were used to compare mortality rates between patients with schizophrenia and the general population. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate risk factors associated with mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1,699 patients with schizophrenia (893 men and 806 women), 104 (55 men and 49 women) died during the study period. The all-cause SMR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.18 (1.76-2.60); the natural- and unnatural-cause SMRs were 2.06 (1.62-2.50) and 5.07 (2.85-7.30), respectively. Men (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.10-4.56), age (adjusted OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.09-1.16), and barbiturate use (adjusted OR = 8.17, 95% CI = 2.07-32.32) were associated with the risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: The mortality rate remains high in patients with schizophrenia in Japan. Further studies are needed to evaluate mortality trends in this population.

Clozapine Once-Daily Versus Divided Dosing Regimen: A Cross-sectional Study in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Clozapine is generally recommended to be prescribed in a divided dosing regimen based on its relatively short plasma half-life. However, there has been little evidence to support the superiority of divided dosing of clozapine over once-daily dosing. To our knowledge, there have been no studies examining differences in actual plasma concentrations or adverse effects between the 2 dosing strategies of clozapine. We aimed to compare actual plasma concentrations of clozapine between once-daily and divided dosing regimens, and to examine the relationships of these regimens with psychiatric symptoms and adverse effects of clozapine. METHODS: We analyzed data from 108 participants of a previous study conducted in 2 hospitals in Japan. A population pharmacokinetic model was used to estimate the peak and trough plasma concentrations of clozapine based on actual plasma concentrations. We evaluated psychiatric symptoms with the Brief Evaluation of Psychosis Symptom Domains and adverse effects of clozapine with the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effects Scale for Clozapine. RESULTS: The estimated peak and trough plasma concentrations of clozapine did not differ significantly between once-daily and divided dosing regimens. There were no significant differences in psychiatric symptoms except for depression/anxiety or subjective adverse effects of clozapine between the 2 dosing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings tentatively support the feasibility and clinical utility of once-daily dosing of clozapine in clinical practice. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings and determine causality between dosing strategies and clinical outcomes.

Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for severe agitation in real-world emergency settings: protocol of individual-participant-data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. DISCUSSION: This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023402365.

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonism for psychosis: a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human data.

Background: Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonism shows promise for treating psychosis, prompting us to synthesise data from human and non-human studies. Methods: We co-produced a living systematic review of controlled studies examining TAAR1 agonists in individuals (with or without psychosis/schizophrenia) and relevant animal models. Two independent reviewers identified studies in multiple electronic databases (until 17.11.2023), extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were standardised mean differences (SMD) for overall symptoms in human studies and hyperlocomotion in animal models. We also examined adverse events and neurotransmitter signalling. We synthesised data with random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Nine randomised trials provided data for two TAAR1 agonists (ulotaront and ralmitaront), and 15 animal studies for 10 TAAR1 agonists. Ulotaront and ralmitaront demonstrated few differences compared to placebo in improving overall symptoms in adults with acute schizophrenia (N=4 studies, n=1291 participants; SMD=0.15, 95%CI: -0.05, 0.34), and ralmitaront was less efficacious than risperidone (N=1, n=156, SMD=-0.53, 95%CI: -0.86, -0.20). Large placebo response was observed in ulotaront phase-III trials. Limited evidence suggested a relatively benign side-effect profile for TAAR1 agonists, although nausea and sedation were common after a single dose of ulotaront. In animal studies, TAAR1 agonists improved hyperlocomotion compared to control (N=13 studies, k=41 experiments, SMD=1.01, 95%CI: 0.74, 1.27), but seemed less efficacious compared to dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists (N=4, k=7, SMD=-0.62, 95%CI: -1.32, 0.08). Limited human and animal data indicated that TAAR1 agonists may regulate presynaptic dopaminergic signalling. Conclusions: TAAR1 agonists may be less efficacious than dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists already licensed for schizophrenia. The results are preliminary due to the limited number of drugs examined, lack of longer-term data, publication bias, and assay sensitivity concerns in trials associated with large placebo response. Considering their unique mechanism of action, relatively benign side-effect profile and ongoing drug development, further research is warranted. Registration: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.

