Background:The elderly population has a significant risk of suicide when compared to any other age group. Despite this, suicide among the aged receives scant attention. Hence, identification of suicide risk factors specific to this population will help in the development of suitable prevention strategies for this group.Aims:Comparison of risk factors for attempting the suicide in the elderly versus younger suicide attempters.Materials and Methods:A total 1159 suicide attempters attended the suicide prevention clinic of IQRAA International Hospital and Research Centre. They were evaluated using a specially designed psycho-sociodemographic proforma. The group was divided into those above 65 years (elderly) and those below 65 years (younger) and all the risk factors were compared between these two groups.Results:Most suicide attempters in the elderly category were found to be married, less educated, unemployed and hailed from a rural background and joint families. They had a higher rate of family history of psychiatric illness, past psychiatric illness, concurrent medical illness and history of medical contact in the three months prior to the attempt. A significant number in the elderly group had attempted suicide more than a week after a stressor.Conclusion:The results from this study suggests that in suicide attempters from Indian geriatric population, co-morbid physical illness, mental illness (particularly depression) and family burden of psychiatric illness are important predictors in comparison to younger populations. Also, these attempters had contact with a medical professional in the three months prior to the attempt. Specific preventive interventions need to be tailored for this population to reduce the risk of suicide rather than adopting generalized suicide prevention strategies.

Objective:An important challenge in schizophrenia therapeutics is to develop an efficacious treatment for cognitive impairment. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as rivastigmine, have been studied for improving cognitive performance in these patients.Materials and Methods:Rivastigmine (uptitrated to 6 mg/day) was given as an add-on therapy to risperidone-treated stable schizophrenia patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Of 67 patients who met eligibility criteria, 55 were recruited into the study. Twenty-eight were assigned to rivastigmine and 27 to placebo. These patients completed tests of attention, executive functioning, verbal skills, verbal and visuospatial working memory, and psychomotor speed on five occasions: at baseline, and at the end of the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months.Results:The groups were similar in terms of sociodemographic profile and baseline clinical characteristics (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Clinical Global Impression-Severity). Contrary to expectations, rivastigmine patients showed poorer outcomes on several cognitive measures. Rivastigmine patients experienced also more psychological as well as neurological side effects. Core psychopathology ratings, however, did not differ between rivastigmine and placebo groups.Conclusions:Our study does not support the long-term use of rivastigmine as an augmentation agent in schizophrenia. Rivastigmine may be associated with higher incidence of psychological and neurological side effects in patients with schizophrenia.

Objective:The safety and efficacy profile of risperidone and olanzapine were compared in a double-blind trial that used doses widely accepted in clinical practice.Methods:Subjects (n = 71) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive 2–8 mg/day of risperidone (mean modal dose = 5.5 mg/day) or 5–20 mg/day of olanzapine (mean modal dose = 14.4 mg/day) for 1 year.Results:The two study groups were similar at baseline in all aspects. Seventy-four percent of the participants completed the trial, with no between-differences in the proportion of dropouts. Olanzapine group showed significantly greater improvement in negative symptoms in assessments at 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th months (P = 0.05, 0.00, 0.00, and 0.00, respectively). Clinical global impression of severity (CGI-S) scores were consistently lower in the olanzapine group at 3rd, 6th, and 9th months (P = 0.01, 0.03, and 0.05, respectively) as measured by positive and negative symptom scale (PANSS). Total scores on PANSS, positive symptoms, general psychopathology, and CGI improvement showed comparable improvement at 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th months of follow-up (all subjects, including dropouts). Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms was low in both groups, with no between-group differences. Mean change in body weight, fasting blood sugar, and fasting cholesterol was comparable in both groups. Risperidone group had significant hyperprolactinemia after one year (P = 0.03).Conclusions:Both treatments were well-tolerated and efficacious. Greater reductions in severity of the illness and negative symptoms were seen with olanzapine consistently through 1 year. The frequency and severity of extrapyramidal symptoms were negligible and similar in the two treatment groups. Weight gain, hyperlipidemia, and hyperglycemia were comparable in both groups. Risperidone produced significant hyperprolactinemia.

No abstract