Treatment of resistant schizophrenics with extreme high dosage fluphenazine hydrochloride

Increasing antipsychotic dose for non response in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not reach a satisfactory clinical response with a standard dose of an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, clinicians face the dilemma of increasing the antipsychotic dose in order to enhance antipsychotic efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of increasing antipsychotic dose compared to keeping the same dose in the treatment of people with schizophrenia who have not responded (as defined in the individual studies) to an initial antipsychotic drug trial. We also examine the adverse effects associated with such a procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting useable data, comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose rather than maintaining the original dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data . We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten relevant RCTs with 675 participants are included in this review. All trials were double blind except one single blind. All studies had a run-in phase to confirm they did not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. The trials were published between 1980 and 2016. In most studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. In addition sample sizes were often small, limiting the overall quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the number of participants who showed clinically relevant response (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.40, 9 RCTs, N = 533, low-quality evidence), or left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.07, very low quality evidence), or due to any reason (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90, 5 RCTs, N = 353, low-quality evidence). Similarly, no clear difference was found in general mental state as measured by PANSS total score change (MD -1.44, 95% CI -6.85 to 3.97, 3 RCTs, N = 258, very low quality evidence). At least one adverse effect was equivocal between groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50, 2 RCTs, N = 191, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for time in hospital or quality-of-life outcomes. Finally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not show any effect on the primary outcome but these analyses were clearly underpowered.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current data do not show any clear differences between increasing or maintaining the antipsychotic dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. Adverse effect reporting was limited and poor. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optional treatment strategy in such cases.

Fluphenazine decanoate (depot) and enanthate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long-acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate versus oral anti-psychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for individuals with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2011 and October 16, 2013), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, assessed the quality, and extracted data of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the mean difference (MD) for normal continuous data. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses unless there was high heterogeneity. For this update. we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 73 randomised studies, with 4870 participants. Overall, the quality of the evidence is low to very low.Compared with placebo, use of fluphenazine decanoate does not result in any significant differences in death, nor does it reduce relapse over six months to one year, but one longer-term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.35, CI 0.19 to 0.64, very low quality evidence). A very similar number of people left the medium-term studies (six months to one year) early in the fluphenazine decanoate (24%) and placebo (19%) groups, however, a two-year study significantly favoured fluphenazine decanoate (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.47, CI 0.23 to 0.96, very low quality evidence). No significant differences were found in mental state measured on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or in extrapyramidal adverse effects, although these outcomes were only reported in one small study each. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with placebo reported clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics in the medium term (n = 419, 6 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.75 to 2.83, very low quality evidence). A small study found no difference in clinically significant changes in global state. No difference in the number of participants leaving the study early was found between fluphenazine decanoate (17%) and oral neuroleptics (18%), and no significant differences were found in mental state measured on the BPRS. Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n = 259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.24 to 0.91, very low quality evidence). No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with oral neuroleptics reported death or hospital admissions.No significant difference in relapse rates in the medium term between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate was found (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 2.43, CI 0.71 to 8.32, very low quality evidence), immediate- and short-term studies were also equivocal. One small study reported the number of participants leaving the study early (29% versus 12%) and mental state measured on the BPRS and found no significant difference for either outcome. No significant difference was found in extrapyramidal adverse effects between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with fluphenazine enanthate reported death, clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. Fluphenazine decanoate produced fewer movement disorder effects than other oral antipsychotics but data were of low quality, and overall, adverse effect data were equivocal. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.

Depot fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (May 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all relevant randomised clinical controlled trials focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality rated and data extracted studies. For dichotomous data we estimated relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and, where possible, the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the weighted mean difference (WMD) for normal continuous data. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 70 randomised studies. Compared with placebo, fluphenazine decanoate did not reduce relapse over 6 months to 1 year, but one longer term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n=54, RR 0.35, CI 0.2 to 0.6, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics (n=419, 6 RCTs, RR relapse 26-52 weeks 1.46 CI 0.8 to 2.8) or other depot antipsychotics (n=581, 11 RCTs, RR relapse 26-52 weeks 0.82 CI 0.6 to 1.2). Relapse rates over 6 months to 1 year were not significantly different between standard dosage of fluphenazine decanoate over a low dose group (n=523, 4 RCTs, RR 2.09 CI 0.6 to 7.1). Movement disorders were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n=259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNT 14 CI 10 to 82). For fluphenazine enanthate there were limited data but no clear difference in global change (0 to 5 weeks) when compared with oral neuroleptics (n=31, 1 RCTs, RR 0.67 CI 0.3 to 1.7), and in relapse rates over 6-26 weeks between fluphenazine enanthate and other depots. Compared with placebo, giving the enanthate caused no more people to need need anticholinergic drugs (n=25, 1 RCT, RR 9.69 CI 0.6 to 163.0) and movement disorders, tardive dyskinesia, tremor, blurred vision and dry mouth were equally prevalent when enanthate was compared with other depot neuroleptics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.

