Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

Drug-induced parkinsonism: diagnosis and treatment

INTRODUCTION

Drug-induced parkinsonism (DIP) is one of the most common iatrogenic movement disorders. It is characterized by tremors, slowness of movement, and shuffling gait with postural instability, clinically indistinguishable from idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Prior exposure to antipsychotic medications or other dopamine receptor blocking agents (DRBAs) is required for the diagnosis.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, ancillary testing, and treatment of DIP. A literature search was undertaken in PubMed from January 2013 to January 2024.

EXPERT OPINION

A clinician's suspicion of DIP must always be present when a patient develops acute to subacute onset of parkinsonism while taking a DRBA. As DIP can be indistinguishable from idiopathic PD, ancillary testing, such as DaTscans and skin biopsy searching for alpha-synuclein deposits, are often required to make a definitive diagnosis. When DIP develops, steps should be taken to discontinue the offending agent or, in the case of antipsychotics, dose reduction or change to an agent with lower risk for DIP, such as quetiapine or clozapine. Prophylactic treatment with anticholinergics is not indicated.

Pharmacological modulation of dopamine receptors reveals distinct brain-wide networks associated with learning and motivation in non-human primates

The neurotransmitter dopamine (DA) has a multifaceted role in healthy and disordered brains through its action on multiple subtypes of dopaminergic receptors. How modulation of these receptors influences learning and motivation by altering intrinsic brain-wide networks remains unclear. Here we performed parallel behavioral and resting-state functional MRI experiments after administration of two different DA receptor antagonists in macaque monkeys. Systemic administration of SCH-23390 (D1 antagonist) slowed probabilistic learning when subjects had to learn new stimulus-reward associations and diminished functional connectivity (FC) in cortico-cortical and fronto-striatal connections. By contrast, haloperidol (D2 antagonist) improved learning and broadly enhanced FC in cortical connections. Further comparisons between the effect of SCH-23390/haloperidol on behavioral and resting-state FC revealed specific cortical and subcortical networks associated with the cognitive and motivational effects of DA manipulation, respectively. Thus, we reveal distinct brain-wide networks that are associated with the dopaminergic control of learning and motivation via DA receptors.

Optimisation of pharmacotherapy in psychiatry through therapeutic drug monitoring, molecular brain imaging and pharmacogenetic tests: Focus on antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

For psychotic disorders (i.e. schizophrenia), pharmacotherapy plays a key role in controlling acute and long-term symptoms. To find the optimal individual dose and dosage strategy, specialised tools are used. Three tools have been proven useful to personalise drug treatments: therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of drug levels, pharmacogenetic testing (PG), and molecular neuroimaging.

METHODS

In these Guidelines, we provide an in-depth review of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics for 45 antipsychotics. Over 30 international experts in psychiatry selected studies that have measured drug concentrations in the blood (TDM), gene polymorphisms of enzymes involved in drug metabolism, or receptor/transporter occupancies in the brain (positron emission tomography (PET)).

RESULTS

Study results strongly support the use of TDM and the cytochrome P450 (CYP) genotyping and/or phenotyping to guide drug therapies. Evidence-based target ranges are available for titrating drug doses that are often supported by PET findings.

CONCLUSION

All three tools discussed in these Guidelines are essential for drug treatment. TDM goes well beyond typical indications such as unclear compliance and polypharmacy. Despite its enormous potential to optimise treatment effects, minimise side effects and ultimately reduce the global burden of diseases, personalised drug treatment has not yet become the standard of care in psychiatry.

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.

Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis

A recent meta-epidemiological study did not reveal major differences between the results of blinded and open randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). Fewer patients may consent to double-blind RCTs than to open RCTs, compromising generalisability, making this question very important. However, the issue has not been addressed in schizophrenia. We used a database of randomised, acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials. Whenever at least one open and one blinded RCT was available for a comparison of two drugs, we contrasted the results by random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup tests. The primary outcome was overall symptoms as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, supplemented by seven secondary efficacy and side-effect outcomes. We also examined whether open RCTs were biased in favour of more recently introduced antipsychotics, less efficacious or more prone to side-effects antipsychotics, and pharmaceutical sponsors. 183 RCTs (155 blinded and 28 open) with 34715 participants comparing two active drugs were available. The results did not suggest general differences between open and blinded RCTs, which examined two active drugs. Only 12 out of 122 subgroup tests had a p-value below 0.1, four below 0.05, and if a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests had been applied, only one would have been significant. There were some exceptions which, however, did not always confirm the originally hypothesized direction of bias. Due to the relatively small number of open RCTs, our analysis is exploratory, but this fundamental question should be given more scientific attention. Currently, open RCTs should be excluded from meta-analyses, at least in sensitivity analyses.

Assessing NH300094, a novel dopamine and serotonin receptor modulator with cognitive enhancement property for treating schizophrenia

Background: Schizophrenia is a serious psychiatric disorder that significantly affects the quality of life of patients. The objective of this study is to discover a novel antipsychotic candidate with highly antagonistic activity against both serotonin and dopamine receptors, demonstrating robust efficacy in animal models of positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. Methods: In the present study, we examined the activity of antipsychotic drug (NH300094) on 5-HT2A, 5-HT2C, 5-HT1A, 5-HT1B, 5-HT7, H1, M1, Alpha1A, D2L, D2S, Alpha2A, D3 receptor functional assay in vitro. In addition, multiple animal models, including dizocilpine (MK-801) induced hyper-locomotion; APO induced climbing; Conditioned Avoidance Response (CAR); DOI-Induced Head Twitch; Forced swimming test; Scopolamine induced cognitive impairment model, were used to verify the antipsychotic activity of NH300094 in preclinical. Results: In vitro functional assays have indicated that NH300094 is a potent antagonist of 5-HT receptors and dopamine receptors, with higher relative antagonistic activity against 5-HT2A receptor (5-HT2A IC50 = 0.47 nM) than dopamine receptors (D2L IC50 = 1.04 nM; D2S IC50 = 11.71 nM; D3 IC50 = 31.55 nM). Preclinical in vivo pharmacological study results showed that NH300094 was effective in multiple models, which is more extensive than the clinic drug Risperidone. Furthermore, the safety window for extrapyramidal side effects of NH300094 is significantly wider than that of Risperidone (For NH300094, mice catalepsy model ED50/ Mice MK-801 model ED50 = 104.6-fold; for Risperidone, mice catalepsy model ED50/ Mice MK-801 model ED50 = 12.9-fold), which suggests a potentially better clinical safety profile for NH300094. Conclusion: NH300094 is a novel potent serotonin and dopamine receptors modulator, which has good safety profile and therapeutic potential for the treatment of schizophrenia with cognition disorders.

Cost analysis of lurasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents and adults within the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a serious mental health condition characterised by distortions in thought processes, perception, mood, sense of self, and behaviour. Lurasidone, a second-generation atypical antipsychotic, represents an additional treatment option alongside existing antipsychotics for adolescents and adults with schizophrenia. An economic model was developed to evaluate the incremental costs of lurasidone as a first-line treatment option compared to existing antipsychotics.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost impact of lurasidone as a first-line treatment option for both adolescents and adults. The sequence-based model incorporated the following health states: stable (no relapse or discontinuation), discontinuation (due to adverse events or other reasons), and relapse. Data used to determine the movement of patients between health states were obtained from network meta-analyses (NMAs). The time horizon ranged from three to five years (depending on the patient population) and a six-weekly cycle length was used. Unit costs and resource use were reflective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services and consisted of the following categories: outpatient, adverse events, primary and residential care. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the level of uncertainty associated with the base case results.

RESULTS

Lurasidone is demonstrated to be cost-saving as a first-line treatment within the adolescent and adult populations when compared to second-line and third-line respectively. Lurasidone is more expensive in terms of treatment costs, resource use (in the stable health state) and the treatment of adverse events. However, these costs are outweighed by the savings associated with the relapse health state. Lurasidone remains cost-saving when inputs are varied in sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone is a cost-saving first-line treatment for schizophrenia for both adolescents and adults.

Meta-analysis using Python: a hands-on tutorial

BACKGROUND

Meta-analysis is a central method for quality evidence generation. In particular, meta-analysis is gaining speedy momentum in the growing world of quantitative information. There are several software applications to process and output expected results. Open-source software applications generating such results are receiving more attention. This paper uses Python's capabilities to provide applicable instruction to perform a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We used the PythonMeta package with several modifications to perform the meta-analysis on an open-access dataset from Cochrane. The analyses were complemented by employing Python's zEpid package capable of creating forest plots. Also, we developed Python scripts for contour-enhanced funnel plots to assess funnel plots asymmetry. Finally, we ran the analyses in R and STATA to check the cross-validity of the results.

RESULTS

A stepwise instruction on installing the software and packages and performing meta-analysis was provided. We shared the Python codes for meta-analysts to follow and generate the standard outputs. Our results were similar to those yielded by R and STATA.

CONCLUSION

We successfully produced standard meta-analytic outputs using Python. This programming language has several flexibilities to improve the meta-analysis results even further.

Dealing with missing outcome data in meta-analysis

Missing data result in less precise and possibly biased effect estimates in single studies. Bias arising from studies with incomplete outcome data is naturally propagated in a meta-analysis. Conventional analysis using only individuals with available data is adequate when the meta-analyst can be confident that the data are missing at random (MAR) in every study-that is, that the probability of missing data does not depend on unobserved variables, conditional on observed variables. Usually, such confidence is unjustified as participants may drop out due to lack of improvement or adverse effects. The MAR assumption cannot be tested, and a sensitivity analysis to assess how robust results are to reasonable deviations from the MAR assumption is important. Two methods may be used based on plausible alternative assumptions about the missing data. Firstly, the distribution of reasons for missing data may be used to impute the missing values. Secondly, the analyst may specify the magnitude and uncertainty of possible departures from the missing at random assumption, and these may be used to correct bias and reweight the studies. This is achieved by employing a pattern mixture model and describing how the outcome in the missing participants is related to the outcome in the completers. Ideally, this relationship is informed using expert opinion. The methods are illustrated in two examples with binary and continuous outcomes. We provide recommendations on what trial investigators and systematic reviewers should do to minimize the problem of missing outcome data in meta-analysis.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of haloperidol plus promethazine plus chlorpromazine versus haloperidol plus promethazine for rapid tranquilisation for agitated psychiatric patients in the emergency setting (TREC-Lebanon)

Background: Agitated and aggressive behaviours are common in the psychiatric setting and rapid tranquilisation is sometimes unavoidable. A survey of Lebanese practice has shown that an intramuscular haloperidol, promethazine and chlorpromazine combination is a preferred form of treatment but there are no randomised trials of this triple therapy. Methods: This is a pragmatic randomised trial. Setting - the psychiatric wards of the Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, Jal Eddib, Lebanon. Participants - any adult patient in the hospital who displays an aggressive episode for whom rapid tranquilisation is unavoidable, who has not been randomised before, for whom there are no known contraindications. Randomisation - stratified (by ward) randomisation and concealed in closed opaque envelope by independent parties. Procedure - if the clinical situation arises requiring rapid tranquilisation, medical residents overseeing the patient will open a TREC-Lebanon envelope in which will be notification of which group of treatments should be preferred [Haloperidol + Promethazine + Chlorpromazine (HPC) or Haloperidol + Promethazine (HP)], along with forms for primary, secondary and serious adverse effects. Treatment is not given blindly. Outcome - primary outcome is calm or tranquil at 20 minutes post intervention. Secondary outcomes are calm/tranquil at 40, 60 and 120 minutes post intervention, asleep, adverse effects, use of straitjacket and leaving the ward. Follow-up will be up to two weeks post randomisation. Discussion: Findings from this study will compare the HPC versus HP combination used in Lebanon's psychiatry emergency routine practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03639558. Registration date, August 21, 2018.

