Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

Haloperidol discontinuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a disabling serious mental illness that can be chronic. Haloperidol, one of the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia but can have adverse side effects. The effects of stopping haloperidol in people with schizophrenia who are stable on their prescription are not well researched in the context of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of haloperidol discontinuation in people with schizophrenia who are stable on haloperidol.

SEARCH METHODS

On 20 February 2015, 24 May 2017, and 12 January 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials randomising adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving haloperidol, and were stable. We included trials that randomised such participants to either continue their current treatment with haloperidol or discontinue their haloperidol treatment. We included trials that met our selection criteria and reported usable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently checked all records retrieved from the search and obtained full reports of relevant records for closer inspection. We extracted data from included studies independently. All usable data were dichotomous, and we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias within the included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 232 participants comparing haloperidol discontinuation with haloperidol continuation. Discontinuation was achieved in all five studies by replacing haloperidol with placebo. The trials' size ranged between 23 and 87 participants. The methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported.Participants allocated to discontinuing haloperidol treatment were more likely to show no improvement in global state compared with those in the haloperidol continuation group (n = 49; 1 RCT; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.20; very low quality evidence: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited due to relevant methodological shortcomings of included trials). Those who continued haloperidol treatment were less likely to experience a relapse compared to people who discontinued taking haloperidol (n = 165; 4 RCTs; RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.74; very low quality evidence). Satisfaction with treatment (measured as numbers leaving the study early) was similar between groups (n = 43; 1 RCT; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; very low quality evidence).No usable mental state, general functioning, general behaviour or adverse effect data were reported by any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides limited evidence derived from small, short-term studies. The longest study was for one year, making it difficult to generalise the results to a life-long disorder. Very low quality evidence shows that discontinuation of haloperidol is associated with an increased risk of relapse and a reduction in the risk of 'global state improvement'. However, participant satisfaction with haloperidol treatment was not different from participant satisfaction with haloperidol discontinuation as measured by leaving the studies early. Due to the very low quality of these results, firm conclusions cannot be made. In addition, the available studies did not report usable data regarding the adverse effects of haloperidol treatment.Considering that haloperidol is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs, it was surprising that only a small number of studies into the benefit and harm of haloperidol discontinuation were available. Moreover, the available studies did not report on outcomes that are important to clinicians and to people with schizophrenia, particularly adverse effects and social outcomes. Better designed trials are warranted.

Mapping the evidence on pharmacological interventions for non-affective psychosis in humanitarian non-specialised settings: a UNHCR clinical guidance

BACKGROUND

Populations exposed to humanitarian emergencies are particularly vulnerable to mental health problems, including new onset, relapse and deterioration of psychotic disorders. Inadequate care for this group may lead to human rights abuses and even premature death. The WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG), and its adaptation for humanitarian settings (mhGAP-HIG), provides guidance for management of mental health conditions by non-specialised healthcare professionals. However, the pharmacological treatment of people with non-affective psychosis who do not improve with mhGAP first-line antipsychotic treatments is not addressed. In order to fill this gap, UNHCR has formulated specific guidance on the second-line pharmacological treatment of non-affective psychosis in humanitarian, non-specialised settings.

METHODS

Following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a group of international experts performed an extensive search and retrieval of evidence on the basis of four scoping questions. Available data were critically appraised and summarised. Clinical guidance was produced by integrating this evidence base with context-related feasibility issues, preferences, values and resource-use considerations.

RESULTS

When first-line treatments recommended by mhGAP (namely haloperidol and chlorpromazine) are not effective, no other first-generation antipsychotics are likely to provide clinically meaningful improvements. Risperidone or olanzapine may represent beneficial second-line options. However, if these second-line medications do not produce clinically significant beneficial effects, there are two possibilities. First, to switch to the alternative (olanzapine to risperidone or vice versa) or, second, to consider clozapine, provided that specialist supervision and regular laboratory monitoring are available in the long term. If clinically relevant depressive, cognitive or negative symptoms occur, the use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor may be considered in addition or as an alternative to standard psychological interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Adapting scientific evidence into practical guidance for non-specialised health workers in humanitarian settings was challenging due to the paucity of relevant evidence as well as the imprecision and inconsistency of results between studies. Pragmatic outcome evaluation studies from low-resource contexts are urgently needed. Nonetheless, the UNHCR clinical guidance is based on best available evidence and can help to address the compelling issue of undertreated, non-affective psychosis in humanitarian settings.

Antipsychotic use in a resource-limited setting: Findings in an Eastern Cape psychiatric hospital

Background

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are commonly prescribed despite the fact that large, naturalistic studies have failed to show superior efficacy and tolerability when compared with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). In addition to this, the availability of SGAs in the South African public health sector is limited because of higher acquisition costs. Therefore, judicious use of FGAs, which are affordable and more widely available, should be considered.

Aims

This study aimed to (1) determine how frequently patients are switched from an FGA to an SGA in an acute psychiatric hospital in the Eastern Cape, (2) determine reasons for switching and (3) compare the profiles of the switch group to the non-switch group.

