Sulpiride for schizophrenia

Identification of common molecular signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its influence on acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the main cause of COVID-19, causing hundreds of millions of confirmed cases and more than 18.2 million deaths worldwide. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of COVID-19 that leads to an increase in mortality, especially in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a high risk factor for COVID-19 and its related mortality. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms among AKI, CKD, and COVID-19 are unclear. Therefore, transcriptome analysis was performed to examine common pathways and molecular biomarkers for AKI, CKD, and COVID-19 in an attempt to understand the association of SARS-CoV-2 infection with AKI and CKD. Three RNA-seq datasets (GSE147507, GSE1563, and GSE66494) from the GEO database were used to detect differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for COVID-19 with AKI and CKD to search for shared pathways and candidate targets. A total of 17 common DEGs were confirmed, and their biological functions and signaling pathways were characterized by enrichment analysis. MAPK signaling, the structural pathway of interleukin 1 (IL-1), and the Toll-like receptor pathway appear to be involved in the occurrence of these diseases. Hub genes identified from the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, including DUSP6, BHLHE40, RASGRP1, and TAB2, are potential therapeutic targets in COVID-19 with AKI and CKD. Common genes and pathways may play pathogenic roles in these three diseases mainly through the activation of immune inflammation. Networks of transcription factor (TF)-gene, miRNA-gene, and gene-disease interactions from the datasets were also constructed, and key gene regulators influencing the progression of these three diseases were further identified among the DEGs. Moreover, new drug targets were predicted based on these common DEGs, and molecular docking and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed. Finally, a diagnostic model of COVID-19 was established based on these common DEGs. Taken together, the molecular and signaling pathways identified in this study may be related to the mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 infection affects renal function. These findings are significant for the effective treatment of COVID-19 in patients with kidney diseases.

Enhancement of graphene oxide through β-cyclodextrin composite to sensitive analysis of an antidepressant: Sulpiride

In this study, the electrochemical behavior of sulpiride (SUL) was examined deeply by using pyrolytic graphite electrode modified with graphene oxide (GO) and β-cyclodextrin (β-CD). The developed nanosensor indicated considerable impact by significantly increasing the signal of SUL compared with the bare electrode. Cyclic voltammetry (CV), differential pulse voltammetry (DPV), and square wave voltammetry (SWV) methods were utilized to investigate the SUL electrochemical analysis in aqueous solutions. Under optimum experimental conditions, calibration plot for SUL with a limit of detection of 2.83 × 10−9 M was obtained at accumulation time of the 30 s using square wave adsorptive stripping voltammetric technique (AdSSWV) in the range of 1.0 × 10−7 to 5.0 × 10−5 M. The effects of accumulation potential, accumulation time, pH, scan rate, electrolyte, and interfering agents were studied to obtain the intensive peak signal of the analyte. The presented method is validated and successfully performed for the determination of the SUL tablet and capsule. The fabricated nanosensor was carried out for the detection of SUL in the urine. Excellent recoveries among 104.37, 103.82, and 101.95% were obtained for tablet and capsule forms and urine analysis.

A Comprehensive Review on Importance and Quantitation of Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs and their Active Metabolites in Commercial Dosage Forms

Background:

Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that affects more than twenty-one million people throughout the world. Schizophrenia also causes early death. Schizophrenia and other related psychotic ailments are controlled by the prescription of antipsychotic drugs, which act by blocking certain chemical receptors in the brain and thus relieves the symptoms of psychotic disorder. These drugs are present in the different dosage forms in the market and provided in a certain amount as per the need of the patients.

Objective:

Since such medications treat mental disorders, it is very important to have a perfect and accurate dose so that the risk factor is not affected by a higher or lower dose, which is not sufficient for the treatment. For accurate assay of these kinds of drugs, different analytical methods were developed ranging from older spectrophotometric techniques to latest hyphenated methods.

Results:

The current review highlights the role of different analytical techniques that were employed in the determination and identification of antipsychotic drugs and their metabolites. Techniques such as spectrophotometry, fluorimetry, liquid chromatography, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, gas chromatography, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry employed in the method development of such antipsychotic drugs were reported in the review. Different metabolites, identified using the hyphenated techniques, were also mentioned in the review. The synthesis pathways of few of the metabolites were mentioned.