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.

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.

Haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting aggression and/or agitation thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes of interest included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and providing useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real-world practice.

Chlorpromazine dose for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines lists chlorpromazine as one of its five medicines used in psychotic disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To determine chlorpromazine dose response and dose side-effect relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (December 2008; 2 October 2014; 19 December 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low doses of chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day), medium dose (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) or higher doses (> 800 mg/day) for people with schizophrenia, and which reported clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We included studies meeting review criteria and providing useable data. Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs based on a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and graded trial quality using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

As a result of searches undertaken in 2014, we found one new study and in 2016 more data for already included studies. Five relevant studies with 1132 participants (585 are relevant to this review) are now included. All are hospital-based trials and, despite over 60 years of chlorpromazine use, have durations of less than six months and all are at least at moderate risk of bias. We found only data on low-dose (≤ 400 mg/day) versus medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) and low-dose versus high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day).When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day), there was no clear benefit of one dose over the other for both global and mental state outcomes (low-quality and very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear evidence for people in one dosage group being more likely to leave the study early, over the other dosage group (moderate-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group experienced agitation and restlessness (very low-quality evidence). However, significantly more people in the medium-dose group (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) experienced extrapyramidal symptoms in the short term (2 RCTS, n = 108, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74, moderate-quality evidence). No data for death were available.When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day), data from one study with 416 patients were available. Clear evidence of a benefit of the high dose was found with regards to global state. The low-dose group had significantly fewer people improving (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, moderate-quality evidence). There was also a marked difference between the number of people leaving the study from each group for any reason, with significantly more people leaving from the high-dose group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89, moderate-quality evidence). More people in the low-dose group had to leave the study due to deterioration in behaviour (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.44, low-quality evidence). There was clear evidence of a greater risk of people experiencing extrapyramidal symptoms in general in the high-dose group (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, moderate-quality evidence). One death was reported in the high-dose group yet no effect was shown between the two dosage groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, moderate-quality evidence). No data for mental state were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The dosage of chlorpromazine has changed drastically over the past 50 years with lower doses now being the preferred of choice. However, this change was gradual and arose not due to trial-based evidence, but due to clinical experience and consensus. Chlorpromazine is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs yet appropriate use of lower levels has come about after many years of trial and error with much higher doses. In the absence of high-grade evaluative studies, clinicians have had no alternative but to learn from experience. However, such an approach can lack scientific rigor and does not allow for proper dissemination of information that would assist clinicians find the optimum treatment dosage for their patients. In the future, data for recently released medication should be available from high-quality trials and studies to provide optimum treatment to patients in the shortest amount of time.

Antipsychotic treatment: experiences of fully recovered service users

BACKGROUND

There is lack of long-term controlled studies evaluating treatment effects of antipsychotic medication. A complete investigation should include the service user perspective.

AIMS

To investigate experiences of clinically recovered service users of antipsychotic medications during and after a first episode of psychosis.

METHOD

We used a thematic analytic approach within an interpretative-phenomenological framework. 20 clinically recovered service users were interviewed.

RESULTS

Themes: (1) Antipsychotic drugs reduce mental chaos during the acute phase, (2) Non-stigmatizing environments were perceived to increase chances of successful use, (3) Antipsychotic drugs beyond the acute phase - considered to compromise the contribution of individual effort in recovery, (4) Prolonged use - perceived to reduce likelihood of functional recovery, (5) Antipsychotic medication was considered as a supplement to trustful relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute phase antipsychotic treatment was mostly perceived as advantageous by this sample, who was in clinical recovery. However, costs were often seen as outweighing benefits beyond the acute stage. Findings clearly emphasize the need for a collaborative approach to be integrated across all phases of care. This study underscores the need to investigate sub-group differences with regard to long-term antipsychotic treatment.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.

Haloperidol for long-term aggression in psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically aggressive behaviour - and both can be prolonged. Aggression within the psychiatric setting imposes a significant challenge to clinicians and risk to service users; it is a frequent cause for admission to inpatient facilities. If people continue to be aggressive it can lengthen hospitalisation. Haloperidol is used to treat people with long-term aggression.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2011 and April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or double blind trials (implying randomisation) with useable data comparing haloperidol with another drug or placebo for people with psychosis and long-term/persistent aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (AK) extracted data. For dichotomous data, one review author (AK) calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. One review author (AK) assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have no good-quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression. One study randomising 110 chronically aggressive people to three different antipsychotic drugs met the inclusion criteria. When haloperidol was compared with olanzapine or clozapine, skewed data (n=83) at high risk of bias suggested some advantage in terms of scale scores of unclear clinical meaning for olanzapine/clozapine for 'total aggression'. Data were available for only one other outcome, leaving the study early. When compared with other antipsychotic drugs, people allocated to haloperidol were no more likely to leave the study (1 RCT, n=110, RR 1.37, CI 0.84 to 2.24, low-quality evidence). Although there were some data for the outcomes listed above, there were no data on most of the binary outcomes and none on service outcomes (use of hospital/police), satisfaction with treatment, acceptance of treatment, quality of life or economics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one study could be included and most data were heavily skewed, almost impossible to interpret and oflow quality. There were also some limitations in the study design with unclear description of allocation concealment and high risk of bias for selective reporting, so no firm conclusions can be made. This review shows how trials in this group of people are possible - albeit difficult. Further relevant trials are needed to evaluate use of haloperidol in treatment of long-term/persistent aggression in people living with psychosis.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84).When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43).We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

Bifeprunox versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Bifeprunox is a novel antipsychotic drug designed to treat schizophrenia. However, research into the drug was ceased in 2009 due to rejection of licence to go to market by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who could not approve the drug for acute or long-term symptoms of schizophrenia because more research was required to demonstrate convincing effects "beyond those already achieved" with currently licenced drugs. There were also concerns expressed over one death of a person whilst on the drug.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical and adverse effects of bifeprunox for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register on 23 October 2015, which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials focusing on bifeprunox versus placebo for schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found evidence of missing data and poor reporting. When bifeprunox 20 mg was compared with placebo for schizophrenia, the drug resulted in a reduction of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive subscale score regarding positive symptoms (n = 549, 2 RCTs, MD -1.89, 95% CI -2.85 to -0.92, low-quality evidence) and the PANSS negative subscale regarding negative symptoms (n = 549, 2 RCTs, MD -1.53, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.69, low-quality evidence). There was a clear improvement regarding deterioration in the bifeprunox 20 mg group (n = 231, 1 RCT, RR 0.71 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.93, very low-quality evidence). The total number of participants with equal to or greater than 7% weight increase was similar between bifeprunox and placebo (n = 483, 1 RCT, RR 1.02 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33 moderate-quality evidence). There were no useable data for quality of life, economic outcomes, and service use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed some positive effects and a favourable adverse effect profile for bifeprunox, although there were few data overall and none were of high quality. It would seem that these data alone would not have been enough for the FDA to decide to halt progress of the drug to market. We can only assume that we are missing important data. Both the FDA and the relevant pharmaceutical companies have not made all relevant data accessible. As some of these trials also involved an additional haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone arm, these data are not only relevant to evaluation of bifeprunox. In not making all data accessible, it is hard to see how the FDA and the drug companies have fulfilled their full obligations to people with schizophrenia or their clinicians.

Haloperidol inactivates AMPK and reduces tau phosphorylation in a tau mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

INTRODUCTION

The use of antipsychotic medications in Alzheimer's disease has been associated with an increased risk of mortality in clinical trials. However, an older postmortem literature suggests that those with schizophrenia treated in an era of exclusively conventional antipsychotic medications had a surprisingly low incidence of tau pathology. No previously published studies have investigated the impact of conventional antipsychotic exposure on tau outcomes in a tau mouse model of AD.

METHODS

In two experiments, transgenic rTg (tauP301L) 4510 tau mice were treated with either haloperidol or vehicle and phosphotau epitopes were quantified using high-sensitivity tau ELISA.

