Differential effects of haloperidol on negative symptoms in drug-naive schizophrenic patients: effects on plasma homovanillic acid

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Plasma homovanillic acid differences in clinical subgroups of first episode schizophrenic patients

This study evaluates the relationship between plasma homovanillic acid (pHVA) levels, which have been used to study the role of central dopamine in schizophrenia, and the positive/negative syndrome in first episode schizophrenic patients before and after antipsychotic treatment. Forty neuroleptic-naive first episode schizophrenic patients were monitored at baseline and on days 7, 14 and 28. Clinical status was evaluated with the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and the Brief Psychotic Rating Scale. Plasma HVA levels were also measured. Patients were divided into predominantly positive or negative syndrome groups by subtracting SAPS from SANS scores, at baseline. A healthy control group was also enrolled. Schizophrenic patients as a group had significantly higher pHVA levels than controls at baseline (20.50+/-11.85 vs. 13.04+/-7.22 ng/ml). Moreover, 12 predominantly negative syndrome patients had similar mean baseline pHVA levels (21.30+/-12.36 ng/ml) to those of 28 predominantly positive syndrome patients (19.40+/-11.33 ng/ml). During follow-up, there was a different evolution of pHVA levels in the predominantly positive syndrome group than in the predominantly negative syndrome group, with a significantly greater global reduction of pHVA levels in the former. Although both groups showed clinical improvement following 4 weeks of treatment with risperidone, pHVA levels at endpoint were lower (13.29+/-5.91 ng/ml) than at baseline in patients in the predominantly positive syndrome group, while among those in the predominantly negative syndrome group there was no difference in pHVA levels before and after treatment (21.02+/-13.06 ng/ml). The different pHVA level profiles observed in predominantly positive and negative syndrome first episode patients after 4 weeks of treatment with risperidone suggest that each syndrome may have a different underlying neurobiology.

Plasma homovanillic acid and prolactin in Huntington's disease

Dopaminergic activity is expected to be altered in patients with Huntington's disease (HD) and be related to factors like duration and severity of illness or patients' specific symptomatology like dementia, depression, or psychotic features. We assessed plasma homovanillic acid (pHVA) and plasma prolactin (pPRL), two correlates of dopaminergic activity, in 116 subjects with CAG repeats expansion in the HD gene, 26 presymptomatic (18 females) and 90 with overt symptomatology (43 females). Patients were evaluated using the Unified HD Rating Scale and the Total Functional Capacity Scale. Presence of dementia, depression, and psychotic features were also assessed. The age range of the patients was 22-83 years, duration of illness from 0.5 to 27 years, and CAG repeat number from 34 to 66. A group of 60 age and sex matched healthy subjects served as control group. Plasma PRL in subjects at risk and in neuroleptic-free patients, evaluated separately for males and females, did not differ from controls. Plasma HVA levels did not differ from controls in the group of presymptomatic subjects, but were significantly higher in the patients group. This increase was positively associated mainly with severity of illness and functional capacity of the patients, and not with presence of depression or dementia. Plasma HVA levels may be proven to be a peripheral index of disease progression. Reducing dopaminergic activity may have not only symptomatic, but also neuroprotective effects in HD.

Pharmacological treatment of primary negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment of primary negative symptoms is important because their presence is associated with poor outcome.

AIMS

To systematically review all studies dealing with the efficacy of pharmacological agents on primary negative symptoms.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the relevant literature was undertaken using electronic database, reference lists and personal contact.

RESULTS

There is a lack of standardized research designs. Amisulpride is the most extensively studied drug with respect to efficacy against primary negative symptoms. At low doses it demonstrates a consistent, modest effect compared to placebo, though not to conventional antipsychotics and has yet to be tested against other atypicals. Evidence from multiple studies that used simple statistical analyses and inclusion criteria for patients with primary negative symptoms does not support a direct effect for clozapine. Path-analysis studies support the direct effects of risperidone, olanzapine, sertindole and aripiprazole, however, different statistical analyses of the same risperidone study produced conflicting results and the direct effects of olanzapine were not confirmed in selected patients with primary negative symptoms. There are no studies supporting the use of ziprasidone or quetiapine. The effects of typical antipsychotics on primary negative symptoms are inconclusive and likely to depend on drug dosages. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mirtazepine and NMDA agonists show early promise but require further study. Novel agents such as selegiline, naltrexone, dehydroepiandrosterone, galantamine, Ginkgo, nitric oxide, L-deprenyl and pergolide show positive effects on general negative symptoms but remain untested against primary negative symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies using standardized selective inclusion criteria and controlling for chronicity are needed. Research guidelines are discussed.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We initially electronically searched the databases of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1998), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH. We also checked references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted the authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies for further information and archive material. For the 2005 update we searched The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 6).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated data independently and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, assuming that people who left the study early, or were lost to follow-up, had no improvement. Where possible and appropriate, we analysed dichotomous data using Relative Risk (RR) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CI). If appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) was estimated. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow up was greater than 50% and inspected data for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials randomising 1519 people are now included in this review. One new trial, Kane 2002 (n=414) has been added but it did not affect the overall results. More people allocated haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (3RCTs n=159, RR failing to produce a marked improvement 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 5). A further eight trials also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the 6-24 week period (8 RCTs n=308 RR no marked global improvement 0.68 CI 0.6 to 0.8 NNT 3 CI 2.5 to 5) but this may be an over estimate of effect as small negative studies were not identified. About half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials, although, at 0-6 weeks, 11 studies found a difference that marginally favoured haloperidol (11 RCTs n=898, RR 0.8 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 59 CI 38 to 200). Adverse effect data does, nevertheless, support clinical impression, that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Haloperidol promotes acute dystonia (3 RCTs n=93, RR 4.7 CI 1.7 to 44, NNH 5 CI 3 to 9), akathisia (4 RCTs n=333, RR 2.6 CI 1.4 to 4.8, NNH 7 CI 3 to 25) and parkinsonism (4 RCTs n=163, RR 11.7 CI 2.9 to 47, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but has a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Where there is no treatment option, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. However, where a choice of drug is available, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to prescribe an alternative antipsychotic with less likelihood of adverse effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. Haloperidol should not be a control drug of choice for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 2000), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH (January 1974-December 1998) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. Authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for further information and archive material.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reviewers evaluated data independently and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, assuming that people who left the study early, or were lost to follow up, had no improvement. Where possible and appropriate, dichotomous data were analysed using relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. If appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) was estimated. For continuous data, weighted mean differences were calculated. Continuous data were excluded if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. All data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-four trials were identified but only 20 included. More people allocated to haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (three trials, n=159, RR failing to produce a marked improvement 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 5). A further eight trials (n=313) also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the 6-24 week period (RR no marked global improvement 0.68 CI 0.6 to 0.8 NNT 3 CI 2.5 to 5) but this may be an overestimate of effect as small negative studies were not identified. About half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials, although, at 0-6 weeks, 10 studies found a difference that favoured haloperidol (n=686, RR 0.82 CI 0.7 to 0.95, NNT 8 CI 5 to 17). Limited adverse effect data do, nevertheless, support the clinical impression that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Haloperidol promotes acute dystonia (three trials, n=135, RR 4.7 CI 1.7 to 44, NNH 5 CI 3 to 9 - not assuming those who left early from placebo suffered dystonis), akathisia (three trials, n=129, RR 6.5 CI 1.5 to 28, NNH 6 CI 4 to 14) and parkinsonism (four trials, n=165, RR 8.9 CI 2.6 to 31, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but with a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Given no choice of drug, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. If a choice of drug is available, however, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to start another antipsychotic with less likelihood of causing parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. For countries where haloperidol is not widely used, it should not be a control drug of choice for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.