There is a need for more effective treatments for psychosis, including schizophrenia. Psychosis is a collection of mental health symptoms, such as hearing voices, that can cause distress and impair functioning. These symptoms are thought to be caused by changes in a chemical messenger system in the brain called dopamine. Currently used antipsychotic medications target brain receptors that respond to dopamine. They are not effective in some people and can cause uncomfortable adverse events, such as weight gain and movement disorders, especially with long-term use. A new type of drug is the trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists. These drugs act on different brain receptors that can affect the activity of the dopamine system, but do not directly bind to dopamine receptors. We aimed to understand if TAAR1 agonists can reduce symptoms of psychosis, what adverse events they might have, and how they work. We did this by reviewing and collating all available evidence until November 2023. This is a "living" systematic review, so it will be regularly updated in the future. We looked at both human and animal studies investigating TAAR1 agonists. Human studies suggested that two TAAR1 agonists (namely, ulotaront or ralmitaront) might have little to no effect on reducing symptoms of psychosis compared to placebo in people with schizophrenia. They seemed to cause fewer adverse events than current antipsychotics. Data from animal studies suggested that TAAR1 agonists had some positive effects but potentially smaller than other antipsychotics. There were little to no data from both human and animal studies about how TAAR1 agonists actually work. From the current evidence we are uncertain about these results. With the ongoing development of new TAAR1 agonists, more evidence is needed to understand their potential role in the treatment of psychosis.

Comprehensive assessment of exposure to clozapine in association with side effects among patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a population pharmacokinetic study.

BACKGROUND: There have been scarce data on the distribution of clozapine concentrations in comparison with the recommended range (350-600 ng/ml) or their relationship with side effects among patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Furthermore, no studies have assessed the association between side effects and overall exposure to the drug by calculating the 24-h area-under-curve (AUC). METHODS: In- and outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (ICD-10) who were receiving a stable dose of clozapine for ⩾2 weeks were included. Side effects were assessed using the Glasgow antipsychotic side-effects scale for clozapine (GASS-C). Using two collected plasma samples, plasma clozapine and norclozapine concentrations at peak and trough and their 24-h AUC were estimated using population pharmacokinetic models. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients completed the study (mean ± SD age, 43.0 ± 10.1 years; clozapine dose, 357.5 ± 136.9 mg/day); 33 patients (30.6%) showed estimated trough concentrations of clozapine within the recommended range (350-600 ng/ml) whereas the concentrations were higher and lower than this range among 37 (43.5%) and 28 (25.9%) patients (%), respectively. There were no significant correlations between estimated peak or trough concentrations or 24-h AUC of both clozapine or norclozapine, and GASS-C total or individual scores. No significant differences were found between GASS-C total or individual item scores between the patients with estimated trough concentrations of clozapine of >600 ng/ml and the other subjects. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that clozapine or norclozapine concentrations are not linked directly to the extent of side effects experienced in clozapine-treated patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia while the cross-sectional study design limits the interpretation of any causal relationships. These findings indicate that side effects associated with clozapine may occur at any dose or concentration.

Reliability of the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effects Scale for Clozapine Japanese version (GASS-C-J).

The purpose of this study was to develop the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side effects Scale for Clozapine Japanese version (GASS-C-J) and examine its reliability to assess clozapine-related side effects. We developed the GASS-C-J using forward and backward translation. Semantic equivalence of the GASS-C-J to the GASS-C was confirmed by the original author. We then administered the GASS-C-J twice to 109 patients on clozapine treatment at two psychiatric hospitals in Japan. We assessed the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the GASS-C-J using Cronbach's alpha and weighted kappa coefficient, respectively. We also examined if discrepancies in each GASS-C-J item score between the first and second rating were correlated with items of the Brief Evaluation of Psychosis Symptom Domains (BE-PSD). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the GASS-C-J at the first and second rating was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.84) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76 to 0.88), respectively. The weighted kappa coefficient of individual and total GASS-C-J item scores ranged from 0.45 to 0.88. Some symptom domains were correlated with discrepancies in specific items of the GASS-C-J: psychotic symptoms and nausea/vomiting (rs = 0.27), thirst (rs = 0.31), and appetite/weight gain (rs = 0.27); disorganized thinking and urinary incontinence (rs = 0.26); depression/anxiety and myoclonus (rs = 0.25), hypersalivation (rs = -0.27), and blurred vision (rs = -0.22). These findings demonstrate that the GASS-C-J can be used in clinical and research settings as a reliable scale to assess clozapine-related side effects.