Faculty Bibliography

Recent studies have indicated that bipolar disorder is more common than previously believed. The socioeconomic and personal burdens of this illness are significant, and the lifetime risk of suicide attempts by patients with bipolar II disorder is high. It is not uncommon for patients with bipolar disorder, especially those presenting with depression, to be seen first in a primary care setting; therefore, primary care physicians need to be ready to diagnose and manage patients with these mental illnesses. The diagnosis of bipolar disorder or bipolar spectrum disorder is easily missed, or these illnesses may be misdiagnosed. A systematic and detailed initial history from the patient and a reliable family member is essential to making the correct diagnosis. The Mood Disorder Questionnaire, a validated screening instrument for bipolar disorder, may help primary care physicians make an appropriate diagnosis. Long-term management of patients with bipolar disorder should involve close liaison with a psychiatrist.

OBJECTIVE: Limited randomized, controlled trial data exist on possible differences between atypical antipsychotics in efficacy, overall tolerability, and important indices of health status. The authors compared the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in the treatment of acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. METHOD: In this 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-design, flexible-dose trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive ziprasidone (N=136) or olanzapine (N=133). Primary efficacy measures were improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale scores; secondary measures were scores on the CGI improvement scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. Tolerability assessments included fasting lipid profiles, fasting glucose and insulin measurements, electrocardiography, and monitoring of vital signs and body weight. RESULTS: The overall mean daily doses were 129.9 mg (SD=27.3) for ziprasidone and 11.3 mg (SD=2.8) for olanzapine. Both antipsychotics were efficacious in improving symptoms and global illness severity. The two treatment groups did not differ significantly in primary or secondary efficacy measures at endpoint or in by-visit analysis. Both agents were well tolerated. Body weight, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly increased with olanzapine but not with ziprasidone; all between-group comparisons of these variables were significant and favored ziprasidone. Olanzapine, but not ziprasidone, was associated with significant increases in fasting insulin level. No patient in either group exhibited a corrected QT interval >/=500 msec. CONCLUSIONS: During 6 weeks' treatment, ziprasidone and olanzapine demonstrated comparable antipsychotic efficacy. Differences favoring ziprasidone were observed in metabolic parameters

The National Institute of Mental Health initiated the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) program to evaluate the effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in typical settings and populations so that the study results will be maximally useful in routine clinical situations. The CATIE schizophrenia trial blends features of efficacy studies and large, simple trials to create a pragmatic trial that will provide extensive information about antipsychotic drug effectiveness over at least 18 months. The protocol allows for subjects who receive a study drug that is not effective to receive subsequent treatments within the context of the study. Medication dosages are adjusted within a defined range according to clinical judgment. The primary outcome is all-cause treatment discontinuation because it represents an important clinical endpoint that reflects both clinician and patient judgments about efficacy and tolerability. Secondary outcomes include symptoms, side effects, neurocognitive functioning, and cost-effectiveness. Approximately 50 clinical sites across the United States are seeking to enroll a total of 1,500 persons with schizophrenia. Phase 1 is a double-blinded randomized clinical trial comparing treatment with the second generation antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone to perphenazine, a midpotency first generation antipsychotic. If the initially assigned medication is not effective, subjects may choose one of the following phase 2 trials: (1) randomization to open-label clozapine or a double-blinded second generation drug that was available but not assigned in phase 1; or (2) double-blinded randomization to ziprasidone or another second generation drug that was available but not assigned in phase 1. If the phase 2 study drug is discontinued, subjects may enter phase 3, in which clinicians help subjects select an open-label treatment based on individuals' experiences in phases 1 and 2.

BACKGROUND: Consensus panel recommendations regarding choice of an antipsychotic agent for schizophrenia differ markedly, but most consider second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a homogeneous group. It has been suggested that SGAs seem falsely more efficacious than first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) as a result of reduced efficacy due to use of a high-dose comparator, haloperidol. We performed (1) a meta-analysis of randomized efficacy trials comparing SGAs and FGAs, (2) comparisons between SGAs, (3) a dose-response analysis of FGAs and SGAs, and (4) an analysis of the effect on efficacy of an overly high dose of an FGA comparator. METHODS: Literature search of clinical trials between January 1953 and May 2002 of patients with schizophrenia from electronic databases, reference lists, posters, the Food and Drug Administration, and other unpublished data. We included 124 randomized controlled trials with efficacy data on 10 SGAs vs FGAs and 18 studies of comparisons between SGAs. Two of us independently extracted the sample sizes, means, and standard deviation of the efficacy data. RESULTS: Using the Hedges-Olkin algorithm, the effect sizes of clozapine, amisulpride, risperidone, and olanzapine were 0.49, 0.29, 0.25, and 0.21 greater than those of FGAs, with P values of 2 x 10-8, 3 x 10-7, 2 x 10-12, and 3 x 10-9, respectively. The remaining 6 SGAs were not significantly different from FGAs, although zotepine was marginally different. No efficacy difference was detected among amisulpride, risperidone, and olanzapine. We found no evidence that the haloperidol dose (or all FGA comparators converted to haloperidol-equivalent doses) affected these results when we examined its effect by drug or in a 2-way analysis of variance model in which SGA effectiveness is entered as a second factor. CONCLUSION: Some SGAs are more efficacious than FGAs, and, therefore, SGAs are not a homogeneous group.