Conclusion:

The review summarizes the analyses of different antipsychotic drugs and their metabolites. A brief introduction of illnesses and their symptoms and possible medications were highlighted. Synthesis pathways of the associated metabolites were also mentioned.

Movement Disorders Associated With Antipsychotic Medication in People With Schizophrenia: An Overview of Cochrane Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Movement disorders associated with antipsychotic medications are relatively common, stigmatising, and potentially disabling. Their prevalence in people with psychosis who are prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) is uncertain, as is their level of recognition by clinicinas. We conducted meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials included in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses to estimate the prevalence of new-onset dystonia, akathisia, parkinsonism, and tremor with SGAs (amisulpride, asenapine, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, L-sulpiride, and ziprasidone) approved in Canada and the UK, comparing them with haloperidol and chlorpromazine. We used a random effects model because of the heterogeneity between-studies in drug dosage and method of ascertainment of movement disorders. Our systematic search yielded 37 Cochrane systematic reviews (28 for SGAs), which generated 316 informative randomised controlled trials (243 for SGAs). With respect to SGAs, prevalence estimates ranged from 1.4% (quetiapine) to 15.3% (L-sulpiride) for dystonia, 3.3% (paliperidone) to 16.4% (L-sulpiride) for akathisia, 2.4% (asenapine) to 29.3% (L-sulpiride) for parkinsonism, and 0.2% (clozapine) to 28.2% (L-sulpiride) for tremor. Prevalence estimates were not influenced by treatment duration, the use of a flexible or fixed dosing scheme, or whether studies used validated instruments for the screening/rating of movement disorders. Overall, we found high overlap on the prevalence of new-onset movement disorders across different SGAs precribed for established psychoses. Variations in prevalence figures across antipsychotic medications were observed for the different movement disorders. Differences in pharmacological properties, such as for the dopamine D2 R association rate and serotonin 5-HT2A antagonism, could contribute to this variation.

MAM-E17 rat model impairments on a novel continuous performance task: effects of potential cognitive enhancing drugs

RATIONALE

Impairments in attention and inhibitory control are endophenotypic markers of neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and represent key targets for therapeutic management. Robust preclinical models and assays sensitive to clinically relevant treatments are crucial for improving cognitive enhancement strategies.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed a rodent model with neural and behavioral features relevant to schizophrenia (gestational day 17 methylazoxymethanol acetate treatment (MAM-E17)) on a novel test of attention and executive function, and examined the impact of putative nootropic drugs.

METHODS

MAM-E17 and sham control rats were trained on a novel touchscreen-based rodent continuous performance test (rCPT) designed to closely mimic the human CPT paradigm. Performance following acute, systemic treatment with an array of pharmacological compounds was investigated.

RESULTS

Two cohorts of MAM-E17 rats were impaired on rCPT performance including deficits in sensitivity (d') and increased false alarm rates (FARs). Sulpiride (0-30 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced elevated FAR in MAM-E17 rats whereas low-dose modafinil (8 mg/kg) only improved d' in sham controls. ABT-594 (5.9-19.4 μg/kg) and modafinil (64 mg/kg) showed expected stimulant-like effects, while LSN2463359 (5 mg/kg), RO493858 (10 mg/kg), atomoxetine (0.3-1 mg/kg), and sulpiride (30 mg/kg) showed expected suppressant effects on performance across all animals. Donepezil (0.1-1 mg/kg) showed near-significant enhancements in d', and EVP-6124 (0.3-3 mg/kg) exerted no effects in the rCPT paradigm.

CONCLUSION

The MAM-E17 model exhibits robust and replicable impairments in rCPT performance that resemble attention and inhibitory control deficits seen in schizophrenia. Pharmacological profiles were highly consistent with known drug effects on cognition in preclinical and clinical studies. The rCPT is a sensitive and reliable tool with high translational potential for understanding the etiology and treatment of disorders affecting attention and executive dysfunction.

In Vivo Systems Response Profiling and Multivariate Classification of CNS Active Compounds: A Structured Tool for CNS Drug Discovery

This paper describes the application of in vivo systems response profiling in CNS drug discovery by a process referred to as the Integrative Screening Process. The biological response profile, treated as an array, is used as major outcome for selection of candidate drugs. Dose-response data, including ex vivo brain monoaminergic biomarkers and behavioral descriptors, are systematically collected and analyzed by principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least-squares (PLS) regression, yielding multivariate characterization across compounds. The approach is exemplified by assessing a new class of CNS active compounds, the dopidines, compared to other monoamine modulating compounds including antipsychotics, antidepressants, and procognitive agents. Dopidines display a distinct phenotypic profile which has prompted extensive further preclinical and clinical investigations. In summary, in vivo profiles of CNS compounds are mapped, based on dose response studies in the rat. Applying a systematic and standardized work-flow, a database of in vivo systems response profiles is compiled, enabling comparisons and classification. This creates a framework for translational mapping, a crucial component in CNS drug discovery.

Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.

Sulpiride versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Sulpiride is a relatively old antipsychotic drug reputed to have a low incidence of adverse effects and an effect on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This relatively inexpensive antipsychotic drug has a similar neuropharmacological profile to several novel atypical drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of sulpiride for schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (September 2008) and references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information. We updated this search 7th November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sulpiride with placebo for people with schizophrenia and other types of schizophrenia-like psychoses. The primary outcome of interest was clinically significant response in global state.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality-assessed these. IMO and JW extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using a random-effects risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. Where continuous data were included, we analysed these data using random-effects mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were included from the 2012 search. The review still includes two trials of short duration comparing sulpiride with placebo (total n = 113). No study reported our primary outcome of interest of 'global state: clinically significant response', nor our secondary outcomes of interest of 'quality of life', 'severe adverse effects', and 'safety assessments'. As regards mental state, there were no clear differences between groups for either positive or negative symptoms; measured positive symptoms using the Manchester scale were skewed and therefore not included in meta-analysis (n = 18, 1 RCT, very low quality evidence). Measured negative symptoms using the Manchester scale also demonstrated no clear difference (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -3.0 CI -1.66 to 1.06, very low quality evidence). Few people left these studies by three months (n = 113, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.25 to 4.00). One subscore finding demonstrated a significant improvement in social behaviour using the Current Behaviour Schedule (CBS) when receiving placebo (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -2.90 CI -5.60 to -0.20). There were no data for many important outcomes such as global outcomes, service use or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulpiride may be an effective antipsychotic drug but evidence of its superiority over placebo from randomised trials is very limited. Practice will have to use evidence from sources other than trials until better evidence is generated.

Detecting potential adverse reactions of sulpiride in schizophrenic patients by prescription sequence symmetry analysis

PURPOSE

Previous studies have demonstrated sulpiride to be significantly more effective than haloperidol, risperidone and olanzapine in schizophrenic treatment; however, only limited information is available on the potential risks associated with sulpiride treatment. This study attempts to provide information on the potential risks of sulpiride treatment of schizophrenia, especially with regard to unexpected adverse effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with schizophrenia aged 18 and older, newly prescribed with a single antipsychotic medication from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan in the period from 2003 to 2010 were included. A within-subject comparison method, prescription sequence symmetry analysis (PSSA) was employed to efficiently identify potential causal relationships while controlling for potential selection bias.

RESULTS

A total of 5,750 patients, with a mean age of 39, approximately half of whom were male, constituted the study cohort. The PSSA found that sulpiride was associated with EPS (adjusted SR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.46-2.06) and hyperprolactinemia (12.04; 1.59-91.2). In comparison, EPS caused by haloperidol has a magnitude of 1.99 when analyzed with PSSA, and hyperprolactinemia caused by amisulpride has a magnitude of 8.05, respectively. Another finding was the unexpected increase in the use of stomatological corticosteroids, emollient laxatives, dermatological preparations of corticosteroids, quinolone antibacterials, and topical products for joint and muscular pain, after initiation of sulpiride treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found sulpiride to be associated with an increased risk of EPS and hyperprolactinemia, and the potential risk could be as high as that induced by haloperidol and amisulpride, respectively. Additionally, our study provides grounds for future investigations into the associations between sulpiride and the increased use of additional drugs for managing adverse effects, including stomatological, dermatological, and musculoskeletal or joint side effects, constipation, and pneumonia.

