Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia

GiGs: graph-based integrated Gaussian kernel similarity for virus-drug association prediction

The prediction of virus-drug associations (VDAs) is crucial for drug repositioning, contributing to the identification of latent antiviral drugs. In this study, we developed a graph-based integrated Gaussian kernel similarity (GiGs) method for predicting potential VDAs in drug repositioning. The GiGs model comprises three components: (i) collection of experimentally validated VDA information and calculation virus sequence, drug chemical structure, and drug side effect similarity; (ii) integration of viruses and drugs similarity based on the above information and Gaussian interaction profile kernel (GIPK); and (iii) utilization of similarity-constrained weight graph normalization matrix factorization to predict antiviral drugs. The GiGs model enhances correlation matrix quality through the integration of multiple biological data, improves performance via similarity constraints, and prevents overfitting and predicts missing data more accurately through graph regularization. Extensive experimental results indicated that the GiGs model outperforms five other advanced association prediction methods. A case study identified broad-spectrum drugs for treating highly pathogenic human coronavirus infections, with molecular docking experiments confirming the model's accuracy.

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.

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 versus penfluridol for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of chlorpromazine, a benchmark antipsychotic, has not been fully assessed in direct comparison with different individual antipsychotics. Penfluridol is another old antipsychotic with a long half-life so one oral dose may last up to one week. This could confer advantage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effects of chlorpromazine compared with penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 March 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia or related disorders. Outcomes of interest were death, service utilisation, global state, mental state, adverse effects and leaving the study early. 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 planned to estimate 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 a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes three studies with a total of 130 participants. Short-term results for hospital admissions showed no clear difference between chlorpromazine and penfluridol (1 RCT, n = 29, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.60, low-quality evidence). No clear difference in the incidence of akathisia was found at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 85, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.06, low-quality evidence), and similar numbers of participants - nearly half - from each treatment group left the study early (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77, low-quality evidence). The risk of needing additional antiparkinsonian medication was less in the chlorpromazine group (2 RCTs, n = 74, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). No useable data reported clinically important change in global or mental state. No data were reported for relapse. No deaths were reported by the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only three small studies provided data and the quality of reporting and evidence is low. Limited data indicate the efficacy and adverse effects profiles of chlorpromazine and penfluridol are generally similar. Penfluridol, however, may confer advantage by needing to be given only once per week. Firm conclusions are not possible without good-quality trials, and where these treatments are used, such trials are justified.