RESULTS

After treatments of 2 and 6 week's duration, mice treated with haloperidol evidenced a significant reduction in tau phosphorylation associated with an inactivation of the tau kinase AMPK.

DISCUSSION

The data suggest that D2 receptor blockade reduces tau phosphorylation in vivo. Future studies are necessary to investigate the impact of this reduction on tau neuropathology.

Use of haloperidol and risperidone in highly aggressive Swiss Webster mice by applying the model of spontaneous aggression (MSA)

Aggression is defined as the act in which an individual intentionally harms or injures another of their own species. Antipsychotics are a form of treatment used in psychiatric routine. They have been used for decades in treatment of patients with aggressive behavior. Haloperidol and risperidone promote the control of psychiatric symptoms, through their respective mechanisms of action. Experimental models are obtained by behavioral, genetic, and pharmacological manipulations, and use a reduced number of animals. In this context, we applied the model of spontaneous aggression (MSA), originating the presence of highly aggressive mice (AgR) when reassembled in adulthood. We administered haloperidol and risperidone in escalating doses, for ten consecutive days. Using positive and negative control groups, we evaluated the effectiveness of these drugs and the reversal of the aggressive behavior, performing the tail suspension test (TST) and open field test (OFT) on 10th day of treatment and 10 days after its discontinuation. The results showed that both antipsychotic drugs were effective in AgR and reversed the aggressive phenotype, reducing the number of attacks by AgR and the extent of lesions in the subordinate mice (AgD) exposed to the pattern of aggressive behavior (PAB) of the aggressors. This conclusion is based on the reduction in the animals' motor and exploratory activity, and on the reversal of patterns of aggressive behavior. The association between the MSA and experiments with other therapeutic protocols and different antipsychotics can be an important methodology in the study of aggressive behavior in psychiatric patients.

A 6-week, double-blind, placebo- and haloperidol-controlled, phase II study of lurasidone in patients with acute schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of the atypical antipsychotic agent lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia.

METHODS

In this phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, hospitalized adult patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and experiencing an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of fixed-dose lurasidone 20 mg/day (n = 71), lurasidone 40 mg/day (n = 67), lurasidone 80 mg/day (n = 71), haloperidol 10 mg/day (n = 72, included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo (n = 72). Efficacy was assessed using the brief psychiatric rating scale, positive and negative syndrome scale, and clinical global impression-severity. Safety assessments included incidence of adverse events and clinical laboratory measures.

RESULTS

Numerical improvement was observed from baseline to week 6 (last observation carried forward) on all efficacy measures in all treatment groups; however, no statistically significant differences were noted between any lurasidone group and placebo, or between haloperidol and placebo. The most common adverse events in lurasidone-treated patients, with an incidence of at least 10% (dose groups combined) and greater than placebo, were sedation (15.3%), dyspepsia (13.4%), nausea (13.4%), akathisia (12.4%), and vomiting (10.5%); for haloperidol, the most common adverse events (incidence ⩾ 10% and greater than placebo) were extrapyramidal disorder (20.8%), sedation (19.4%), akathisia (19.4%), dystonia (15.3%), insomnia (13.9%), and somnolence (12.5%). Lurasidone was associated with minimal changes in weight, metabolic parameters, and prolactin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the lurasidone groups separated from placebo in this clinical study of patients with acute schizophrenia. In addition, haloperidol, which was included for assay sensitivity, did not separate from placebo, resulting in a failed study. Possible reasons for the lack of assay sensitivity in this study include the use of multiple active treatment arms and the relatively large placebo response. Consistent with other studies, lurasidone was generally safe and well tolerated, with minimal effects on weight or metabolic parameters.

Asenapine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a highly prevalent and chronic disorder that comprises a wide range of symptomatology. Asenapine is a recently developed atypical antipsychotic that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of asenapine for adults with schizophrenia or other schizophrenia-like disorders by comparing it with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (July 04, 2014) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitation for inclusion of records into the register. We inspected references of all included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our review includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing asenapine with placebo in adults (however defined) with schizophrenia or related disorders, including schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder and delusional disorder, again, by any means of diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected citations from the searches and identified relevant abstracts, and extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table which included our outcomes of interest, where possible. We used a fixed-effect model for our analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We obtained and scrutinised 41 potentially relevant records, and from these we could include only six trials (n = 1835). Five of the six trials had high risk of attrition bias and all trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Results showed a clinically important change in global state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, low-quality evidence) and mental state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.86, very low-quality evidence) at short-term amongst people receiving asenapine. People receiving asenapine demonstrated significant reductions in negative symptoms (1 RCT, n = 336, MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.09, very low-quality evidence) at short-term. Individuals receiving asenapine demonstrated significantly fewer incidents of serious adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 386, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) at medium-term. There was no clear difference in people discontinuing the study for any reason between asenapine and placebo at short-term (5 RCTs, n = 1046, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for extrapyramidal symptoms or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some, albeit preliminary, evidence that asenapine provides an improvement in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms, whilst minimising the risk of adverse effects. However due to the low-quality and limited quantity of evidence, it remains difficult to recommend the use of asenapine for people with schizophrenia. We identify a need for large-scale, longer-term, better-designed and conducted randomised controlled trials investigating the clinical effects and safety of asenapine.

Rethinking psychopharmacotherapy: The role of treatment context and brain plasticity in antidepressant and antipsychotic interventions

Emerging evidence indicates that treatment context profoundly affects psychopharmacological interventions. We review the evidence for the interaction between drug application and the context in which the drug is given both in human and animal research. We found evidence for this interaction in the placebo response in clinical trials, in our evolving knowledge of pharmacological and environmental effects on neural plasticity, and in animal studies analyzing environmental influences on psychotropic drug effects. Experimental placebo research has revealed neurobiological trajectories of mechanisms such as patients' treatment expectations and prior treatment experiences. Animal research confirmed that "enriched environments" support positive drug effects, while unfavorable environments (low sensory stimulation, low rates of social contacts) can even reverse the intended treatment outcome. Finally we provide recommendations for context conditions under which psychotropic drugs should be applied. Drug action should be steered by positive expectations, physical activity, and helpful social and physical environmental stimulation. Future drug trials should focus on fully controlling and optimizing such drug×environment interactions to improve trial sensitivity and treatment outcome.

Neurochemical Metabolomics Reveals Disruption to Sphingolipid Metabolism Following Chronic Haloperidol Administration

Haloperidol is an effective antipsychotic drug for treatment of schizophrenia, but prolonged use can lead to debilitating side effects. To better understand the effects of long-term administration, we measured global metabolic changes in mouse brain following 3 mg/kg/day haloperidol for 28 days. These conditions lead to movement-related side effects in mice akin to those observed in patients after prolonged use. Brain tissue was collected following microwave tissue fixation to arrest metabolism and extracted metabolites were assessed using both liquid and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (MS). Over 300 unique compounds were identified across MS platforms. Haloperidol was found to be present in all test samples and not in controls, indicating experimental validity. Twenty-one compounds differed significantly between test and control groups at the p < 0.05 level. Top compounds were robust to analytical method, also being identified via partial least squares discriminant analysis. Four compounds (sphinganine, N-acetylornithine, leucine and adenosine diphosphate) survived correction for multiple testing in a non-parametric analysis using false discovery rate threshold < 0.1. Pathway analysis of nominally significant compounds (p < 0.05) revealed significant findings for sphingolipid metabolism (p = 0.015) and protein biosynthesis (p = 0.024). Altered sphingolipid metabolism is suggestive of disruptions to myelin. This interpretation is supported by our observation of elevated N-acetyl-aspartyl-glutamate in the haloperidol-treated mice (p = 0.004), a marker previously associated with demyelination. This study further demonstrates the utility of murine neurochemical metabolomics as a method to advance understanding of CNS drug effects.

Haloperidol versus first-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.

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.