Dopamine and pain sensitivity: neither sulpiride nor acute phenylalanine and tyrosine depletion have effects on thermal pain sensations in healthy volunteers

Based on animal studies and some indirect clinical evidence, dopamine has been suggested to have anti-nociceptive effects. Here, we investigated directly the effects of increased and decreased availability of extracellular dopamine on pain perception in healthy volunteers. In Study 1, participants ingested, in separate sessions, a placebo and a low dose of the centrally acting D2-receptor antagonist sulpiride, intended to increase synaptic dopamine via predominant pre-synaptic blockade. No effects were seen on thermal pain thresholds, tolerance, or temporal summation. Study 2 used the acute phenylalanine and tyrosine depletion (APTD) method to transiently decrease dopamine availability. In one session participants ingested a mixture that depletes the dopamine amino acid precursors, phenylalanine and tyrosine. In the other session they ingested a nutritionally balanced control mixture. APTD led to a small mood-lowering response following aversive thermal stimulation, but had no effects on the perception of cold, warm, or pain stimuli. In both studies the experimental manipulation of dopaminergic neurotransmission was successful as indicated by manipulation checks. The results contradict proposals that dopamine has direct anti-nociceptive effects in acute experimental pain. Based on dopamine's well-known role in reward processing, we hypothesize that also in the context of pain, dopamine acts on stimulus salience and might play a role in the initiation of avoidance behavior rather than having direct antinociceptive effects in acute experimental pain.

Current approaches to treatments for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, part I: an overview and medical treatments

During the last three decades, an increasing understanding of the etiology, psychopathology, and clinical manifestations of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, in addition to the introduction of second-generation antipsychotics, has optimized the potential for recovery from the illness. Continued development of various models of psychosocial intervention promotes the goal of schizophrenia treatment from one of symptom control and social adaptation to an optimal restoration of functioning and/or recovery. However, it is still questionable whether these new treatment approaches can address the patients' needs for treatment and services and contribute to better patient outcomes. This article provides an overview of different treatment approaches currently used in schizophrenia spectrum disorders to address complex health problems and a wide range of abnormalities and impairments resulting from the illness. There are different treatment strategies and targets for patients at different stages of the illness, ranging from prophylactic antipsychotics and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the premorbid stage to various psychosocial interventions in addition to antipsychotics for relapse prevention and rehabilitation in the later stages of the illness. The use of antipsychotics alone as the main treatment modality may be limited not only in being unable to tackle the frequently occurring negative symptoms and cognitive impairments but also in producing a wide variety of adverse effects to the body or organ functioning. Because of varied pharmacokinetics and treatment responsiveness across agents, the medication regimen should be determined on an individual basis to ensure an optimal effect in its long-term use. This review also highlights that the recent practice guidelines and standards have recommended that a combination of treatment modalities be adopted to meet the complex health needs of people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. In view of the heterogeneity of the risk factors and the illness progression of individual patients, the use of multifaceted illness management programs consisting of different combinations of physical, psychological, and social interventions might be efficient and effective in improving recovery.

Effectiveness of sulpiride in adult patients with schizophrenia

The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness among sulpiride, risperidone, olanzapine, and haloperidol by evaluating the persistence of drug use. A retrospective cohort study was conducted by analyzing the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Patients with schizophrenia aged 18-65 years and newly prescribed with a single oral antipsychotic medication between years 2003 and 2008 were included. The primary outcome was the persistence of antipsychotic agents by calculating the treatment duration till treatment changed. All defined treatment changes were also analyzed separately, including discontinuation, switching, augmentation, and hospitalization. A total of 1324 eligible patients were included, with an average age of 36 years old and approximately 45% of them were female. The most prevalent antipsychotic use was risperidone (42.1%), followed by sulpiride (36.0%), haloperidol (14.2%), and olanzapine (7.7%). After adjusting for patient demographics, mental illness characteristics, and propensity score, the Cox regression models found that the risk of nonpersistence was significantly higher in patients receiving risperidone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.40), haloperidol (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.63-2.40), and olanzapine (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07-1.68), as compared with sulpiride, suggesting the effectiveness of sulpiride was better than the other 3 antipsychotics. Therefore, this study would provide strong grounds for a properly conducted randomized controlled trial of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of sulpiride vs atypical antipsychotics.

Where Does Evidence from New Trials for Schizophrenia Fit with the Existing Evidence: A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes?

Advent of "atypical" antipsychotics has spawned new trials in the recent years and the number of such trial reports has been increasing exponentially. As clinicians we have been led to believe that "atypicals" are better than "typicals" despite the odd dissenting voice in academic and clinical circles. This has been largely ignored until the publication of two landmark, independent, pragmatic trials, Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) and Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS), which proved that thoughtfully chosen "typical" antipsychotics were as good as the newer "atypicals." We pooled "leaving the study early data" from Cochrane Reviews that existed before CATIE and CUtLASS and added data from CATIE and CUtLASS to the pool for a "before and after" comparison. Addition of CATIE and CUtLASS data only led to narrowing of the already existing confidence intervals, merely increasing precision, and decreasing the risk of Type II error. Perhaps surprisingly, CATIE and CUtLASS when pooled with the already existing data showed us that we had chosen to turn a blind eye to findings that already existed. This leads clinicians to question as to whether, in future, we need to feel less guilty about crying out early on that the emperor has no clothes on.

Second generation antipsychotics improve sexual dysfunction in schizophrenia: a randomised controlled trial

The impact of antipsychotic drug treatment on sexual function was investigated during a randomised trial comparing first generation antipsychotics (FGAs) to (nonclozapine) second generation antipsychotics (SGAs). Sexual function and quality of life were (rater-blind) assessed in 42 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia (aged 18-65) using the self-report version of the Derogatis Interview for Sexual Function (DISF-SR) and the Heinrichs Quality of Life Scale (QLS), prior to, and 12 weeks following, a change in medication from an FGA drug to either an FGA or SGA drug. SGAs significantly improved sexual function compared to FGAs. Change in sexual function was associated with change in quality of life. Where impaired sexual functioning is a distressing adverse effect of treatment with an FGA agent, consideration should be given to switching to an SGA.

Sulpiride augmentation for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Sulpiride may be used in combination with other antipsychotic drugs in the hope of augmenting effectiveness - especially for those whose schizophrenia has proved resistant to treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of sulpiride augmentation versus monotherapy for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2009) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on a fixed-effect model. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three short-term and one long-term trial (total N=221). All participants had schizophrenia that was either treatment-resistant or with prominent negative symptoms. All studies compared sulpiride plus clozapine with clozapine (+/- placebo), were small and at considerable risk of bias.Short-term data of 'no clinically significant response' in global state tended to favour sulpiride augmentation of clozapine compared with clozapine alone (n=193, 3 RCTs, RR 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.09).People allocated to sulpiride plus clozapine had more movement disorders (n=70, 1 RCT, RR 48.24 CI 3.05 to 762.56) and an increase in serum prolactin (skewed data, 1 RCT), but less incidence of hypersalivation (n=162, 3 RCTs, RR 0.49 CI 0.29 to 0.83) and less weight gain (n=64, 1 RCT, RR 0.30 CI 0.09 to 0.99). The augmentation of clozapine by sulpiride also caused less appetite loss (n=70, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.70, NNT 4 CI 4 to 12, Z=2.31, P=0.02) and less abdominal distension (n=70, 1 RCT, RR 0.10 CI 0.01 to 0.78, NNT 5 CI 4 to 19, Z=2.20, P=0.03).Long-term data showed no significant difference in global state (n=70, 1 RCT, RR 0.67 CI 0.42 to 1.08) and relapse (n=70, 1 RCT, RR 0.85 CI 0.5 to 1.3).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulpiride plus clozapine is probably more effective than clozapine alone in producing clinical improvement in some people whose illness has been resistant to other antipsychotic drugs including clozapine. However, much more robust data are needed.

