Meprobamate and chlorpromazine in psychotherapy. Some effects on anxiety and hostility of outpatients

Mood States and Acquiescence

The study sought to evaluate the influence of extreme response style on mood state factors isolated. The factors obtained after partialling out response bias from intercorrelations of adjectives were compared with those obtained from the original set. A sample of the 349 high school students were administered a 63-adjective feeling-and-mood inventory. A principal axis analysis of the adjective intercorrelations disclosed seven mood states, all monopolar. After extreme response-bias score was partialled out of the intercorrelations the matrix of partial correlations was analyzed and seven factors were identified. Three of the mood states identified were bipolar and four were monopolar.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of chlorpromazine compared with placebo, for the treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (15 May 2012). We also searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. Where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. We used a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We inspected over 1100 electronic records. The review currently includes 315 excluded studies and 55 included studies. The quality of the evidence is very low. We found chlorpromazine reduced the number of participants experiencing a relapse compared with placebo during six months to two years follow-up (n = 512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.47 to 0.90), but data were heterogeneous. No difference was found in relapse rates in the short, medium or long term over two years, although data were also heterogeneous. We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n = 1164, 14 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.58 to 0.86). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early ( n = 1831, 27 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.53 to 0.78) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n = 1627, 23 RCTs, RR 2.79 CI 2.25 to 3.45), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n = 942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.47 CI 1.50 to 8.03) and parkinsonism (n = 1468, 15 RCTs, RR 2.11 CI 1.59 to 2.80). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo. Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n = 1488, 18 RCTs, RR 2.38 CI 1.74 to 3.25) and considerable weight gain (n = 165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.32 to 10.43).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well-established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Hostility as a predictor of affective changes during acute tobacco withdrawal

INTRODUCTION

Hostility--a personality trait reflective of cynical attitudes and a general mistrust of others--is associated with smoking status and relapse risk. Yet, the mechanisms linking hostility and smoking are not entirely clear. In this lab study, we tested a socioaffective model that purports that high-hostility individuals smoke to cope with maladaptive social mood states (i.e., anger and low friendliness), which become expressed and exacerbated during acute tobacco withdrawal.

METHODS

Following a baseline visit at which trait hostility was assessed, adult smokers (n = 153, ≥10 cig/day) attended two counterbalanced lab visits: a deprived session following 16 hr of deprivation, and a nondeprived session. At both lab visits, affect and withdrawal symptoms were assessed at a single time point.

RESULTS

Higher trait hostility predicted larger deprivation-induced increases in several forms of negative affect (anxiety, depression, confusion; βs ≥ .20, ps ≤ .01) and a composite tobacco withdrawal symptom index (β = .16, p = .04) but did not predict changes in positive emotions. These effects persisted after statistically controlling for gender, nicotine dependence, and depression. Other aspects of trait aggression (i.e., verbal aggression, physical aggression, anger) did not predict deprivation-induced changes in affect and withdrawal other than state anger.

DISCUSSION

High-hostility individuals appear to experience generalized exacerbations in several negative affective states during acute tobacco withdrawal. Increases in negative affect during tobacco withdrawal may motivate negative reinforcement-mediated smoking and could underlie tobacco addiction in high-hostility smokers.

Antiepileptics for aggression and associated impulsivity

BACKGROUND

Aggression is a major public health issue and is integral to several mental health disorders. Antiepileptic drugs may reduce aggression by acting on the central nervous system to reduce neuronal hyper-excitability associated with aggression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs in reducing aggression and associated impulsivity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and ClinicalTrials.gov to April 2009. We also searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials on aggression, National Research Record and handsearched for studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective, placebo-controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs taken regularly by individuals with recurrent aggression to reduce the frequency or intensity of aggressive outbursts.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently selected studies and two authors independently extracted data. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs), with odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies with data from 672 participants met the inclusion criteria. Five different antiepileptic drugs were examined. Sodium valproate/divalproex was superior to placebo for outpatient men with recurrent impulsive aggression, for impulsively aggressive adults with cluster B personality disorders, and for youths with conduct disorder, but not for children and adolescents with pervasive developmental disorder. Carbamazepine was superior to placebo in reducing acts of self-directed aggression in women with borderline personality disorder, but not in children with conduct disorder. Oxcarbazepine was superior to placebo for verbal aggression and aggression against objects in adult outpatients. Phenytoin was superior to placebo on the frequency of aggressive acts in male prisoners and in outpatient men including those with personality disorder, but not on the frequency of 'behavioral incidents' in delinquent boys.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The authors consider that the body of evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to allow any firm conclusion to be drawn about the use of antiepileptic medication in the treatment of aggression and associated impulsivity. Four antiepileptics (valproate/divalproex, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and phenytoin) were effective, compared to placebo, in reducing aggression in at least one study, although for three drugs (valproate, carbamazepine and phenytoin) at least one other study showed no statistically significant difference between treatment and control conditions. Side effects were more commonly noted for the intervention group although adverse effects were not well reported. Absence of information does not necessarily mean that the treatment is safe, nor that the potential gains from the medication necessarily balance the risk of an adverse event occurring. Further research is needed.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes in many clinical conditions, but most reports on effects of placebos are based on studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment. Two previous versions of this review from 2001 and 2004 found that placebo interventions in general did not have clinically important effects, but that there were possible beneficial effects on patient-reported outcomes, especially pain. Since then several relevant trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aims were to assess the effect of placebo interventions in general across all clinical conditions, and to investigate the effects of placebo interventions on specific clinical conditions. Our secondary aims were to assess whether the effect of placebo treatments differed for patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, and to explore other reasons for variations in effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1980 to March 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to March 2008) and Biological Abstracts (1986 to March 2008). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with binary data were summarised using relative risk (a value of less than 1 indicates a beneficial effect of placebo), and trials with continuous outcomes were summarised using standardised mean difference (a negative value indicates a beneficial effect of placebo).

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. We regarded the risk of bias as low in only 16 trials (8%), five of which had binary outcomes.In 44 studies with binary outcomes (6041 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 45%) but no clear difference in effects between small and large trials (symmetrical funnel plot). The overall pooled effect of placebo was a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). We found no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in four clinical conditions that had been investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. The effect on pain varied considerably, even among trials with low risk of bias.In 158 trials with continuous outcomes (10,525 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 42%), and considerable variation in effects between small and large trials (asymmetrical funnel plot). It is therefore a questionable procedure to pool all the trials, and we did so mainly as a basis for exploring causes for heterogeneity. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.26 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.19), and for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.24 to -0.02). We found an effect on pain, SMD -0.28 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.19)); nausea, SMD -0.25 (-0.46 to -0.04)), asthma (-0.35 (-0.70 to -0.01)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)). The effect on pain was very variable, also among trials with low risk of bias. Four similarly-designed acupuncture trials conducted by an overlapping group of authors reported large effects (SMD -0.68 (-0.85 to -0.50)) whereas three other pain trials reported low or no effect (SMD -0.13 (-0.28 to 0.03)). The pooled effect on nausea was small, but consistent. The effects on phobia and asthma were very uncertain due to high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the seven other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: smoking, dementia, depression, obesity, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.Meta-regression analyses showed that larger effects of placebo interventions were associated with physical placebo interventions (e.g. sham acupuncture), patient-involved outcomes (patient-reported outcomes and observer-reported outcomes involving patient cooperation), small trials, and trials with the explicit purpose of studying placebo. Larger effects of placebo were also found in trials that did not inform patients about the possible placebo intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chlorpromazine for schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 1999), Biological Abstracts (1982-1995), the Cochrane Library (1999, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995), PsycLIT (1974-1995), and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (June 2002), by searching The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (January 2007). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. BT and JR extracted data. CEA and GA independently checked a 10% sample for reliability. We analysed dichotomous data using fixed effects relative risk (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. Where possible we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) statistics. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow up; where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using fixed effects weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval.

MAIN RESULTS

We inspected over 1000 electronic records. The review currently includes 302 excluded studies and 50 included studies. We found chlorpromazine reduces relapse over the short (n=74, 2 RCTs, RR 0.29 CI 0.1 to 0.8) and medium term (n=809, 4 RCTs, RR 0.49 CI 0.4 to 0.6) but data are heterogeneous. Longer term homogeneous data also favoured chlorpromazine (n=512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.57 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 4 CI 3 to 5). We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n=1121, 13 RCTs, RR 'no change/not improved' 0.80 CI 0.8 to 0.9, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early (n=1780, 26 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 15 CI 11 to 24) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n=1404, 19 RCTs, RR 2.63 CI 2.1 to 3.3, NNH 5 CI 4 to 8), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n=942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.5 CI 1.5 to 8.0, NNH 32 CI 11 to 154), parkinsonism (n=1265, 12 RCTs, RR 2.01 CI 1.5 to 2.7, NNH 14 CI 9 to 28). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo (n=1164, 9 RCTs, RR 0.78 CI 0.5 to 1.1). Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n=1394, 16 RCTs, RR 2.37 CI 1.7 to 3.2, NNH 11 CI 7 to 21) and considerable weight gain (n=165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.3 to 10.4, NNH 2 CI 2 to 3).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

ALCOHOL HANGOVER EFFECTS ON MEASURES OF AFFECT THE MORNING AFTER A NORMAL NIGHT'S DRINKING

AIM

To investigate the effects of students' usual levels of alcohol consumption on aspects of mood and anxiety the following morning.

METHODS

Students were recruited who consumed their usual quantity of any type of alcoholic beverage in their chosen company and then completed assessments of the effects the following day. The timing of drinking was restricted to the period between 22:00 and 02:00 h the night before testing as these are the most popular hours for consuming alcohol in the population under investigation. The testing included an assessment of mood and anxiety; testing was also performed after an evening of abstinence (no hangover condition), following a counterbalanced repeated measure design, with time of testing and order of testing as 'between participant' factors. Forty-eight student social drinkers (33 women, 15 men) aged between 18 and 43 years were tested, with a 1 week interval between test sessions.

RESULTS

Males reported consuming on average 14.7 units and females 10.5 units the night before testing. On the morning after alcohol consumption, ratings of alertness and tranquility were lower than the ratings the morning following an evening of abstinence at both 11:00 and 13:00 h and the post intoxication physical symptoms, emotional symptoms and symptoms of fatigue persisted throughout the morning.

CONCLUSION

Heavy alcohol consumption lowers mood, disrupts sleep, increases anxiety and produces physical symptoms, emotional symptoms and symptoms of fatigue throughout the next morning.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, but this belief is not based on evidence from randomised trials that compare placebo with no treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of placebo interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1980 to 2002), Biological Abstracts (1986 to 2002), and PsycLIT (1887 to 2002). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 156 out of 182 included trials, investigating 46 clinical conditions. We found no statistically significant pooled effect of placebo in 38 studies with binary outcomes (4284 patients), relative risk 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.01). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.03) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03). There was heterogeneity (P=0.01) but the funnel plot was symmetrical. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the four clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments in 118 trials with continuous outcomes (7453 patients), standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.24 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.30 (95% CI -0.38 to -0.21), whereas no statistically significant effect was found for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.10 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.01). There was heterogeneity (P<0.001) and large variability in funnel plot results even for big trials. There was an apparent effect of placebo interventions on pain (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.35 to-0.16)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)); but also a substantial risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in eight other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: nausea, smoking, depression, overweight, asthma, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that placebo interventions in general have clinically important effects. A possible small effect on continuous patient-reported outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.

Placebo treatment versus no treatment

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often believed to improve patient reported and observer reported outcomes, but this belief is not based on evidence from randomised trials that compare placebo with no treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of placebo interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, issue 3, 1998), MEDLINE (Jan 1966 to Dec 1998), EMBASE (Jan 1980 to Dec 1998), Biological Abstracts (Jan 1986 to Dec 1998), PsycLIT (Jan 1887 to Dec 1998). Experts on placebo research were contacted and references in the included trials were read.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 114 out of 130 included trials, investigating 40 clinical conditions. Outcomes were binary in 32 trials (3795 patients) and continuous in 82 (4730 patients). We found no statistically significant pooled effect of placebo in studies with binary outcomes, relative risk 0.95 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.88 to 1.02). The pooled relative risk for subjective (patient reported) outcomes was 0.95 (0.86 to 1.05) and for objective (observer reported) outcomes 0.91 (0.80 to 1.04). There was statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.03), but no evidence of sample size bias (P = 0.56). We found an overall positive effect of placebo treatments in trials with continuous outcomes, standardised mean difference -0.28 (95 per cent confidence interval -0.38 to -0.19). The standardised mean difference for subjective outcomes was -0.36 (-0.47 to -0.25), whereas no statistically significant effect was found for objective outcomes, standardised mean difference -0.12 (-0.27 to 0.03). There was statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.001), and evidence of sample size bias (P = 0.05). There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in eight out of nine clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more (nausea, relapse in prevention of smoking and depression, overweight, asthma, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety), but confidence intervals were wide. There was a modest apparent analgesic effect of placebo interventions, standardised mean difference -0.27 (-0.40 to -0.15), but also a substantial risk of bias.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that placebo interventions in general have clinically important effects. A possible moderate effect on subjective continuous outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chlorpromazine for schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 1999), Biological Abstracts (1982-1995), the Cochrane Library (1999, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995) and PsycLIT (1974-1995), by searching Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (June 2002). References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia, and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were inspected independently by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were extracted by BT and JR. CA and GA independently checked a 10% sample for reliability. Dichotomous data were analysed using random effects relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this was estimated. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistics (NNH) were calculated. Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow up, but, where possible, weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Over 1000 electronic records were inspected. The review currently mentions 302 papers in its Excluded Studies table and 50 studies in its Included Studies table. Four papers are awaiting translation. Chlorpromazine reduces relapse over six months to two years (n=512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 3 CI 2.5 to 4) and promotes a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n=1121, 13 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 5 to 10) although the placebo response is also considerable. Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine leave trials early (n=1755, 25 RCTs, RR 0.77 CI 0.6 to 1.1) but the difference iss not statistically significant. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n=1242, 18 RCTs, RR 2.3 CI 1.7 to 3.1, NNH 6 CI 5 to 8), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n=780, 4 RCTs, RR 3.1 CI 1.3 to 7.7, NNH 24 CI 15 to 57), parkinsonism (n=1265, 12 RCTs, RR 2.6 CI 1.2 to 5.4, NNH 10 CI 8 to 16) and, perhaps, fits (n=695, 3 RCTs, RR 2.4 CI 0.4 to 16). Amongst other things it clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n=1232, 15 RCTs, RR 1.9 CI 1.4 to 27, NNH 12 CI 8 to 19) and considerable increases in weight (n=165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.4 CI 2.1 to 9, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This review will confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but provides quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment

BACKGROUND

Placebo treatments have been reported to help patients with many diseases, but the quality of the evidence supporting this finding has not been rigorously evaluated.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials in which patients were randomly assigned to either placebo or no treatment. A placebo could be pharmacologic (e.g., a tablet), physical (e.g., a manipulation), or psychological (e.g., a conversation).

RESULTS

We identified 130 trials that met our inclusion criteria. After the exclusion of 16 trials without relevant data on outcomes, there were 32 with binary outcomes (involving 3795 patients, with a median of 51 patients per trial) and 82 with continuous outcomes (involving 4730 patients, with a median of 27 patients per trial). As compared with no treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes (pooled relative risk of an unwanted outcome with placebo, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.02), regardless of whether these outcomes were subjective or objective. For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.38 to -0.19), but the effect decreased with increasing sample size, indicating a possible bias related to the effects of small trials. The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25) but not for those with objective outcomes. In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15). This corresponded to a reduction in the intensity of pain of 6.5 mm on a 100-mm visual-analogue scale.

CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.

Influence of night shift work on psychologic state and cardiovascular and neuroendocrine responses in healthy nurses

Night shift work has often been associated with increasing degree and frequency of various psychologic complaints. The study examined whether psychologic states after night work are related to adaptive alterations of the cardiovascular and neuroendocrine systems. We studied 18 healthy nurses (age 29+/-2 years) engaged in a modified rapid shift rotation system (day work, 8:15-17:15; evening work, 16:00-22:00; night work, 21:30-8:30). Blood pressure, heart rate, RR interval variability (L/H and HF power spectrum for sympathetic and vagal activities), and physical activity were measured using a multibiomedical recorder for 24 h from the start of work during the night and day shifts. Plasma ACTH and cortisol concentrations were measured at the end of each shift and at 8:30 AM on a day of rest. Each subject's psychologic state was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Among the parameters measured, scores for confusion, depression, anger-hostility, fatigue and tension-anxiety were highest, and scores for vigor lowest, after a night shift. Systolic blood pressure and heart rate during work were lower during night shift than during day shift (119+/-2 vs. 123+/-1 mmHg, p<0.05 and 75+/-1 vs. 84+/-2 bpm, p<0.001, respectively). Both parameters were lower still (p<0.005 and p<0.05) when measured outside of the hospital under waking conditions following a night shift than following a day shift, even though the levels of physical activity were similar. The HF power spectrum of RR interval variability was greater not only during work (24.2+/-2.1 vs. 18.5+/-1.8 ms, p<0.005) but also during the awake period (29.1+/-2.5 vs. 24.4+/-2.6 ms, p<0.005) after the night shift compared with the day shift. Plasma ACTH and cortisol concentrations were lower after night work than in the day of rest (7.3+/-1.2 vs. 11.5+/-2.3 pg/ml, p<0.1 and 11.1+/-1.1 vs. 14.4+/-1.1 mg/dl, p< 0.05). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures during night shift work and the subsequent awake period correlated positively with scores for vigor and negatively with scores for confusion (p<0.05). Plasma ACTH and cortisol concentrations did not correlate with any psychologic scores. We conclude that psychologic disturbances after night work were associated with altered cardiovascular and endocrine responses in healthy nurses. Some of the psychologic complaints may be attributable to lower waking blood pressure.

Changes in scores on the profile of mood states following a single bout of physical activity: heart rate and changes in affect

28 college age students participating in a weight lifting class exhibited significant decreases in negative affect and increases in positive affect. Changes in affect were correlated with average exercise heart rates. Higher heart rates were correlated with reductions in negative affect and increases in positive affect. Correlations of .37 and .40 suggest that, in accordance with earlier studies, exercise intensity may be indirectly related to exercise.

Mood alterations with a single bout of physical activity

Although numerous studies have examined the relationship among affect, personality, and physical activity, results are equivocal. Critics have cited inadequate experimental designs and analyses as the bases for ambiguity. This study addressed two identified weaknesses, length of exercise regimen and improper selection of subjects. Subjects were 72 college-age students who participated in one of three 75-min. activity classes (running, karate, weight lifting) and a lecture class (control subjects). The Profile of Mood States Test was administered prior to and immediately after exercise bouts. Analyses of variance and multiple t tests indicated that participating in a single bout of exercise significantly reduced reported total mood disturbance, tension, depression, anger, and confusion.