Method

The study is a cross-sectional survey conducted as a retrospective chart review at a psychiatric hospital in the Eastern Cape over a study period of 2 months. The demographics, diagnostic data, antipsychotic drug used and whether a switch from an FGA to an SGA took place were recorded using a data collection document. The sample included 169 patients.

Results

Of the 169 patients, 125 (74%) were initiated on an FGA and 44 (26%) on an SGA on admission. Of the 125 patients who were initiated on an FGA, 43 (34%) were switched to an SGA during the course of the admission. Therefore, 87 (51%) participants were discharged on an SGA. The main reasons for switching were the emergence of extrapyramidal side-effects (EPSE) (63%) followed by lack of efficacy (19%). The only statistically significant difference between the switch and non-switch groups was that the switch group was on average younger than the non-switch group.

Conclusion

SGAs, with the exception of clozapine, have not been proven to be superior to FGAs. Although FGAs are more prone to cause EPSE, SGAs carry significant risks of their own. FGAs are also more freely available and cost effective in South-Africa. Despite these facts the prescribing of and switching to SGAs remain prevalent in our setting with a switch rate of 34% and more than half of our patients being discharged on SGAs.

Cross-sectional comparison of first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections vs risperidone long-acting injection: patient-rated attitudes, satisfaction and tolerability

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare patients' attitudes and satisfaction with medication and patient-rated tolerability between those prescribed a first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injection (FGA-LAI) and those prescribed risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI).

METHOD

A cross-sectional study of a representative sample of outpatients prescribed an FGA-LAI or RLAI for a minimum of 6 months and attending a depot clinic. Attitudes to medication were assessed by the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI-30), tolerability was measured by the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS) and satisfaction with antipsychotic medication was assessed by the Satisfaction with Antipsychotic Medication (SWAM) scale.

RESULTS

The RLAI (n = 28) and FGA-LAI (n = 39) groups did not differ in terms of mean age, sex, diagnosis and ethnicity. All individual LAIs were prescribed within British National Formulary limits. The most commonly prescribed FGA-LAI was flupentixol decanoate (n = 22). There was no significant difference between the RLAI and FGA-LAI groups in terms of mean total scores on the DAI-30, LUNSERS and SWAM or the tolerability subscales of the LUNSERS or the two subscales (treatment acceptability and medication insight) of the SWAM. In both LAI groups there was a low level of side effects (LUNSERS) and a generally positive attitude (DAI-30) and reasonable satisfaction (SWAM) with medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with FGA-LAI and RLAI for at least 6 months did not differ in terms of patient-rated tolerability, attitudes and satisfaction with medication. The current design cannot determine whether differences would have been evident earlier on during treatment. These results should be regarded as preliminary and are subject to prescribing bias. Randomized studies avoid prescribing bias and are a superior way to compare specific LAIs. Ideally randomized studies should include patient-rated outcome measures including medication tolerability; assessment of side effects, efficacy and quality of life made by blinded raters; and additional objective side-effect data including changes in weight and key blood parameters.

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.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol was developed in the late 1950s for use in the field of anaesthesia. Research subsequently demonstrated effects on hallucinations, delusions, aggressiveness, impulsiveness and states of excitement and led to the introduction of haloperidol as an antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of haloperidol for the management of schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses compared with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

Initially, we electronically searched the databases of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1998), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH. We also checked references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted the authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies for further information and archive material.For the 2012 update, on 15 May 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials comparing the use of haloperidol (any oral dose) with placebo for those with schizophrenia or other similar serious, non-affective psychotic illnesses (however diagnosed). Our main outcomes of interest were death, loss to follow-up, clinical and social response, relapse and severity of adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated data independently and extracted, re-inspected and quality assessed the data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50% and inspected data for heterogeneity. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses. For the 2012 update, we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials randomising 4651 people are now included in this review. We chose seven main outcomes of interest for the 'Summary of findings' table. More people allocated haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (4 RCTs n = 472, RR 0.67 CI 0.56 to 0.80, moderate quality evidence). A further eight trials also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the six weeks to six months period (8 RCTs n = 307 RR 0.67 CI 0.58 to 0.78, moderate quality evidence). Relapse data from two trials favoured haloperidol at < 52 weeks but the evidence was very low quality (2 RCTs n = 70, RR 0.69 CI 0.55 to 0.86). Moderate quality evidence showed about half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials (six weeks to six months), although, at up to six weeks, 16 studies found a difference that marginally favoured haloperidol (n = 1812, RR 0.87 CI 0.80 to 0.95). Adverse effect data does, nevertheless, support clinical impression that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Moderate quality evidence indicates that haloperidol caused parkinsonism (5 RCTs n = 485, RR 5.48 CI 2.68 to 11.22), akathisia (6 RCTs n = 695, RR 3.66 CI 2.24 to 5.97, and acute dystonia (5 RCTs n = 471, RR 11.49 CI 3.23 to 10.85). Discharge from hospital was equivocal between groups (1 RCT n = 33, RR 0.85 CI 0.47 to 1.52, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for death and patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but has a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Where there is no treatment option, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. However, where a choice of drug is available, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to prescribe an alternative antipsychotic with less likelihood of adverse effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. Haloperidol should be less favoured as a control drug for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.