Sulpiride versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Sulpiride is a relatively old antipsychotic drug reputed to have low incidence of adverse effects and an effect on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This relatively inexpensive antipsychotic drug has a similar neuropharmacological profile to several novel atypical drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of sulpiride for schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (September 2008) and 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 sulpiride with placebo for people with schizophrenia and other types of schizophrenia-like psychoses. The primary outcome of interest was clinically significant response in global state.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. IMO and JW extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using random-effects relative risk (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. Where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using random-effects weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials of short duration compare sulpiride with placebo (total n=113). As regards mental state, there were no clear differences between groups for either positive or negative symptoms (n=18, 1 RCT, WMD Manchester scale negative subscore -0.30 CI -1.66 to 1.06; n=18, 1 RCT, WMD SANS 2.90 CI -0.14 to 5.94). Few people left these studies by three months (n=113, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.25 to 4.00). One subscore finding found sulpiride improved social behavior (n=18, 1 RCT, WMD -2.90 CI -5.60 to -0.20). There were no data for many important outcomes such as general functioning, service use or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulpiride may be an effective antipsychotic drug but evidence of its superiority over placebo from randomised trials is very limited. Practice will have to use evidence from sources other than trials until better evidence is generated.

Trifluoperazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Trifluoperazine is an inexpensive accessible 'high potency' antipsychotic drug, widely used to treat schizophrenia or related psychoses.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of trifluoperazine compared with placebo and other drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (March 2002), supplemented with hand searching, reference searching, personal communication and contact with industry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All clinical randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing trifluoperazine with any other treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected and quality rated and data was extracted. For dichotomous data, relative risks (RR) were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For statistically significant results, the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. We estimated heterogeneity (I-square technique) and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

1162 people from 13 studies were randomised to trifluoperazine or placebo. For global improvement, small short-term studies favoured trifluoperazine (n=95, 3 RCTs, RR 0.62 CI 0.49 to 0.78 NNT 3 CI 2 to 4). Loss to follow up was about 12% in both groups (n=280, 7 RCTs, RR 0.99 CI 0.62 to 1.57) and more people allocated trifluoperazine used antiparkinson drugs to alleviate movements disorders compared with placebo (n=195, 4 RCTs, RR 5.06 CI 2.49 to 10.27, NNH 4 CI 2 to 9). 2230 people from 49 studies were randomised to trifluoperazine or another older generation antipsychotic. Trifluoperazine was not clearly different in terms of 'no substantial improvement' (n=1016, 27 RCTs, RR 1.06 CI 0.98 to 1.14) or leaving the study early (n=930, 22 RCTs, RR 1.15 CI 0.83 to 1.58). Almost identical numbers of people reported at least one adverse event (60%) in each group (n=585, 14 RCTs, RR 0.99 CI 0.87 to 1.13), although trifluoperazine was more likely to cause extrapyramidal adverse effects overall when compared to low potency antipsychotics such as chlorpromazine (n=130, 3 RCTs, RR 1.66 CI 1.03 to 2.67, NNH 6 CI 3 to 121). One small study (n=38) found no clear differences between trifluoperazine and the atypical drug, sulpiride.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Although there are shortcomings and gaps in the data, there appears to be enough consistency over different outcomes and periods to confirm that trifluoperazine is an antipsychotic of similar efficacy to other commonly used neuroleptics for people with schizophrenia. Its adverse events profile is similar to that of other drugs. It has been claimed that trifluoperazine is effective at low doses for patients with schizophrenia but this does not appear to be based on good quality trial based evidence.

Trifluoperazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Trifluoperazine is an inexpensive accessible 'high potency' antipsychotic drug, widely used to treat schizophrenia or related psychoses.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of trifluoperazine compared with placebo and other drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (March 2002), supplemented with hand searching, reference searching, personal communication and contact with industry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All clinical randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing trifluoperazine with any other treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected and quality rated and data was extracted. For dichotomous data, relative risks (RR) were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For statistically significant results, the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. We estimated heterogeneity (I-square technique) and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