Plasma homovanillic acid in untreated schizophrenia--relationship with symptomatology and sex

Plasma homovanillic acid (pHVA) concentrations are considered to reflect, in part, central dopamine metabolism and thus may be of value in assessing the role of dopamine neurotransmission in schizophrenia. Furthermore, some recent studies have suggested a relationship of pHVA with symptomatology. We have undertaken a study of pHVA in a large cohort of unmedicated DSM-IV schizophrenic patients in order to assess the relationship of pHVA to various clinical parameters. pHVA in 58 drug-free patients (10.11+/-0.52 ng/ml) was significantly elevated in comparison with 62 matched control subjects (8.77+/-0.39 ng/ml). pHVA was found to be higher in patients with a more negative syndrome. No significant correlation of pHVA with overall SAPS or SANS scores was apparent in the patients although, within the SANS subscales, a significant relationship to anhedonia-asociality was apparent. Interestingly, the male drug-free patients showed a correlation of pHVA with negative symptoms defined by SANS and several SANS subscales, while females showed no significant relationship with any SANS subscales. The results may suggest that an increased dopaminergic turnover is apparent in (male) schizophrenic patients with predominantly negative symptoms, providing some support for reports that this change in neuronal activity may be related to the neuropathological abnormalities seen in the disease, which may themselves differ between males and females. Such neuronal deficits of developmental or degenerative origin may thus result in an elevation/disinhibition of central dopamine metabolism in schizophrenia.

Effects of pimozide on the psychopathology of delusional disorder

1. The effects of pimozide on the psychopathology of delusional disorder were studied. 2. After six weeks, pimozide (2-12 mg/day) administration had no effect on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, or in the psychological, social and occupational functioning, as measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. 3. When the different dimensions of the delusional experience were looked upon, no modifications were observed in any of them after six weeks of pimozide treatment. 4. These data failed to support the therapeutic role of pimozide in the treatment of delusional disorder and may suggest, when compared to other disorders with prominent delusions such as schizophrenia, a different neurobiology for the illness.

Antipsychotic drugs induce Fos protein in the thalamic paraventricular nucleus: a novel locus of antipsychotic drug action

Monitoring expression of c-fos and other immediate-early genes has proven a useful method for determining potential sites of action of antipsychotic drugs. Most studies of the effects of antipsychotic drugs on immediate-early gene expression have focused on the basal ganglia and allied cortical regions. We now report that clozapine administration markedly increases both the number of cells expressing Fos protein-like immunoreactivity and the amount of Fos protein in the thalamic paraventricular nucleus, but not the contiguous mediodorsal thalamic nucleus. Comparable doses of several dopamine D2-like antagonists, including raclopride, sulpiride, remoxipride and haloperidol, did not induce Fos expression in the paraventricular nucleus. However, loxapine and very high doses of haloperidol resulted in a small but significant increase in paraventricular nucleus Fos expression. The dopamine D1 receptor antagonist SCH23390 did not induce Fos in the paraventricular nucleus or alter the magnitude of the clozapine-elicited increase in Fos expression. The serotonergic 5-hydroxytryptamine2a/2c antagonist ritanserin, alone or in combination with sulpiride, did not increase Fos expression in the paraventricular nucleus. Similarly, the 5-hydroxytryptamine2:D2 antagonist risperidone did not change the amount of Fos protein in the paraventricular nucleus. Neither the alpha 1 adrenergic antagonist prazosin nor the muscarinic cholinergic antagonist scopolamine mimicked the effect of clozapine. The key placement of the paraventricular nucleus as an interface between the reticular formation and forebrain dopamine systems suggests that this thalamic nucleus may be an important part of an extended neural network subserving certain actions of antipsychotic drugs.