No ‘real-world’ implications?
John M. Kane, MD, codirector and professor, Institute of Behavioral Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said that overall, this was a “large, potentially valuable study.” However, he raised several concerns.
Dr. John M. Kane
“I think the investigators made a much too emphatic statement about the lack of value of LAIs in early-phase patients when discontinuation is the primary outcome,” he said, noting that other studies have come to the opposite conclusion.
Dr. Kane, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, was not involved with the current research.
“RCTs [randomized controlled trials] in general are not necessarily the best way to evaluate the impact of LAIs [which] usually represent a small percentage of potentially eligible patients and are likely to include patients who are more adherent than those who would not agree to participate in an RCT,” he said. He added that the investigators “did not report on how many patients were screened and refused to be considered.”
Also, Dr. Kane noted that half of the participants were recruited from inpatient services, and so may have been “more unstable” at baseline. “Patients with residual positive symptoms are more likely to relapse on LAIs than patients who are in remission. This could potentially reduce the advantage of the LAI,” he said.
In addition, he took issue with the definition of all-cause discontinuation, which included the need for augmentation with another antipsychotic or use outside the normal range.
“This happens often in clinical practice. If someone’s symptoms aren’t sufficiently controlled by an LAI alone, for example, they often receive more of that antipsychotic or another drug. This perhaps makes the EULAST study somewhat less ‘real-world’,” Dr. Kane said.
More information needed
In an accompanying editorial, Martina Hahn, PharmD, PhD, department of psychiatry, psychosomatics, and psychotherapy, University Hospital-Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, and Sibylle Christine Roll, MD, PHD, department of mental health, Varisano Hospital in Frankfurt, note that comedications were neither documented nor analyzed by the researchers.
Dr. Martina Hahn
“Drug-drug interactions could be responsible for relapse or poor tolerability,” they write.
Moreover, pharmacogenetic information was not available nor were serum concentrations that could have been used for dose optimization after switching antipsychotic formulations, they note.
This information would have provided “a deeper understanding of why some patients do not respond or show side effects,” the editorialists write. “The use of therapeutic drug monitoring, drug interaction checks, and pharmacogenetic testing could improve treatment outcomes in both study settings and clinical practice.”
Financial support and study medication was provided by Lundbeck and Otsuka. Dr. Winter-van Rossum reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other investigators are fully listed in the original paper. Dr. Kane is or has been a consultant to or received honoraria for lectures from Alkermes , Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerevel, Dainippon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, HLS, Intracellular Therapies, Janssen, Karuna, Merck, Newron, Otsuka, Roche, Saladax, Sunovion, and TEVA. He is also a shareholder in The Vanguard Research Group, LB Pharma, Health Rhythms, North Shore Therapeutics, and Medincell. Dr. Hahn reports having received honoraria for lecture from Otsuka and advisory board participation for Rovi. Dr. Roll reports advisory board participation for Recordati, Otsuka, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.