Ambiguous findings concerning potential advantages of depot antipsychotics

In search of clinical relevance

Peter M. Haddad, Taishiro Kishimoto, Christoph U. Correll, John M. Kane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose of review We review the recent literature on the comparative efficacy/effectiveness of antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) vs. oral antipsychotics. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), mirror-image studies and cohort studies are reviewed, and the strength and weaknesses of each design discussed.

Recent findings The data are conflicting and differ by trial design. RCTs tend to show equivalence for the two treatments, whereas mirror-image studies and cohort studies are more likely to show benefits for LAIs, although a prescribing/channelling bias in cohort studies suggests that LAIs are prescribed to more severely ill patients. Two recent, large RCTs, in a more real-world treatment setting, found a longer time to relapse or treatment failure with a LAI versus oral antipsychotics.

Summary Each of the three trial designs has strengths and weaknesses. The traditional RCT does not seem to be the gold standard to compare the effectiveness of oral antipsychotics and LAIs because of selective recruitment and altered ecology of the treatment. Conversely, weaknesses of observational studies include lack of blinding and difficulty disentangling the effect of treatment from prescribing bias and confounders. The best approach to determining comparative effectiveness may be a pragmatic RCT with broad inclusion criteria and minimal exclusion criteria and minimal assessment following baseline assessment and randomization.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)216-221
Number of pages6
JournalCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 May 7

Fingerprint

Antipsychotic Agents
Randomized Controlled Trials
Injections
Cohort Studies
Therapeutics
Random Allocation
Ecology
Treatment Failure
Observational Studies
Recurrence

Keywords

  • antipsychotic long-acting injection
  • depot
  • effectiveness
  • schizophrenia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Ambiguous findings concerning potential advantages of depot antipsychotics : In search of clinical relevance. / Haddad, Peter M.; Kishimoto, Taishiro; Correll, Christoph U.; Kane, John M.

In: Current Opinion in Psychiatry, Vol. 28, No. 3, 07.05.2015, p. 216-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a6e1b44d8b01434a95dae0fbdd80a50e,
title = "Ambiguous findings concerning potential advantages of depot antipsychotics: In search of clinical relevance",
abstract = "Purpose of review We review the recent literature on the comparative efficacy/effectiveness of antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) vs. oral antipsychotics. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), mirror-image studies and cohort studies are reviewed, and the strength and weaknesses of each design discussed.Recent findings The data are conflicting and differ by trial design. RCTs tend to show equivalence for the two treatments, whereas mirror-image studies and cohort studies are more likely to show benefits for LAIs, although a prescribing/channelling bias in cohort studies suggests that LAIs are prescribed to more severely ill patients. Two recent, large RCTs, in a more real-world treatment setting, found a longer time to relapse or treatment failure with a LAI versus oral antipsychotics.Summary Each of the three trial designs has strengths and weaknesses. The traditional RCT does not seem to be the gold standard to compare the effectiveness of oral antipsychotics and LAIs because of selective recruitment and altered ecology of the treatment. Conversely, weaknesses of observational studies include lack of blinding and difficulty disentangling the effect of treatment from prescribing bias and confounders. The best approach to determining comparative effectiveness may be a pragmatic RCT with broad inclusion criteria and minimal exclusion criteria and minimal assessment following baseline assessment and randomization.",
keywords = "antipsychotic long-acting injection, depot, effectiveness, schizophrenia",
author = "Haddad, {Peter M.} and Taishiro Kishimoto and Correll, {Christoph U.} and Kane, {John M.}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1097/YCO.0000000000000160",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "216--221",
journal = "Current Opinion in Psychiatry",
issn = "0951-7367",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ambiguous findings concerning potential advantages of depot antipsychotics

T2 - In search of clinical relevance

AU - Haddad, Peter M.

AU - Kishimoto, Taishiro

AU - Correll, Christoph U.

AU - Kane, John M.

PY - 2015/5/7

Y1 - 2015/5/7

N2 - Purpose of review We review the recent literature on the comparative efficacy/effectiveness of antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) vs. oral antipsychotics. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), mirror-image studies and cohort studies are reviewed, and the strength and weaknesses of each design discussed.Recent findings The data are conflicting and differ by trial design. RCTs tend to show equivalence for the two treatments, whereas mirror-image studies and cohort studies are more likely to show benefits for LAIs, although a prescribing/channelling bias in cohort studies suggests that LAIs are prescribed to more severely ill patients. Two recent, large RCTs, in a more real-world treatment setting, found a longer time to relapse or treatment failure with a LAI versus oral antipsychotics.Summary Each of the three trial designs has strengths and weaknesses. The traditional RCT does not seem to be the gold standard to compare the effectiveness of oral antipsychotics and LAIs because of selective recruitment and altered ecology of the treatment. Conversely, weaknesses of observational studies include lack of blinding and difficulty disentangling the effect of treatment from prescribing bias and confounders. The best approach to determining comparative effectiveness may be a pragmatic RCT with broad inclusion criteria and minimal exclusion criteria and minimal assessment following baseline assessment and randomization.

AB - Purpose of review We review the recent literature on the comparative efficacy/effectiveness of antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) vs. oral antipsychotics. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), mirror-image studies and cohort studies are reviewed, and the strength and weaknesses of each design discussed.Recent findings The data are conflicting and differ by trial design. RCTs tend to show equivalence for the two treatments, whereas mirror-image studies and cohort studies are more likely to show benefits for LAIs, although a prescribing/channelling bias in cohort studies suggests that LAIs are prescribed to more severely ill patients. Two recent, large RCTs, in a more real-world treatment setting, found a longer time to relapse or treatment failure with a LAI versus oral antipsychotics.Summary Each of the three trial designs has strengths and weaknesses. The traditional RCT does not seem to be the gold standard to compare the effectiveness of oral antipsychotics and LAIs because of selective recruitment and altered ecology of the treatment. Conversely, weaknesses of observational studies include lack of blinding and difficulty disentangling the effect of treatment from prescribing bias and confounders. The best approach to determining comparative effectiveness may be a pragmatic RCT with broad inclusion criteria and minimal exclusion criteria and minimal assessment following baseline assessment and randomization.

KW - antipsychotic long-acting injection

KW - depot

KW - effectiveness

KW - schizophrenia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926379869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84926379869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000160

DO - 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000160

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 216

EP - 221

JO - Current Opinion in Psychiatry

JF - Current Opinion in Psychiatry

SN - 0951-7367

IS - 3

ER -