Dataset Information

Clozapine once- versus multiple-daily dosing: a two-center cross-sectional study, systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of clozapine once- vs. multiple-daily dosing is limited. We compared demographic and clinical parameters between patients with once- vs. multiple-daily dosing in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, Germany (AGATE dataset), and the Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, using non-parametric tests. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were available in the AGATE dataset. We performed a systematic review in PubMed/Embase until February 2022, meta-analyzing studies comparing clozapine once- vs. multiple-daily-dosing. We estimated a pooled odds ratio for adverse drug-induced reactions (ADRs) and meta-analyzed differences regarding clinical symptom severity, age, percentage males, smokers, clozapine dose, and co-medications between patients receiving once- vs. multiple-daily dosing. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale. Of 1494 and 174 patients included in AGATE and Lausanne datasets, clozapine was prescribed multiple-daily in 74.8% and 67.8%, respectively. In the AGATE cohort, no differences were reported for the clinical symptoms severity or ADR rate (p > 0.05). Meta-analyzing eight cohorts with a total of 2810 clozapine-treated individuals, we found more severe clinical symptoms (p = 0.036), increased ADR risk (p = 0.01), higher clozapine doses (p < 0.001), more frequent co-medication with other antipsychotics (p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (p < 0.001), anticholinergics (p = 0.039), and laxatives (p < 0.001) in patients on multiple- vs. once-daily dosing. Of six studies, five were rated as good, and one as poor quality. Patients responding less well to clozapine may be prescribed higher doses multiple-daily, also treated with polypharmacy, potentially underlying worse safety outcomes. Patient preferences and adherence should be considered during regimen selection.

SUBMITTER: Kuzo N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10465369 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clozapine once- versus multiple-daily dosing: a two-center cross-sectional study, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kuzo Nazar N Haen Ekkehard E Ho Dominic M DM Takeuchi Hiroyoshi H Piras Marianna M Eap Chin-Bin CB de Filippis Renato R Homan Philipp P Kane John M JM Roy Marc-André MA Paulzen Michael M Schoretsanitis Georgios G

European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience 20221229 7

Evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of clozapine once- vs. multiple-daily dosing is limited. We compared demographic and clinical parameters between patients with once- vs. multiple-daily dosing in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, Germany (AGATE dataset), and the Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, using non-parametric tests. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were available in the AGATE dataset. We performed a syst ...[more]

PMID: 36580106

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevalence of immunosuppressant nonadherence in renal transplant recipients is high despite negative clinical outcomes associated with nonadherence. Simplification of dosing has been demonstrated to improve adherence in renal transplant recipients as measured through electronic monitoring and self-report.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to replicate and extend previous findings by measuring adherence with multiple methods in a Canadian sample.DesignThe study design was a randomized controlled medication dosing trial in adult renal transplant patients. The trial length was 4 months.SettingThis study was conducted within the Solid Organ Transplant (SOT) Clinic at Vancouver General Hospital (VGH; Vancouver, Canada).PatientsA total of 46 adult renal recipients (at least 1 year post-transplant) were recruited through the SOT clinic. With 8 withdrawals, 38 individuals completed all phases of the study.MeasurementsMedication adherence was measured for a period of 4 months using multiple methods, including electronic monitoring (MEMS [Medication Event Monitoring System]), pharmacy refill data (medication possession ratio [MPR]), and by self-report using the Adherence subscale of the Transplant Effects Questionnaire (TEQ).MethodsParticipants were randomized to twice-daily (n = 19) or once-daily tacrolimus dosing (n = 19) and followed over a 4-month period via monthly clinic study visits. Comparisons between the treatment groups were performed using the Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests, for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.ResultsAs outlined in Table 3, the once-daily dosing group showed significantly better MEMS Dose Adherence (P = .001), whereas MEMS Timing Adherence showed a tendency toward better adherence for this group, but was not significant (P = .052). MEMS Days Adherent (P = .418), MPR% (P = .123), and self-reported adherence (P = .284) did not differ between the once- and twice-daily dosing groups when measured as continuous variables. The MPR% was significantly better for the once-daily dosing group when measured dichotomously but not continuously (P = .044). Notably, most of those exposed to once-daily dosing (63.2%) preferred this to the twice-daily regimen.LimitationsLimitations included small sample size and short follow-up period, precluding the examination of clinical outcome differences.ConclusionsResults for dose adherence replicate the finding that dose simplification increases adherence to immunosuppressants as measured through electronic monitoring. Such an advantage for the once-daily dosing group was not seen across the 2 other electronic monitoring measurement variables (days and timing adherence). This study extends previous research by examining adherence in once versus twice-daily dosing via prescription refill data in a Canadian sample. Given the gravity of potential health outcomes associated with nonadherence, although results indicate inconsistencies in significance testing across measurement methods, the medium to large effect sizes seen in the data favoring better adherence with once-daily dosing provide an indication of the potential clinical significance of these findings.Trial registrationThis study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01334333) on April 11, 2011.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy administered via single or multiple inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been evaluated comprehensively. We conducted two replicate trials comparing single- with multiple-inhaler ICS/LAMA/LABA combination in COPD.Methods207608 and 207609 were Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy non-inferiority trials comparing once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg via Ellipta inhaler, with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg via metered-dose inhaler plus once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg via HandiHaler. Patients had symptomatic COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) < 50% predicted, or FEV1 < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or 1 severe exacerbations in the prior year. The primary endpoint in both trials was weighted mean change from baseline (wmCFB) in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included CFB in trough FEV1 at Day 84 and 85. Other endpoints included serial FEV1 and health status outcomes at Week 12. Safety was evaluated descriptively.ResultsThe modified per-protocol population included 720 and 711 patients in studies 207608 and 207609 (intent-to-treat population: 728 and 732). FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 (Study 207608 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 15 mL [- 13, 43]; Study 207609: 11 mL [- 20, 41]). FF/UMEC/VI improved trough FEV1 CFB versus BUD/FOR+TIO at Day 84 and 85 (Day 85 treatment difference: Study 207608: 38 mL [10, 66]; Study 207609: 51 mL [21, 82]) and FEV1 at 12 and 24 h post-morning dose at Week 12 in both studies. No treatment differences were seen in health status outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between treatments; pneumonia occurred in 7 (< 1%) patients with FF/UMEC/VI and 9 (1%) patients with BUD/FOR+TIO, across both studies.ConclusionsFF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 in patients with COPD. Greater improvements in trough and serial FEV1 measurements at Week 12 with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO, together with similar health status improvements and safety outcomes including the incidence of pneumonia, suggest that once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy is a viable option for patients looking to simplify their treatment regimen.Trial registrationGSK (207608/207609; NCT03478683/NCT03478696).

Dataset Information

Clozapine once- versus multiple-daily dosing: a two-center cross-sectional study, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Clozapine once- versus multiple-daily dosing: a two-center cross-sectional study, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets