Efficacy and safety of antidepressant augmentation of continued antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressant augmentation of antipsychotics in schizophrenia. METHODS: Systematic literature search (PubMed/MEDLINE/PsycINFO/Cochrane Library) from database inception until 10/10/2017 for randomized, double-blind, efficacy-focused trials comparing adjunctive antidepressants vs. placebo in schizophrenia. RESULTS: In a random-effects meta-analysis (studies = 42, n = 1934, duration = 10.1 ± 8.1 weeks), antidepressant augmentation outperformed placebo regarding total symptom reduction [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.57 to -0.17, P < 0.001], driven by negative (SMD = -0.25, 95% CI = -0.44-0.06, P = 0.010), but not positive (P = 0.190) or general (P = 0.089) symptom reduction. Superiority regarding negative symptoms was confirmed in studies augmenting first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI = -0.77, -0.07, P = 0.019), but not second-generation antipsychotics (P = 0.144). Uniquely, superiority in total symptom reduction by NaSSAs (SMD = -0.71, 95% CI = -1.21, -0.20, P = 0.006) was not driven by negative (P = 0.438), but by positive symptom reduction (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.77, -0.09, P = 0.012). Antidepressants did not improve depressive symptoms more than placebo (P = 0.185). Except for more dry mouth [risk ratio (RR) = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.04-2.36, P = 0.03], antidepressant augmentation was not associated with more adverse events or all-cause/specific-cause discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: For schizophrenia patients on stable antipsychotic treatment, adjunctive antidepressants are effective for total and particularly negative symptom reduction. However, effects are small-to-medium, differ across antidepressants, and negative symptom improvement seems restricted to the augmentation of FGAs.

Early detection and integrated care for adolescents and young adults with psychotic disorders: the ACCESS III study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to investigate whether a combined intervention composed of early detection plus integrated care (EDIC) enhances outcomes in patients with early psychosis compared to standard care (SC). METHODS: ACCESS III is a prospective non-randomized historical control design 1-year study examining the efficacy of EDIC (n = 120) vs. SC (n = 105) in patients aged 12-29 years. Primary outcome was the rate of ≥6 months combined symptomatic and functional remission. Additional outcomes comprised the reduction of DUP and course of psychopathology, functioning, quality of life, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: In observed cases, 48.9% in the EDIC and 15.2% in the SC group reached the primary endpoint. Remission was predicted by EDIC (OR = 6.8, CI: 3.15-14.53, P < 0.001); younger age predicted non-remission (OR = 1.1, CI: 1.01-1.19, P = 0.038). Linear regressions indicated a reduction of DUP in EDIC (P < 0.001), but not in SC (P = 0.41). MMRMs showed significantly larger improvements in PANSS positive (P < 0.001) and GAF (P < 0.01) scores in EDIC vs. SC, and in EDIC over time in CGI-Severity (P < 0.001) and numerically in Q-LES-Q-18 (P = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: EDIC lead to significantly higher proportions of patients achieving combined remission. Moderating variables included a reduction of DUP and EDIC, offering psychotherapeutic interventions.