Alcoholism and family interaction

This chapter reviews the family interaction literature concerned with families of alcoholics. The development of this area is traced from early reports that focused on individual family members to more recent approaches concerned with the family as an interacting unit. Theories that suggest that family processes reinforce patterns of abusive drinking are examined in light of existing empirical evidence. The interpretation of findings is limited by an insufficient number of studies, a lack of replication, and a lack of systematic programs of research. Recently, more rigorously controlled experiments have demonstrated that the interactions of families of alcoholics can be differentiated from those of nondistressed and other distressed families. Suggested future directions include exploration of family interactions with respect to female alcoholics and offspring outcome.

Patterns of stability and change in mood states of alcoholics in inpatient treatment

This study examines patterns of individual stability and group change in mood states as measured by scores on the six Profile of Mood States (POMS) scales in a sample of inpatient alcoholics. Stability coefficients based on POMS scores from administrations at hospital admission and after 6 weeks of inpatient treatment ranged from a low of .36 for the Vigor-Activity scale to a high of .63 for the Confusion-Bewilderment scale. These stability estimates are comparable to those found in a previous study involving nonalcoholic psychiatric outpatients. The significant mean group changes found between admission and 6 weeks on each of the POMS scales consistently reflect improvement in mood and are generally similar in magnitude to those found previously using the POMS with both inpatient alcoholics and nonselected psychiatric outpatients.

Alcohol and sober mood state in female social drinkers

The goals of the present study were to measure the relationship between alcohol consumption in 93 female social drinkers and their cognitive functioning and mood in the sober state, and to investigate the possible causal effects of alcohol consumption on these variables. In the first test session, a limited relationship was seen between previous alcohol consumption and sober cognitive performance. A strong relationship was found between alcohol consumption and self-reported depression and anger in the sober state. Either a prolonged reduction in alcohol consumption or a prolonged maintenance of alcohol consumption was undertaken by random subsets of the original sample. In the second test session 6 weeks later, women who had been randomly selected to reduce their alcohol intake showed decreases in depression, anger, and mental confusion when they were sober, relative to women who maintained or increased their alcohol consumption over the same period of time. We found no changes in cognitive performance in these groups. We concluded that the simplest explanation of the findings is that relatively low levels of alcohol consumption produce substantial increases in depression and anger in the sober state in female social drinkers. The value of considering alcohol consumption as a continuous variable rather than a dichotomous variable with "safe" and "unsafe" zones was discussed.

Psychopharmacologic investigations in healthy elderly volunteers: effects of pipradrol-vitamin (Alertonic) elixir and placebo in relation to research design

Ninety-nine healthy elderly volunteers were tested to assess the effects of: 1) a pipradrol-vitamin (Alertonic) elixir, 2) a placebo, and 3) no treatment, during a one-week period. The assessment measures were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Depression Scale, the Zung Depression Scale, Profile of Mood States, and the WAIS Digit Span. Alertonic had no sigmificant effects on mood, memory or appetite, and the placebo effect was rarely greater than 50 per cent. There were no significant side effects. The findings demonstrate a valid method for studying psychotropic agents in the elderly.

2. Improvement criteria in drug trials with neurotic patients

Based on the available research evidence, several rating and self-rating methods are recommended which appear to be suitable for the measurement of changes in distress in drug trials with neurotic patients.

Replication Of Symptom Distress Factors In Anxious Neurotic Outpatients

In an attempt to replicate the factor structure of symptom distress re- ported by Mattsson et al. in their study of 404 anxious neurotic outpatients, the same 68-item pretreatment self-report Symptom Check List was administered to an independent but clinically similar sample of 1,116 patients. Using an identical factor-analytic procedure, five useful factors were extracted: Neurotic Feelings, Somatization, Performance Difficulty, Fear-Anxiety, and Depression. Four of these factors were almost identical to those reported by Mattsson e t al. while the fifth factor, Depression, seemed to represent a composite of the two small Depression factors (Anxious and Somatic) found in the earlier study. This minor discrepancy was discussed and the future research potential of these factors was indicated.