European Psychiatry - Volume 33 - March 2016

312 / 812

S308 24th European Congress of Psychiatry / European Psychiatry 33S (2016) S116–S348
to establish how social cognition domains mirror the course and
severity of schizophrenia and SSD are needed.
Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.
EW547
Monosodium glutamate (MSG)
threshold of taste perception in deficit
and nondeficit schizophrenia
J. Pelka-Wysiecka ∗ Wronski ienkowski
J. Samochowiec
1 Pomeranian Medical University, Psychiatry, Szczecin, Poland
2 Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Pharmacology, Warsaw,
Poland
∗ Corresponding author.
Introduction Deficit schizophrenia (DS) with persistent, primary
negative symptoms has a confirmed neuroanatomical background,
similarly to structures involved in the process of taste. DS may be
regarded as a subtype of schizophrenia caused by neurodevelop-
mental disorders, with probable link to specific genetic traits which
are responsible for the formation of synapses and neuroplastic-
ity. The process eventually leads to symptoms of the illness and
physiologic disorders affecting the perception of taste.
Objective The study of threshold of taste perception (TTP) was
part of the search for the helpful marker to identify DS patients.
Aims Taste evaluation was supposed to determine differences in
TTP-MSG between DS and NDS.
Methods Eighty-two patients with DS and 72 patients with NDS
(nondeficit schizophrenia), somatically healthy and without acute
psychotic symptoms were subjected to TTP-MSG: seven triplets
(water, water, 0,0001%-1% MSG) were applied. Demographic and
psychometric data were analyzed.
Results An analysis of TTP-MSG did not disclose differences
between DS and NDS. Most patients in both groups correctly
detected the taste starting from 0,1% MSG. No differences in other
collected data were found between DS and NDS.
Conclusions Physiologic studies of TTP-MSG should not be the
base for differentiation between DS and NDS groups of patients.
This work was supported by grant MNiSW no N N402 456738.
Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.
EW548
Tolerability and safety of long-acting
injectable aripiprazole
A. Porras Segovia ∗, P. Calvo Rivera , B. Girela Serrano ,
L. Gutierrez Rojas
1 University Hospital San Cecilio, Mental Health Services, Granada,
Spain
2 Santa Ana Hospital, Mental Health Services, Motril, Spain
∗ Corresponding author.
Introduction Long-acting injectable aripiprazole is the most
recently introduced depot treatment in schizophrenia.
Objectives The objective of this study is to determine the tolera-
bility and safety of this new treatment.
Aims The aim is to provide useful information regarding the use
of this new drug.
Methods Our sample consists on 20 patients treated with a
monthly dose of long-acting ariprazole. They were previously sta-
bilized on oral aripiprazole before the first injection. The data on
tolerability and safety were obtained by face-to-face interviews,
using the Hogan Drug Attitude Inventory, the Patient Satisfaction
with Medication Questionnaire and the UKU Side Effects Scale.
Results Our sample consists of 20 patients, with a 50/50 gen-
der distribution and a mean age of 39 years. The average score in
the satisfaction scale Hogan was positive (an average of 7.25). In
the Patient Satisfaction With Medication Questionnaire, 85% said
they were satisfied with the new treatment, compared with 15%
who showed some degree of dissatisfaction with the change. Over-
all, 90% of patients showed a preference for the current treatment
compared to the previous. The patients showed good tolerance to
medication, with a low score in the UKU scale (total score = 13.5).
Side effects did not interfere with daily activity of the patient.
Conclusions Long acting injectable aripiprazole proved to be a
safe treatment, with a good degree of acceptance among patients.
These advantages makes of this new drug a useful addition to our
kit tool.
Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.
EW549
Comparative study of the side-effect
profile between clozapine and
non-clozapine patients
S. Ramos Perdigues ∗, A. Mane Santacana , P. Salgado Serrano ,
E. Jove Badia , X. Valiente Torrelles , L. Ortiz Sanz ,
F. Dinamarca , J.R. Fortuny Olive , V. Perez Sola
1 Hospital Can Misses, Psychiatry, Ibiza, Spain
2 Hospital Del Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
3 Centre Dr. Emili Mira, Psychiatry, Santa Coloma De Gramanet, Spain
∗ Corresponding author.
Introduction For resistant schizophrenia, the only approved
treatment is clozapine. However, clozapine is underused, mainly
due to its wide range of side-effects. Secondary effects differ
amongst antipsychotics (Leucht et al., 2009). Despite that there is
no good evidence that combined antipsychotics offer any advan-
tage over the use of a single antipsychotic, combination increases
the frequency of adverse events (Maudsley guidelines).
Objectives To compare the side-effect profile between clozapine
and non-clozapinepatients.
Aims To provide evidence that clozapine patients do not show a
worse side-effects profile.
Methods We cross-sectionally analysed all patients
from a Spanish long-term mental care facility (n = 139).
Schizophrenic/schizoaffective patients were selected (n = 118)
and their treatment was assessed, 31 patients used clozapine.
We paired clozapine and non-clozapine patients by sex and age
and assessed antipsychotic side effects and possible confounder
variables.
Results Our sample was 27 clozapine patients and 29 non-
clozapine patients. 67,9%weremalewith amean age of 51.3 (SD9.6)
years. For continuous variables: age, BMI, waist/hip, cholesterol, TG,
glucose, prolactin, heart-rate, blood pressure, sleeping hours, the
only statistical differences found were lower heart-rate (P = 0.001)
in clozapine group and higher salivation subscale of SAS (P = 0.002)
in clozapine group. For discrete variables: monotherapy, obesity,
overweight, metabolic syndrome or possible confounders as pro-
pranolol, laxative, diet, antiglycemiant or insulin, fibrates or statins,
antihypertensive or anticholinergic, no statistical differences were
found.
Conclusions We did not find differences in cardiometabolic
parameters, which are the main barrier to prescribing clozapine,
probably due to the concomitant use of other drugs in both groups.
Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.