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

Development and Validation of a Stability-Indicating High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Method Coupled With a Diode Array Detector for Quantifying Haloperidol in Oral Solution Using the Analytical Quality-by-Design Approach

This study developed a stability-indicating HPLC-DAD method for quantifying haloperidol in oral solution using analytical quality-by-design principles. Haloperidol stability was tested under acidic, alkaline, oxidative, and photolytic stress conditions. The analytical quality-by-design approach began by defining the analytical target profile and identifying critical material attributes and critical method parameters via risk analysis. Factorial and Box-Behnken designs, conducted in Design Expert 13, were used to select critical method parameters and determine the method operable design region. The oral solution degraded significantly under acidic and alkaline conditions. Continuous critical method parameters such as mobile phase flow rate, gradient slope, column temperature, and pH were optimized. A quadratic Box-Behnken design with critical method attributes was applied and validated, resulting in robust regression models with significant p-values (> 0.05), absence of lack-of-fit (p-values < 0.05), and R2-adjusted > 0.85. The method proved selective, accurate, and precise within the method operable design range. Normal operating conditions (NOCs) were established using a Waters Symmetry C18 column with a 100-mM formate buffer (pH 3.8) and acetonitrile, with a gradient profile and detection at 246 nm. The operational region included flow rates between 1.2 and 1.35 mL/min (NOC = 1.3 mL/min), temperatures of 8°C-20°C (NOC = 15°C), and mobile phase pH variations from 3.3 to 4.3 (NOC = 3.8). The analytical quality-by-design-based method was robust and effective for stability monitoring, reducing subjectivity while maximizing reliability.

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.

Diagnostic Difficulties and Treatment Challenges of a Young Patient With Severe Acute Psychosis and Complete Recovery

First break psychosis in young adults is sometimes presented as a dichotomous model of organic or substance-induced etiology or a primary psychiatric disorder on the schizophrenia spectrum and related disorders. In this case of a young adult with a typical age of onset for psychotic symptoms also presenting with cannabis use, excessive vaping, history of COVID-19 illness, pineal cyst, and extreme elevation of blood pressure, the diagnostic certainty decreases. Increased risk of progression to schizophrenia in individuals with cannabis use disorder and genetic loading has been extensively reported in the literature. Clinicians may face significant diagnostic and treatment challenges when managing a patient with severe psychotic symptoms. For the clinicians acutely managing such patients facing these exact questions of unknown certainty in progression to full-blown schizophrenia, we highlight a case of severe acute psychosis and complete recovery on a first-generation antipsychotic and mood stabilizer. 

Antipsychotic-Induced Constipation: A Review of the Pathogenesis, Clinical Diagnosis, and Treatment

Antipsychotic-induced gastrointestinal hypomotility and, in particular, its manifestation of constipation are common adverse effects in patients with schizophrenia in clinical practice. Serious complications of antipsychotic-induced constipation include ileus, ischaemic bowel disease, colon perforation, aspiration pneumonia, and bacterial septicaemia, which can be life threatening if left untreated, especially in patients prescribed clozapine. The aim of this paper is to review the latest research on the epidemiology, clinical examination methods, pathophysiology, and treatment options and preventive measures for antipsychotic-induced constipation. While clinicians are normally aware of the overall side effects caused by antipsychotics, constipation is often an under-recognized condition despite its relatively high incidence and its impact on daily living. The incidence of constipation differs among individual antipsychotics, but more than 50% of patients prescribed antipsychotics suffer from constipation. Limited fluid intake, poor dietary habits, and a sedentary lifestyle can also worsen constipation. The mechanisms of antipsychotic-induced constipation may be antagonism of cholinergic, histaminergic, and serotonergic receptors, with both parent drug and metabolite(s) contributing to the effects on gastrointestinal motility. Numerous methods, mainly divided into scale evaluations and objective examinations, are applied to evaluate antipsychotic-induced constipation; however, objective examinations have a greater ability to identify cases of gastrointestinal hypomotility since there is often an under-reporting of symptoms in subjective reporting and scale evaluation due to a higher pain threshold, an inability to express pain sensations, and a lack of symptom awareness in these patients. Antipsychotic drug-induced constipation should be closely monitored in patients receiving these medications, with timely intervention to avoid serious gastrointestinal consequences. There is currently no consensus on the efficacy of laxatives in these patients. Further in-depth studies should explore the underlying mechanisms and devise optimal therapeutic approaches to minimize constipation during antipsychotic treatment.

Comparison of Haloperidol, Promethazine, Trifluoperazine, and Chlorpromazine in Terms of Velocity and Durability of the Sedation among Acute Aggressive Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Knowledge and skill about sedation of aggressive patients is necessary for each psychiatrist. The purpose of this study was comparing the velocity and durability of sedation induced by the haloperidol, trifluoperazine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine in aggressive patients.

Materials and Methods:

This randomized clinical trial was done on 76 aggressive patients referred to Psychiatry Emergency Service of Noor Hospital of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences that were randomly divided into four groups of haloperidol, promethazine, chlorpromazine, and trifluoperazine. Patients were evaluated at 30 min intervals for aggressive symptoms, and if they did not respond to intervention after the first 30 min or if they showed aggression again, a same dose of the injected drug was prescribed. The length of sedation time was recorded for each patient.

Results:

Seventy-six patients with the mean age of 31.89 ± 8.73 years were participated and 63.2% of them were male. Response to intervention after the first injection was seen in 40.8% and 59.2% needed the second injection. The mean time needed for obtaining sedation was 17.38 ± 8.23 and 19.66 ± 4.64 min after the first and second injection, respectively. The mean times of sedation induction were not significantly related to age, gender, type of substance used, type of aggression, and type of psychiatric disorder. Considering the type of drugs, there was no significant difference between velocity and durability effect of sedation after the first and second injection.

Conclusion:

Comparing the velocity and durability of sedative effect of the four studied drugs on acute aggressive patients, did not show any significant difference between them.

Propionate Protects Haloperidol-Induced Neurite Lesions Mediated by Neuropeptide Y

Haloperidol is a commonly used antipsychotic drug for treating schizophrenia. Clinical imaging studies have found that haloperidol can cause volume loss of human brain tissue, which is supported by animal studies showing that haloperidol reduces the number of synaptic spines. The mechanism remains unknown. Gut microbiota metabolites, short chain fatty acids including propionate, are reported to have neuroprotective effect and influence gene expression. This study aims to investigate the effect and mechanism of propionate in the protection of neurite lesion induced by haloperidol. This study showed that 10 μM haloperidol (clinical relevant dose) impaired neurite length in human blastoma SH-SY5Y cells, which were confirmed by using primary mouse striatal spiny neurons. We found that haloperidol impaired neurite length were accompanied by a decreased neuropeptide Y (NPY) expression, but no effect on GSK3β signaling. Importantly, this project research found that propionate was capable of protecting against haloperidol-induced neurite lesions and preventing NPY reduction. To confirm this finding, we used specific siRNAs targeting NPY which blocked the protective effect of propionate on haloperidol-induced neurite lesions. Furthermore, since NPY is regulated by the nuclear transcription factor CREB, we measured pCREB that was decreased by haloperidol and was normalized by propionate. Therefore, propionate has a protective effect against pCREB-NPY mediated haloperidol-induced neurite lesions.

A Review of Clinical and Economic Evaluations Applied to Psychotropic Therapies Used in the Treatment of Schizophrenia in Argentina

Schizophrenia is considered a serious mental disorder that affects over 21 million people worldwide, and is associated with disability that frequently affects the patient's educational and working performance. In Argentina, two of the most widely used antipsychotics in the treatment of this disorder are haloperidol and risperidone. Both are provided free to patients without health coverage in public healthcare facilities. In this paper we seek to review the clinical and economic benefits of prescribing psychotropic therapies based on haloperidol (a first-generation antipsychotic that is part of the butyrophenone group of drugs) versus risperidone [an atypical or second-generation antipsychotic (neuroleptic) drug] in adult patients who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. To achieve this objective, an exhaustive search of relevant articles published between 2006 and April 2017 was conducted. This literature search showed that intermittent treatment usually fails to prevent relapses due to irregular protection, therefore continuous treatment is more effective. Although the injectable formats of both drugs [haloperidol depot and long-acting injectable risperidone (LAIR)] have not proven to have significant differences with regard to clinical effectiveness vis-à-vis the tablet formats, they showed a lower cost-effectiveness ratio by reducing patients' relapses. Moreover, LAIR exhibits superior cost effectiveness compared with haloperidol depot. Haloperidol is less expensive than risperidone but is less cost effective; in comparison with haloperidol, treatment with risperidone produces (1) an improvement in quality-adjusted life-years, and (2) a significant reduction in negative symptoms. In most cases, antipsychotic treatments are effective in controlling the positive and negative symptoms associated with schizophrenia, allowing patients to live in their communities without any impairments. However, it is extremely important to combine pharmacological treatment with other measures that constitute psychosocial therapy.

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.

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.

Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine derivative, has been reported to have potent antipsychotic characteristics. However, no evidence currently exists on the effectiveness of chlorpromazine in treatment of people with schizophrenia compared to metiapine, a newer antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of chlorpromazine versus metiapine for the treatment of people with schizophrenia SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials in November 2015 and 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus metiapine for adults with schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.

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 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 three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely.