Dataset Information

Multigenetic Pharmacogenomics-Guided Treatment vs Treatment As Usual Among Hospitalized Men With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Limited evidence supports multigenetic pharmacogenomics-guided treatment (MPGT) in schizophrenia.

Objective

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of MPGT in schizophrenia in a randomized clinical trial (RCT).

Design, setting, and participants

This RCT was conducted from March 2020 to March 2022. Male Chinese Han inpatients aged 18 to 60 years diagnosed with schizophrenia with a Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) score of 60 or more from 2 selected study hospitals were included. Patients and raters were masked to MPGT or treatment as usual (TAU) randomization.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either MPGT or TAU for 12 weeks.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage change in PANSS total scores (range, 30 to 210) from baseline to week 6 analyzed by a modified intention-to-treat mixed model for repeated measures. The secondary outcome included response and symptomatic remission rates.

Results

A total of 210 participants (mean [SD] age, 29.2 [8.8] years) were enrolled and analyzed, with 113 assigned to MPGT and 97 to TAU. Compared with those randomized to TAU, participants randomized to MPGT demonstrated a significantly higher percentage change in PANSS score (74.2% vs 64.9%; adjusted mean difference, 9.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.4-14.1 percentage points; P < .001) and a higher response rate (93 of 113 [82.3%] vs 63 of 97 [64.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.28-4.80; P = .01) at the end of week 6.

Conclusions and relevance

In this RCT of MPGT, MPGT was more effective than TAU in treating patients with schizophrenia. These findings suggest that multigenetic pharmacogenomic testing could serve as an effective tool to guide the treatment of schizophrenia.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000029671.

SUBMITTER: Kang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10559185 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multigenetic Pharmacogenomics-Guided Treatment vs Treatment As Usual Among Hospitalized Men With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Kang Zhewei Z Qin Ying Y Sun Yutao Y Lu Zhe Z Sun Yaoyao Y Chen Huan H Feng Xiaoyang X Zhang Yuyanan Y Guo Hua H Yan Hao H Yue Weihua W

JAMA network open 20231002 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Limited evidence supports multigenetic pharmacogenomics-guided treatment (MPGT) in schizophrenia.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of MPGT in schizophrenia in a randomized clinical trial (RCT).<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This RCT was conducted from March 2020 to March 2022. Male Chinese Han inpatients aged 18 to 60 years diagnosed with schizophrenia with a Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) score of 60 or more from 2 selected study ...[more]

PMID: 37801319

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSevere pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectiveTo determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, setting, and particpantsThis cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.ResultsOf 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], -21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI -28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04331808.

Project description:BackgroundSafe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear.Research questionWhat is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19?Study design and methodsAwake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated.ResultsThe trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm.InterpretationAmong nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov.

Project description:ImportanceLong-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) can potentially reduce hospitalization risk by enhancing medication adherence but are rarely considered for early-phase schizophrenia treatment.ObjectiveTo determine whether encouraging use of a LAI compared with usual care delays the time to first hospitalization with patients with early-phase illness.Design, setting, and participantsThe Prevention of Relapse in Schizophrenia (PRELAPSE) trial was cluster randomized with a follow-up duration of 2 years. The study began in December 2014, was completed in March 2019, and was conducted in 39 mental health centers in 19 US states. Site randomization assigned 19 clinics to encourage treatment with long-acting aripiprazole monohydrate (aripiprazole once monthly [AOM] condition) and 20 to provide treatment as usual (clinician's choice [CC] condition). Participant eligibility criteria included (1) schizophrenia diagnosis confirmed by a structured clinical interview, (2) fewer than 5 years of lifetime antipsychotic use, and (3) age 18 to 35 years. The AOM sites identified 576 potentially eligible participants, of whom 234 (40.6%) enrolled; CC sites identified 685 potentially eligible participants, of whom 255 (37.2%) enrolled.InterventionsThere were no restrictions on treatment at CC sites (including using LAIs) or at AOM sites with the exception that aripiprazole monohydrate had to be prescribed within US Food and Drug Administration-approved guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time to first psychiatric hospitalization based on participant interviews every 2 months, the service use resource form administered every 4 months, and other sources (eg, health records) as available. Potential events were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.ResultsThe 489 participants (368 men [75.3%]) had a mean (SD) age of 25.2 (4.2) years and 225 (46.0%) had 1 year or less lifetime antipsychotic use. Fifty-two AOM (22%) and 91 CC participants (36%) had at least 1 hospitalization. The mean survival time until first hospitalization was 613.7 days (95% CI, 582.3-645.1 days) for AOM participants and 530.6 days (95% CI, 497.3-563.9 days) for CC participants. For time to first hospitalization, the hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.34- 0.92; P = .02), favoring AOM. Survival probabilities were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.83) for AOM participants and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.50-0.67) for CC participants. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 additional hospitalization was 7 participants treated with AOM compared with CC.Conclusions and relevanceLong-acting injectable antipsychotic use by patients with early-phase schizophrenia can significantly delay time to hospitalization, a personally and economically important outcome. Clinicians should more broadly consider LAI treatment for patients with early-phase illness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02360319.

Project description:ImportanceHospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsThe Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021.InterventionsPatients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first.Main outcomes and measuresThe first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days.ResultsA total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.

Project description:BackgroundNegative symptoms and cognitive deficits are two partially-related features of schizophrenia which have a major negative impact on social function and objective quality of life. Standard drug treatments have little impact on either. There is some evidence that anti-inflammatory treatment may have beneficial effects in schizophrenia and major depression. Statins are cholesterol-lowering agents that have been found to be anti-inflammatory agents and are also known to decrease C-reactive protein (CRP). Ondansetron is a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist widely used to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. Small studies have suggested that ondansetron is effective as an adjunct drug in improving the symptoms of schizophrenia.Methods/designThis is a two center, six-month, double-blind placebo controlled, factorial design study of ondansetron and/or simvastatin added to treatment as usual for patients suffering from schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychosis not otherwise specified or schizophreniform disorder. This will be a 2 × 2 design, with 54 patients in each cell, giving a total of 216 patients over three years. There will be a screening, a randomization and seven follow-up visits. Full clinical and neurocognitive assessments will be carried out at baseline (randomization), 14 weeks and at 26 weeks, while the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS), pill count and side effects checklist will be carried out at every visit. Simvastatin will be started at 20 mg once daily (OD), this will be increased to 40 mg after four weeks. Ondansetron will be administered in an 8 mg dose.DiscussionAnti-inflammatory treatments have been shown to have some beneficial effects in schizophrenia. Both simvastatin and ondansetron provide some evidence of a reduction in symptoms compared to treatment as usual. The aim of this study is to establish the degree of improvement in negative symptoms with the addition of ondansetron and/or simvastatin to treatment as usual.Trial registration[corrected] ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01602029.

Project description:ImportanceLong-acting injectable antipsychotics are used to reduce medication nonadherence and relapse in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. The relative effectiveness of long-acting injectable versions of second-generation and older antipsychotics has not been assessed.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate with the older long-acting injectable antipsychotic haloperidol decanoate.Design, setting, and participantsMultisite, double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 to July 2013 at 22 US clinical research sites. Randomized patients (n = 311) were adults diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were clinically assessed to be at risk of relapse and likely to benefit from a long-acting injectable antipsychotic.InterventionsIntramuscular injections of haloperidol decanoate 25 to 200 mg or paliperidone palmitate 39 to 234 mg every month for as long as 24 months.Main outcome measuresEfficacy failure, defined as a psychiatric hospitalization, a need for crisis stabilization, a substantial increase in frequency of outpatient visits, a clinician's decision that oral antipsychotic could not be discontinued within 8 weeks after starting the long-acting injectable antipsychotics, or a clinician's decision to discontinue the assigned long-acting injectable due to inadequate therapeutic benefit. Key secondary outcomes were common adverse effects of antipsychotic medications.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the rate of efficacy failure for paliperidone palmitate compared with haloperidol decanoate (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65-1.47). The number of participants who experienced efficacy failure was 49 (33.8%) in the paliperidone palmitate group and 47 (32.4%) in the haloperidol decanoate group. On average, participants in the paliperidone palmitate group gained weight and those in the haloperidol decanoate group lost weight; after 6 months, the least-squares mean weight change for those taking paliperidone palmitate was increased by 2.17 kg (95% CI, 1.25-3.09) and was decreased for those taking haloperidol decanoate (-0.96 kg; 95% CI, -1.88 to -0.04). Patients taking paliperidone palmitate had significantly higher maximum mean levels of serum prolactin (men, 34.56 µg/L [95% CI, 29.75-39.37] vs 15.41 µg/L [95% CI, 10.73-20.08]; P <.001, and for women, 75.19 [95% CI, 63.03-87.36] vs 26.84 [95% CI, 13.29-40.40]; P<.001). Patients taking haloperidol decanoate had significantly larger increases in global ratings of akathisia (0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.87] vs 0.45 [95% CI, 0.31-0.59]; P=.006).Conclusions and relevanceIn adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, use of paliperidone palmitate vs haloperidol decanoate did not result in a statistically significant difference in efficacy failure, but was associated with more weight gain and greater increases in serum prolactin, whereas haloperidol decanoate was associated with more akathisia. However, the CIs do not rule out the possibility of a clinically meaningful advantage with paliperidone palmitate.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01136772.

Dataset Information

Multigenetic Pharmacogenomics-Guided Treatment vs Treatment As Usual Among Hospitalized Men With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Multigenetic Pharmacogenomics-Guided Treatment vs Treatment As Usual Among Hospitalized Men With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets