Article AbstractBecause this piece has no abstract, we have provided for your benefit the first 3 sentences of the full text.†‹Sir: I read with great interest the article by Hamann et al.1 inthe July 2007 issue of the Journal. First, I applaud the authors†focused effort2,3 to answer the thorny question about whetherand how patients with schizophrenia can be engaged in therapeuticdecisions and what the consequences of this inclusionmight be.My first comment refers to some of the numbers reported inthe article.†‹

Abstract Background Quick symptomatic remission after the onset of psychotic symptoms is critical in schizophrenia treatment, determining the subsequent disease course and recovery. In this context, only every second patient with acute schizophrenia achieves symptomatic remission within three months of initiating antipsychotic treatment. The potential indication extension of clozapine—the most effective antipsychotic—to be introduced at an earlier stage (before treatment-resistance) is supported by several lines of evidence, but respective clinical trials are lacking. Methods Two hundred-twenty patients with acute non-treatment-resistant schizophrenia will be randomized in this double-blind, 8-week parallel-group multicentric trial to either clozapine or olanzapine. The primary endpoint is the number of patients in symptomatic remission at the end of week 8 according to international consensus criteria (‘Andreasen criteria’). Secondary endpoints and other assessments comprise a comprehensive safety assessment (i. e., myocarditis screening), changes in psychopathology, global functioning, cognition, affective symptoms and quality of life, and patients’ and relatives’ views on treatment. Discussion This multicentre trial aims to examine whether clozapine is more effective than a highly effective second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), olanzapine, in acute schizophrenia patients who do not meet the criteria for treatment-naïve or treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Increasing the likelihood to achieve symptomatic remission in acute schizophrenia can improve the overall outcome, reduce disease-associated burden and potentially prevent mid- and long-term disease chronicity.

Abstract Background Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose‐related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse‐effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia. Search methods We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study‐Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment. Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life, rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk. No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence). More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well‐designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.

Neuroinflammation has been proposed to impact symptomatology in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. While previous studies have shown equivocal effects of treatments with add-on anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin, N-acetylcysteine and Celecoxib, none have used a subset of prospectively recruited patients exhibiting an inflammatory profile. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the cost-effectiveness of a treatment with 400 mg Celecoxib added to an ongoing antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders exhibiting an inflammatory profile. The “Add-on Celecoxib treatment in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and inflammatory cytokine profile trial (TargetFlame)” is a multicentre randomized, placebo-controlled phase III investigator-initiated clinical trial with the following two arms: patients exhibiting an inflammatory profile receiving either add-on Celecoxib 400 mg/day or add-on placebo. A total of 199 patients will be assessed for eligibility by measuring blood levels of three pro-inflammatory cytokines, and 109 patients with an inflammatory profile, i.e. inflamed, will be randomized, treated for 8 weeks and followed-up for additional four months. The primary endpoint will be changes in symptom severity as assessed by total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score changes from baseline to week 8. Secondary endpoints include various other measures of psychopathology and safety. Additional health economic analyses will be performed. TargetFlame is the first study aimed at evaluating the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the antiphlogistic agent Celecoxib in a subset of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders exhibiting an inflammatory profile. With TargetFlame, we intended to investigate a novel precision medicine approach towards anti-inflammatory antipsychotic treatment augmentation using drug repurposing. Clinical trial registration: http://www.drks.de/DRKS00029044 and https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00029044

Abstract Background In clinical practice, different antipsychotics can be combined in the treatment of people with schizophrenia (polypharmacy). This strategy can aim at increasing efficacy, but might also increase the adverse effects due to drug–drug interactions. Reducing polypharmacy by withdrawing one or more antipsychotics may reduce this problem, but must be done carefully, in order to maintain efficacy. Objectives To examine the effects and safety of reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy compared to maintaining people with schizophrenia on the same number of antipsychotics. Search methods On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study‐Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared reduction in the number of antipsychotics to continuation of the current number of antipsychotics. We included adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving more than one antipsychotic and were stabilised on their current treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all the identified references for inclusion, and all the full papers. We contacted study authors if we needed any further information. Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: quality of life assessed as number of participants with clinically important change in quality of life; service use assessed as number of participants readmitted to hospital and adverse effects assessed with number of participants leaving the study early due to adverse effects. Main results We included five RCTs with 319 participants. Study duration ranged from three months to one year. All studies compared polypharmacy continuation with two antipsychotics to polypharmacy reduction to one antipsychotic. We assessed the risk of bias of results as being of some concern or at high risk of bias. A lower number of participants left the study early due to any reason in the polypharmacy continuation group (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 319; low‐certainty evidence), and a lower number of participants left the study early due to inefficacy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.65; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 201). Polypharmacy continuation resulted in more severe negative symptoms (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.09; 1 RCT, n = 35). There was no clear difference between polypharmacy reduction and polypharmacy continuation on readmission to hospital, leaving the study early due to adverse effects, functioning, global state, general mental state and positive symptoms, number of participants with at least one adverse effect, weight gain and other specific adverse effects, mortality and cognition. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low or low across measured outcomes. No studies reported quality of life, days in hospital, relapse, depressive symptoms, behaviour and satisfaction with care. Due to lack of data, it was not possible to perform some planned sensitivity analyses, including one controlling for increasing the dose of the remaining antipsychotic. As a result, we do not know if the observed results might be influenced by adjustment of dose of remaining antipsychotic compound. Authors' conclusions This review summarises the latest evidence on polypharmacy continuation compared with polypharmacy reduction. Our results show that polypharmacy continuation might be associated with a lower number of participants leaving the study early, especially due to inefficacy. However, the evidence is of low and very low certainty and the data analyses based on few study only, so that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions based on the results of the present review. Further high‐quality RCTs are needed to investigate this important topic.

Abstract Background Antipsychotic drugs the only established monotherapy for the acute treatment and for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia, but their downside are multiple side-effects which include weight gain, extrapyramidal side-effects and hormonal changes, some of can contribute to the documented on average 15 years shorter lifes of afflicted people. In addition, there are controversial data that suggest that antipsychotics could even lead to brain volume loss in a dose related fashion. In practice, acutely ill patients often receive high doses or combinations of antipsychotics. This is in part due to pressures such as suicidality, aggression, but also pressure from insurance companies and high rates of non-response, The question is, therefore, whether these high doses and polypharmacy can be carefully reduced during the maintenance phase. Of course, there is a difficult trade-off, because if the overall dose gets too low there is a risk for relapse. Methods Two systematic Cochrane reviews, one on the reduction of antipsychotic doses, the other one on the reduction of antipsychotic polypharmacy in patients with schizophrenia, will be presented. For both reviews, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s register was searched for randomised controlled trials on thes questions. Open and blinded trials are accepted, but open trials are excluded in a sensitivity analysis. Patients need to be stable at baseline, doses and polypharmacy in the acute phase are not addressed. Any reduction of doses and any reduction of polypharmacy is accepted, irrespectively of which combinations or doses patients were originally on, which antipsychotics were taken off, how many antipsychotics were taken off/by how much doses were reduced and how fast the reduction was undertaken. The control groups are staying on polypharmacy/the original doses. The primary outcomes are quality of life and rehospitalisation. A high number of secondary outcomes such as symptoms, functioning, relapse and a broad range of side-effects are also addressed. The data are summarised in a random effects meta-analysis with standardised mean differences as effect sizes for continuous data and relative risks for dichotomous data. Heterogeneity is assessed with a chi-square test and the I-Square statistic. Publication is addressed with funnel-plots. Summary of findings tables are used to illustrate the results. Results The search in the specialized register of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group yielded 96 references, and 36 studies (32 + 4) that meet the inclusion criteria. The studies were published between 1963 and 2016 and they randomised between 13 and 374 participants. Without considering protocols and trial registrations, 9 were open RCTs, 5 were at least single blind and 13 were double blind. 16 studies were suitable for the meta-analysis of dose-reduction, 4 for the meta-analysis of the reduction of polypharmacy. Data extraction and analysis is currently ongoing. Preliminary findings will be presented at the meeting. Discussion In the acute phase clinicians often use polypharmacy and high doses to treat schizophrenia. However, antipsychotics have many side-effects including a possibility to lead to brain volume loss in a dose-related fashion. The question whether such a polypharmacy and high doses can be reduced once patients are stable therefore currently one of the most burning ones. The Cochrane reviews will provide a comprehensive synthesis of the research that has been undertaken in this area.

BACKGROUND:Preclinical studies recently showed that the mineralocorticoid antagonist spironolactone acts also as an antagonist of the NRG1-ERBB4 signaling pathway and improves schizophrenia-like behaviour in Nrg1 transgenic mouse model. As this signaling pathway is critically linked to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia, especially in the context of working-memory dysfunction, spironolactone may be a novel treatment option for patients with schizophrenia targeting cognitive impairments.AIMS:To evaluate whether spironolactone added to an ongoing antipsychotic treatment improves cognitive functioning in schizophrenia.METHODS:The add-on spironolactone for the treatment of schizophrenia trial (SPIRO-TREAT) is a multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled trial with three arms (spironolactone 100 mg, spironolactone 200 mg and placebo). Schizophrenia patients are treated for three weeks and then followed-up for additional nine weeks. As primary outcome, we investigate changes in working memory before and at the end of the intervention phase. We will randomize 90 patients. Eighty-one patients are intended to reach the primary endpoint measure at the end of the three-week intervention period. Secondary endpoints include other measures of cognition, psychopathology, safety measures and biological measures.CONCLUSIONS:SPIRO-TREAT is the first study evaluating the efficacy of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone to improve cognitive impairments in schizophrenia patients targeting the NRG1-ERBB4 signaling pathway. With SPIRO-TREAT, we intend to investigate a novel treatment option for cognitive impairments in schizophrenia that goes beyond the established concepts of interfering with dopaminergic neurotransmission as key pathway in schizophrenia treatment.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=EUCTR2014-001968-35-DE.