1162 people from 13 studies were randomised to trifluoperazine or placebo. For global improvement, small short-term studies favoured trifluoperazine (n=95, 3 RCTs, RR 0.62 CI 0.49 to 0.78 NNT 3 CI 2 to 4). Loss to follow up was about 12% in both groups (n=280, 7 RCTs, RR 0.99 CI 0.62 to 1.57) and more people allocated trifluoperazine used antiparkinson drugs to alleviate movements disorders compared with placebo (n=195, 4 RCTs, RR 5.06 CI 2.49 to 10.27, NNH 4 CI 2 to 9). 2230 people from 49 studies were randomised to trifluoperazine or another older generation antipsychotic. Trifluoperazine was not clearly different in terms of 'no substantial improvement' (n=1016, 27 RCTs, RR 1.06 CI 0.98 to 1.14) or leaving the study early (n=930, 22 RCTs, RR 1.15 CI 0.83 to 1.58). Almost identical numbers of people reported at least one adverse event (60%) in each group (n=585, 14 RCTs, RR 0.99 CI 0.87 to 1.13), although trifluoperazine was more likely to cause extrapyramidal adverse effects overall when compared to low potency antipsychotics such as chlorpromazine (n=130, 3 RCTs, RR 1.66 CI 1.03 to 2.67, NNH 6 CI 3 to 121). One small study (n=38) found no clear differences between trifluoperazine and the atypical drug, sulpiride.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Although there are shortcomings and gaps in the data, there appears to be enough consistency over different outcomes and periods to confirm that trifluoperazine is an antipsychotic of similar efficacy to other commonly used neuroleptics for people with schizophrenia. Its adverse events profile is similar to that of other drugs. It has been claimed that trifluoperazine is effective at low doses for patients with schizophrenia but this does not appear to be based on good quality trial based evidence.

New generation antipsychotics for first episode schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The new generation antipsychotics are associated with a lower risk of adverse effects compared with drugs such as haloperidol. Many treatment guidelines recommend the use of new generation ('atypical') antipsychotic drugs for people with a first episode of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of the new generation antipsychotics for people with a first episode of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (March 2002) and the included and excluded studies tables of relevant Cochrane reviews, references of all relevant studies, contacted industry and authors of relevant studies to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing new generation antipsychotics (amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sulpiride, ziprasidone, zotepine) with conventional antipsychotics for people with a first episode of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by three reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. We independently extracted data but excluded them if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, reviewers calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We include two short-term studies (total n=266), one of which was a report of a sub-group of a larger study. One compared risperidone with an average of 6 mg/day haloperidol and the other olanzapine with an average of 11 mg/day haloperidol. Compared with olanzapine, significantly more people receiving haloperidol left the study early (n=83, 1 RCT, RR 0.43 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNH 3 CI 2 to 8). This was not so for the risperidone versus haloperidol comparison (n=183, 1 RCT, RR=0.7 CI 0.4 to 1.1). In terms of global effects, studies reported no differences between risperidone and haloperidol (n=183, RR not much improved 1.0 CI 0.6 to 1.5), and olanzapine and the same control (n=83, RR needing at least one dose of benzodiazepine 0.8 CI 0.5 to 1.1). More people allocated to olanzapine had clinically significant improvement in mental state compared with those given haloperidol (n=83, RR no 'clinically significant improvement' 0.45 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNH 3 CI 2 to 6). In the risperidone study, however, no such difference was apparent (n=183, RR 'no clinically significant improvement in mental state' 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.2). Significantly more people given haloperidol (4-16mg) experienced at least one adverse event when compared with risperidone (4-16mg) (n=183, RR 0.9 CI 0.8 to 0.98, NNH 8 CI 4 to 50). Use of anticholinergic medication for extrapyramidal adverse events was less prevalent for people allocated either olanzapine (n=83, RR 0.3 CI 0.2 to 0.7, NNH 4 CI 2 to 14) or risperidone (n=183, RR 0.7 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNH 4 CI 3 to 9) compared with those given haloperidol. There are no data at all on outcomes such as compliance, cost, social and cognitive functioning, relapse, rehospitalisation, or quality of life. There are no medium to long-term data. Eight ongoing studies may provide more information.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review are inconclusive. Whether the use of new generation antipsychotics really makes the treatment less off putting and enhances long-term compliance is unclear. Pragmatic, well-designed and reported long-term trials would be useful to answer this question.