Dose response and dose equivalence of antipsychotics

We review evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled studies of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, which compared 2 or more doses of an antipsychotic to calculate the dose-response curve for each first-generation (typical) antipsychotic (FGA) or second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic (SGA) and as a group (based on dose equivalence). We identified the near-maximal effective dose (ED; ie, the threshold dose necessary to produce all or almost all the clinical responses for each drug). In randomized, fixed-dose studies of SGAs, the near-maximal efficacy dose for olanzapine may be greater than 16 mg; for risperidone, it is 4 mg; and for ziprasidone, it is 120 mg. Risperidone at 2 mg daily is 50% less efficacious than higher doses. Olanzapine at about 6 mg is approximately 33% less effective than higher doses. Aripiprazole at 10 mg daily was fully efficacious. Doses of clozapine well above 400 mg are necessary for optimal treatment of many schizophrenia patients. We found 3.3 to 10 mg haloperidol to be the near-maximal ED range. We find no evidence that doses higher than these are more effective. We failed to find that high doses of haloperidol (or all other first-generation comparison drugs converted to equivalent doses) were less effective than medium doses (3.3 to 10 mg). While high-dose FGAs are not less effective, we feel it is important not to avoid using high dose to avoid excessive toxicity.

Pharmacotherapy for refractory schizophrenia patients

Most schizophrenic patients experience morbidity over the course of their illness, as the illness runs a chronic course and full remissions are infrequent. Therefore, defining treatment resistance among schizophrenia is problematic. Not all patients respond to antipsychotic medication treatment and an estimated 30-50% are considered resistant to treatment. Treatment resistance normally occurs along a continuum and most patients manifest varying degrees of resistance to antipsychotic medications. Essock and colleagues discovered that more than 60% of the patients in state hospitals met the criteria for clozapine therapy and, therefore, they may qualify for treatment resistance.

Drug strategies and treatment-resistant schizophrenia

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the paper are to review the notion of treatment resistance in schizophrenia and consider the factors important in determining non-responsiveness to standard neuroleptic treatment, and to review the strategies currently available in the treatment of such patients, including an evaluation of recently-introduced, novel drug treatments.

METHOD

A selective review of the literature relating to treatment resistance was undertaken using medline searches, followed by cross-checking for further articles identified in these references.

RESULTS

The various treatment approaches available are considered, including adjunctive treatment with lithium or carbamazepine. The risks and benefits of high dose antipsychotic treatment are discussed. The possible benefits and side-effects of new treatments, particularly the atypical neuroleptics, are also reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

The reasons why a proportion of patients with schizophrenia fail to respond to standard neuroleptic treatment are ill-understood. Nevertheless, initial assessment should include identification of any factors that may be related to a patient's poor response, such as poor compliance, substance use or epilepsy. This may help to determine an appropriate treatment strategy. There is a need to be systematic and to ensure that patients be given an adequate trial of each treatment tested in terms of duration and dosage. The available evidence does not support the use of high doses of neuroleptics for the majority of patients. Adjunctive treatments, such as lithium, carbamazepine or benzodiazepines may be beneficial in non-responsive patients, particularly if certain target symptoms are present. Atypical neuroleptics, particularly clozapine, have proved particularly effective in non-responsive patients as well as those sensitive to the motor side-effects of standard drugs. However, the high risk of agranulocytosis with clozapine is a problem; also the drug and the necessary haematological monitoring are expensive. There are hints that some of the other, new, atypical neuroleptics have some benefit in non-responsive patients, but controlled studies are required.

Plasma reduced haloperidol/haloperidol ratios in schizophrenic patients treated with high dosages of haloperidol

Plasma haloperidol (HL) and reduced haloperidol (RH) levels were measured in 60 schizophrenic patients treated with high to very high HL doses of 40-200 mg/day. Plasma samples were obtained at steady-state conditions and 10-12 h after the evening dose and prior to the morning dose. RH/HL ratios were shown to be dose-dependent. In the lowest dose group of 40-45 mg/day, 77% of the patients had RH/HL ratios < 1.0. At the higher dose of 60-80 mg/day, these results were reversed as 79% of the patients had RH/HL ratios > 1.0. All patients with HL doses greater than 100 mg/day had RH/HL ratios > 1.0. All patients safely tolerated the high haloperidol dosages and only five patients had extrapyramidal side effects that were unresponsive to trihexyphenidyl. Therapeutic improvement was not observed in each patient. Based upon the dose-dependent increase in the RH/HL ratios in schizophrenic patients, the possible mechanism of a 'therapeutic' window for HL is discussed.

The use of high-dose antipsychotic medication

Antipsychotic medication is the mainstay of treatment for the functional psychotic illnesses. Such drugs are also referred to as neuroleptics (meaning a drug with both antipsychotic effects and effects on movement) and major tranquillisers. The psychotic illnesses for which they are prescribed include schizophrenia, mania in the course of a bipolar mood disorder, and, more rarely, depression accompanied by psychotic symptoms. These are not uncommon illnesses. At some time during their lives approximately 1% of the population will suffer at least one episode of schizophrenia and a further 1% will suffer at least one episode of mania. During an episode some patients, but by no means all, suffer extreme changes in their thinking, mood and behaviour which can be very distressing to experience and which can make patients a danger to themselves or other people.