OBJECTIVE: No articles, chapters, or texts have been published in the last 5 years that detail a workable model of inpatient psychiatric treatment based on current, drastically changed realities. METHODS: We reviewed controlled studies on inpatient psychiatric care and pooled our clinical experience from two academic inpatient units and a Veterans Affairs inpatient unit. RESULTS: Major changes in systems of care, the population now being hospitalized, the emphasis on practicing evidence-based medicine, and decreased funding of inpatient psychiatric units have necessitated changes in the traditional paradigm of inpatient treatment. We describe the functions that an inpatient unit performs best and detail 1) objectives of treatment with an emphasis on the "focal problem", and 2) the specific treatment interventions, treatment team members, and outpatient links necessary to maximize post-hospital outcome for patient and family. CONCLUSION: Given current realities, the treatment paradigm that we recommend has evolved from an asylum-like long-stay model to one that is more like a medical-surgical intensive care unit with an emphasis on rapid diagnosis, psychopharmacological intervention, and laying the groundwork for effective outpatient management. In consequence, the expected clinical outcomes from an episode of inpatient psychiatric treatment are quite different from those of the recent past.

To more clearly clarify the efficacy of the atypical antipsychotics compared to conventional antipsychotics, we add data on the outcome of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia from two large, international clinical trials comparing olanzapine with haloperidol (n = 1996) and olanzapine with risperidone (n = 339). Both studies comprised double-blinded, placebo controlled, random assignment trials. Health outcomes reported include: (i) time to discontinuation in the trial; (ii) clinical relapse; and (iii) time to drug non-compliance. When outcome was measured as time to discontinuation due to adverse events or lack of efficacy, olanzapine showed superiority over haloperidol and no difference compared to risperidone. Of those patients who had an initial response, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and haloperidol when outcome was measured using either: (i) 52-week relapse rates or (ii) time to first non-compliance. Using the measures of study discontinuation, relapse and non-compliance, in one trial the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine was superior to haloperidol, while in a second trial there were no differences between olanzapine and risperidone.

Patient and family support organizations for Axis I disorders have grown exponentially and expanded their services over the past two decades. However, psychiatrists generally have not referred patients and families to these organizations. The goal of this paper is to change clinicians' behavior so that they more commonly include support organization services in treatment plans for patients and families. We performed a literature review focusing on the changing needs of patients and their families as they relate to mental health teams, changes in the family therapy field, and concerns of both healthcare providers and related organizations about referral. Abundant anecdotal evidence and some scientific data suggest that patients and families are satisfied with these support organizations and the services they provide. However, support organizations need clinician referrals in order for their services to be integrated into a multi-modal quality treatment plan to achieve full treatment efficacy.

The major purpose of this American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology-sponsored meeting was to identify strategies for more efficiently detecting clinical drug effects, thus reducing the economic and scientific risks of investigating new chemical entities in psychiatric disorders. The meeting consisted of presentations and discussions by experts who repeatedly had difficulty pursuing scientific, public health--relevant goals. Many approaches to improving the detection of potentially beneficial agents were reviewed. In this article, we discuss technically feasible study improvements. The scope of inquiry included identifying means of shifting institutional and regulatory assumptions and processes, even to the point of seeking appropriate national incentives.

The effects of 2 family intervention programs (supportive family management [SFM], including monthly support groups for 2 years; or applied family management [AFM], including 1 year of behavioral family therapy plus support groups for 2 years), and 3 different neuroleptic dosage strategies (standard, low, targeted) on social functioning of patients with schizophrenia. their relatives' attitudes, and family burden were examined. AFM was associated with lower rejecting attitudes by relatives toward patients and less friction in the family perceived by patients. Patients in both AFM and SFM improved in social functioning but did not differ, whereas family burden was unchanged. Medication strategy had few effects, nor did it interact with family intervention. The addition of time-limited behavioral family therapy to monthly support groups improved family atmosphere, but did not influence patient social functioning or family burden.