Poor neuroleptic response in acutely exacerbated schizophrenic patients

Response rates to sequential trials of antipsychotic medications according to algorithms or treatment guidelines in psychotic disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a relative lack of research evaluating the outcomes when treatment guidelines or algorithms for psychotic disorders are followed. This systematic review and meta-analysis determined the response rates to antipsychotic medications at different stages of these algorithms and whether these response rates differ in first episode cohorts.

METHODS

Data sources: A systematic search strategy was conducted across four databases PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL. Studies that had sequential trials of different antipsychotic medications were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using random effects models and sub-group analysis in first episode psychosis studies.

RESULTS

Of the 4078 unique articles screened, fourteen articles, from nine unique studies, were eligible and included 2522 participants. The proportion who experienced a response to any antipsychotic in the first stage of an algorithm was 0.53 (95 % C.I.:0.38,0.68) and this decreased to 0.26 (95 % C.I.:0.15,0.39) in the second stage. When clozapine was used in the third stage, the proportion that achieved a response was 0.43 (95 % C.I. 0.19, 0.69) compared to 0.26 (95 % C.I.:0.05,0.54) if a different antipsychotic was used. Four studies included 907 participants with a first episode of psychosis and the proportions that achieved a response were: 1st stage: 0.63 (95 % C.I.: 0.45, 0.79); 2nd stage: 0.34 (95 % C.I.:0.16,0.55); clozapine 3rd stage: 0.45 (95 % C.I.:0.0,0.97), different antipsychotic 3rd stage: 0.15 (95 % C.I.,0.01,0.37).

DISCUSSION

These findings support the recommendation to have a trial of clozapine after two other antipsychotic medications have been found to be ineffective.

Early Non-Response to Antipsychotic Treatment in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evidence-Based Management Options

BACKGROUND

Early non-response is a well-established prognostic marker but evidence-based and consistent recommendations to manage it are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to generate evidence-based strategies for the management of schizophrenia patients with early non-response to 2 weeks of antipsychotic treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing antipsychotic dose escalation, switch, augmentation and continuation in individuals with study-defined early antipsychotic treatment non-response. Eligibility criteria were (1) clinical trials of primary psychosis treating for at least 2 weeks with antipsychotic monotherapy with study-defined operationalized criteria for early non-response; and (2) randomization to at least two of the following treatment strategies: dose escalation, switch, augmentation, or treatment continuation. Information sources were Pubmed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE, and risk of bias was assessed using Jadad scores. Results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis, comparing each intervention with treatment continuation for total symptom change as the primary outcome, generating standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Studies meeting the selection criteria but providing insufficient data for a meta-analysis were presented separately.

RESULTS

We screened 454 records by 1 August 2022, of which 12 individual datasets met the inclusion criteria, representing 947 research participants. Of those studies, five provided data to include in the meta-analysis (four with early non-response at 2 weeks, one at 3 weeks). Early non-response was defined within a timeline of 2 weeks in eight datasets, with the remaining datasets ranging between 3 and 4 weeks. The rates of early non-response ranged between 72.0 and 24.1%, and the endpoint ranged within 4-24 weeks post randomization. Quality was good (i.e., Jadad score of ≥3) in 8 of the 12 datasets. Overall, three studies compared antipsychotic switch versus continuation and two compared antipsychotic switch versus augmentation, in both cases without significant pooled between-group differences for total symptom severity (n = 149, SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.5). Individually, two relatively large studies for antipsychotic switch versus continuation found small advantages for switching antipsychotics for total symptom severity (n = 149, SMD -0.49, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.06). One relatively large study found an advantage for dose escalation, although this finding has not been replicated and was not included in the meta-analysis. None of the alternatives included antipsychotic switch to clozapine.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite robust accuracy of early antipsychotic non-response predicting ultimate response, the evidence for treatment strategies that should be used for early non-response after 2-3 weeks is limited. While meta-analytic findings were non-significant, some individual studies suggest advantages of antipsychotic switch or dose escalation. Therefore, any conclusions should be interpreted carefully, given the insufficient high-quality evidence.

The SWITCH study: rationale and design of the trial

Many patients do not respond to the first antipsychotic drug prescribed, but require multiple trials with different drugs before response is achieved. Current treatment guidelines vary substantially in their recommendations as to how long clinicians should wait before an antipsychotic treatment attempt should be considered as failed and the compound switched. It has, however, recently been shown that poor early response to an antipsychotic is associated with continuous poor later response in the course of the same treatment attempt. This finding suggests that patients who do experience poor early response might benefit from a switch in antipsychotic medication as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation. In the SWITCH trial, 350 patients suffering from an acute episode of schizophrenia are randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine or amisulpride. The primary endpoint is symptomatic remission at week 8. Patients not experiencing at least minor response after 2 weeks are randomized again to either staying on the initially assigned drug or being switched to the alternative compound for another 6 weeks. In case early switching proves superior to maintaining treatment, time wasted for unsuccessful treatment attempts could be minimized, patients' outcomes improved, duration of hospital stays reduced, and thus overall treatment expenses saved. The current report will present the methods of the trial, focusing on various specific features which could be adopted by future studies.

Are all first-generation antipsychotics equally effective in treating schizophrenia? A meta-analysis of randomised, haloperidol-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Narrative, unsystematic reviews revealed no differences in efficacy between the various first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) resulting in the psychopharmacological assumption of comparable efficacy between the different FGAs. We sought to determine if the assumption of comparable efficacy of all FGAs can be regarded as evidence-based using meta-analytic statistics.

METHODS

A systematic literature survey (Cochrane Schizophrenia Group trial register) was applied to identify all RCTs that compared oral haloperidol with another oral FGA in schizophrenia. Primary outcome was dichotomous treatment response. Secondary outcomes were symptom severity measured by rating scales, discontinuation rates, and specific adverse effects.

RESULTS

Altogether, 79 RCTs with 4343 participants published between 1962 and 1999 were included. We found a significant between-group difference only between haloperidol and nemonapride, but not for the remaining 19 investigated FGAs. There were no significant differences for discontinuation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

As most of the single meta-analytic comparisons can be regarded as underpowered, the evidence for the assumption of comparable efficacy of all FGAs is inconclusive. We therefore cannot confirm or reject the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews in this regard. Our findings were limited by the small sample size in the individual comparisons and the low methodological quality in many included studies.

The optimization of treatment and management of schizophrenia in Europe (OPTiMiSE) trial: rationale for its methodology and a review of the effectiveness of switching antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Most of the 13 542 trials contained in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register just tested the general efficacy of pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. Studies on the subsequent treatment steps, which are essential to guide clinicians, are largely missing. This knowledge gap leaves important questions unanswered. For example, when a first antipsychotic failed, is switching to another drug effective? And when should we use clozapine? The aim of this article is to review the efficacy of switching antipsychotics in case of nonresponse. We also present the European Commission sponsored "Optimization of Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Europe" (OPTiMiSE) trial which aims to provide a treatment algorithm for patients with a first episode of schizophrenia.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed (October 29, 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined switching the drug in nonresponders to another antipsychotic. We described important methodological choices of the OPTiMiSE trial.

RESULTS

We found 10 RCTs on switching antipsychotic drugs. No trial was conclusive and none was concerned with first-episode schizophrenia. In OPTiMiSE, 500 first episode patients are treated with amisulpride for 4 weeks, followed by a 6-week double-blind RCT comparing continuation of amisulpride with switching to olanzapine and ultimately a 12-week clozapine treatment in nonremitters. A subsequent 1-year RCT validates psychosocial interventions to enhance adherence.

DISCUSSION

Current literature fails to provide basic guidance for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia. The OPTiMiSE trial is expected to provide a basis for clinical guidelines to treat patients with a first episode of schizophrenia.

Perphenazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our original search using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (September 2013), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow-up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD), both with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed quality of data using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationtool) and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 4662 participants (of which 4522 were receiving the drugs relevant to our comparison) and presented data that could be used for at least one comparison. The trial centres were located in Europe (especially Scandinavia), Japan and Northern America.When comparing perphenazine with placebo, for our primary outcome of clinical response, results favoured perphenazine with significantly more people receiving placebo rated as either 'no better or deterioration' for global state than people receiving perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 61 RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.78, very low quality evidence). More people receiving placebo relapsed, although not a statistically significant number (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 0.14 CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in the perphenazine versus placebo comparison. Experiences of dystonia were equivocal between groups (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 1.00 CI 0.07 to 15.08, very low quality evidence); other outcomes not reported in this comparison include serious adverse events, economic outcomes, and service use and hospitalisation.For the comparison of perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs, no real differences in effect between the drugs were found. There was no significant difference between groups for those considered 'no better or deterioration' (17 RCTs, n = 1879, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.17, very low quality evidence). For mental state outcome of 'no effect' of the study drug, there was again no significant difference between groups (4 RCTs, n = 383, RR 1.24 CI 0.61 to 2.52, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no significant difference in rates of dystonia with perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs (4 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36 CI 0.23 to 8.16, very low quality evidence), nor was there a significant difference between groups for serious adverse events (2 RCTs, n = 1760, RR 0.98 CI 0.68 to 1.41, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although perphenazine has been used in randomised trials for more than 50 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. All data for the main outcomes in this review were of very low quality evidence. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.

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.

Perphenazine 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 the various first-generation antipsychotics, however, low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs are sometimes perceived as less efficacious than high-potency first-generation compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of high-potency, first-generation perphenazine compared with low-potency, first-generation antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perphenazine with first-generation, low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

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 and using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes four relevant randomised trials with 365 participants. The size of the included studies was between 42 and 158 participants with a study length between one and four months. Overall, the methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. Most studies were rated as low risk of bias in terms of blinding. Overall, attrition bias in the studies was high.The effects of perphenazine and low-potency antipsychotic drugs seemed to be similar in terms of the primary outcome - response to treatment (perphenazine 58%, low-potency antipsychotics 59%, 2 RCTs, n = 138, RR 0.97 CI 0.74 to 1.26 - moderate quality of evidence). There was also no clear evidence of a difference in acceptability of treatment with the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason, however results were imprecise (perphenazine 30%, low-potency antipsychotics 28%, 3 RCTs, n = 323, RR 0.78 CI 0.35 to 1.76, very low quality of evidence).There were low numbers of studies available for the outcomes experiencing at least one adverse effect (perphenazine 33%, low-potency antipsychotics 47%, 2 RCTs, n = 165, RR 0.83 CI 0.36 to 1.95, low quality evidence) and experiencing at least one movement disorder (perphenazine 22%, low-potency first-generation antipsychotics 0%, 1 RCT, n = 69, RR 15.62 CI 0.94 to 260.49, low quality evidence), and the confidence intervals for the estimated effects did not exclude important differences. Akathisia was more frequent in the perphenazine group (perphenazine 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 22%, 2 RCTs, n = 227, RR 9.45 CI 1.69 to 52.88), whereas severe toxicity was less so (perphenazine 42%, low-potency antipsychotics 69%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.61 CI 0.41 to 0.89).There were three deaths in the low-potency group by four months but the difference between groups was not significant (perphenazine 0%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.14 CI 0.01 to 2.69, moderate quality evidence). No data were available for our prespecified outcomes of interest sedation or quality of life. Data were not available for other outcomes such as relapse, service use, costs and satisfaction with care.The event rates reported quote simple aggregates and are not based on the RRs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not show a superiority in efficacy of high-potency perphenazine compared with low-potency first-generation antipsychotics. There is some evidence that perphenazine is more likely to cause akathisia and less likely to cause severe toxicity, but most adverse effect results were equivocal. The number of studies as well as the quality of studies is low, with quality of evidence for the main outcomes ranging from moderate to very low, so more randomised evidence would be needed for conclusions to be made.

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.

Pharmacotherapy of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a clinical perspective

A significant number of patients with schizophrenia do not respond adequately to an initial antipsychotic trial. As first step within a treatment algorithm for therapy-refractory schizophrenia 'pseudoresistance' should be ruled out (eg, re-evaluation of the diagnosis, comorbidities, compliance and adherence in terms of medication intake, adequate dose and treatment duration, and achievement of sufficient plasma levels). In case of treatment resistance, two strategies that are often used in clinical routine care contain dose increase of the current administered antipsychotic drug (dose escalation, high-dose treatment) and switch to another, new antipsychotic. Although the response rates for both options are generally rather low, we see from the evidence-based perspective a slight advantage of the switching strategy (preferably to an antipsychotic with a different receptor-binding profile) compared to a high-dose treatment. After treatment failures with at least two different antipsychotic drugs, a monotherapy with clozapine is considered to be the treatment option of first choice. At present, pharmacological combination and augmentation strategies cannot be regarded as a generally recommendable evidence-based treatment method. Antipsychotic monotherapy should be preferably sought. In case of combination treatment, it appears more appropriate to combine preferentially two antipsychotics with different receptor-binding profiles. Augmentation of antipsychotics with other agents should be used primarily to treat specific target symptoms.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

These guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from the participants and interested parties, and cover the pharmacological management and treatment of schizophrenia across the various stages of the illness, including first-episode, relapse prevention, and illness that has proved refractory to standard treatment. The practice recommendations presented are based on the available evidence to date, and seek to clarify which interventions are of proven benefit. It is hoped that the recommendations will help to inform clinical decision making for practitioners, and perhaps also serve as a source of information for patients and carers. They are accompanied by a more detailed qualitative review of the available evidence. The strength of supporting evidence for each recommendation is rated.

Evidence-based pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

We describe the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and have arranged the manuscript as a simple algorithm which starts from the choice of an antipsychotic drug for an acutely ill patient and concludes with the most important questions about maintenance treatment. In acutely ill patients the choice of drug is mainly based on pragmatic criteria. Among many strategies used for agitated patients, haloperidol plus promethazine is the best examined one. In case of persistent depression or negative symptoms treatment includes antidepressants, and some second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) have been found somewhat superior to first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs) in these domains. If an antipsychotic is suspected to be ineffective, several factors need to be checked before action is taken. Few trials have addressed strategies such as switching the drug or increasing the dose in case of non-response. Clozapine remains the gold-standard for treatment-refractory patients, while none of the numerous augmentation strategies that have been examined by randomized controlled trials can be generally recommended. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs effectively reduces relapse rates. Small, not definitive, studies have shown that withdrawing antipsychotics from patients who have been stable for up to 6 yr leads to more relapses than continuing medication. In effect, continuous treatment is more effective than intermittent strategies. The identification of optimum doses for relapse prevention with FGAs has proven difficult, and there is little randomized data on SGAs. Although the randomized evidence on a superiority of depot compared to oral treatment is not ideal, this approach suggests obvious advantages in assuring compliance.

Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with typical antipsychotics has limitations: 25 to 33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer motor adverse effects than typical drugs for people with treatment-resistant illnesses. Clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders, which necessitates mandatory weekly blood monitoring at least during the first months of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of clozapine compared with typical antipsychotic drugs in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review (March 2006) we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 42 trials (3950 participants) in this review. Twenty-eight of the included studies are less than 13 weeks in duration, and, overall, trials were at significant risk of bias. We found no significant difference in the effects of clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs for broad outcomes such as mortality, ability to work or suitability for discharge at the end of the study. Clinical improvements were seen more frequently in those taking clozapine (n=1119, 14 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.7 to 0.8, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Also, participants given clozapine had fewer relapses than those on typical antipsychotic drugs (n=1303, RR 0.62 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 21 CI 15 to 49). BPRS scores showed a greater reduction of symptoms in clozapine-treated patients, (n=1145, 16 RCTs, WMD -4.22 CI -5.4 to -3.1), although the data were heterogeneous (Chi(2) 0.0001, I(2) 66%). Short-term data from the SANS negative symptom scores favoured clozapine (n=196, 5 RCTs, WMD -5.92 CI -7.8 to -4.1). We found clozapine to be more acceptable in long-term treatment than conventional antipsychotic drugs (n=982, 16 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 15 CI 12 to 20). Blood problems occurred more frequently in participants receiving clozapine (3.2%) compared with those given typical antipsychotics (0%) (n=1031, 13 RCTs, RR 7.09 CI 2.0 to 25.6). Clozapine participants experienced more drowsiness, hypersalivation, or temperature increase, than those given conventional neuroleptics. However, clozapine patients experienced fewer motor adverse effects (n=1433, 18 RCTs, RR 0.58 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 5 CI 4 to 6).The clinical effects of clozapine were more pronounced in participants resistant to typical neuroleptics in terms of clinical improvement (n=370, 4 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.6 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 6) and symptom reduction. Thirty-four per cent of treatment-resistant participants had a clinical improvement with clozapine treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine may be more effective in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia, producing clinically meaningful improvements and postponing relapse, than typical antipsychotic drugs - but data are weak and prone to bias. Participants were more satisfied with clozapine treatment than with typical neuroleptic treatment. The clinical effect of clozapine, however, is, at least in the short term, not reflected in measures of global functioning such as ability to leave the hospital and maintain an occupation. The short-term benefits of clozapine have to be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. Within the context of trials, the potentially dangerous white blood cell decline seems to be more frequent in children and adolescents and in the elderly than in young adults or people of middle-age.The existing trials have largely neglected to assess the views of participants and their families on clozapine. More community-based long-term randomised trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of clozapine on global and social functioning as trials in special groups such as people with learning disabilities.

Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine and haloperidol are benchmark antipsychotic drugs. Both are said to be equally effective when used at equivalent doses, but have different side-effect profiles.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of haloperidol and chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (August 2006). We searched references of all included studies for further trials. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared haloperidol with chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by at least two reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. We independently extracted data. For dichotomous data we calculated the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 14 relevant studies, mostly of short duration, poorly reported and conducted in the 1970s (total n=794 participants). Nine of these compared oral formulations of both compounds, and five compared intramuscular formulations. Haloperidol was associated with significantly fewer people leaving the studies early (13 RCTs, n=476, RR 0.26 CI 0.08 to 0.82). The efficacy outcome 'no significant improvement' tended to favour haloperidol, but this difference was not statistically significant (9 RCTs, n=400, RR 0.81 CI 0.64 to 1.04). Movement disorders were more frequent in the haloperidol groups ('at least one extrapyramidal side effect': 6 RCTs, n=37, RR 2.2 CI 1.1 to 4.4, NNH 5 CI 3 to 33), while chlorpromazine was associated with more frequent hypotension (5 RCTs, n=175, RR 0.31 CI 0.11 to 0.88, NNH 7 CI 4 to 25). Similar trends were found when studies comparing intramuscular formulations and studies comparing oral formulations were analysed separately.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given that haloperidol and chlorpromazine are global standard antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia, it is surprising that less than 800 people have been randomised to a comparison and that incomplete reporting still makes it difficult for anyone to draw clear conclusions on the comparative effects of these drugs. However, it seems that haloperidol causes more movement disorders than chlorpromazine, while chlorpromazine is significantly more likely to lead to hypotonia. We are surprised to have to say that we feel further, large, well designed, conducted and reported studies are required.

Perphenazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (June 2001), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data we calculated the relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 25 studies with 2478 patients, 2285 of whom had been randomised to interventions that were relevant for the review such as perphenazine, other antipsychotic drugs or placebo. The trials were carried out between 1961 and 1993. All but one trial were short term with a duration of between ten days and 12 weeks. Descriptions of allocation and blinding were usually incomplete. Six studies (n=300) compared perphenazine with placebo. Perphenazine was associated with fewer participants leaving the trials early due to relapse or worsening of symptoms (n=84, RR 0.1 CI 0.03 - 0.4, NNT 2 CI 1 to 20). Twenty studies compared perphenazine (n=738) with other antipsychotics (n=1278). Perphenazine seemed as effective as other antipsychotics ('global state unimproved or worse' n=1327, RR 1.0 CI 0.9 to 1.2). We found no clear differences in terms of specific aspects of efficacy, behaviour or tolerability. However, interpretation of findings of the review was limited by poor reporting and the use of 24 different comparator antipsychotics in the 20 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although perphenazine has been randomised for more than 40 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other pooled antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.

Combination of dopamine D2 receptor gene polymorphisms as a possible predictor of treatment-resistance to dopamine antagonists in schizophrenic patients

Both the A1 allele carriers of TaqI A and Del allele noncarriers of -141C Ins/Del for dopamine D(2) receptor (DRD(2)) gene polymorphisms have been reported to have a lowered DRD(2) density. The present study aimed to examine whether the combinations of these two DRD(2) gene polymorphisms predict treatment response to antidopaminergic agents in schizophrenic patients. Subjects consisted of 49 acutely exacerbated schizophrenic inpatients treated with bromperidol (30 cases, mean dose+/-S.D.: 11.4+/-4.8 mg/day) or nemonapride (19 cases, 18 mg/day). Clinical symptoms were evaluated using Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) before and 3 weeks after the treatment. DRD(2) genotypes were determined using a polymerase chain reaction method. The A1 noncarriers with a Del allele showed poorer percentage improvement in anxiety-depression symptom after 3-week treatment (n=9, 7.3+/-42.9%) than A1 carriers without Del alleles (n=25, 62.4+/-38.0%) or A1 noncarriers without Del alleles (n=10, 65.4+/-29.2%). However, these preliminary results should be replicated in further research with a larger number of the subjects in each haplotype subgroup.

Management of treatment resistance in schizophrenia

A systematic approach to the evaluation and characterization of treatment resistance in schizophrenia has become increasingly important since the introduction of the second-generation antipsychotics. The need for accurate evaluation will increase further as other new antipsychotic medications are developed. Patients with schizophrenia may manifest poor response to therapy because of intolerance to medication, poor adherence, inappropriate dosing, as well as true resistance of their illness to antipsychotic drug therapy. Criteria for treatment-resistance are presented to help in standardizing treatment and clinical trials. As clinicians face the decision of when to change or augment antipsychotic medications, a clear understanding of the appropriate length of a treatment trial and which target symptoms respond to antipsychotic therapy is critical for maximizing response in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Treatment of the special patient with schizophrenia

Special patient populations with schizophrenia have received little attention. These populations include adolescents, the elderly, substance abusers, and patients who are considered treatment-resistant. Interest in these populations is rapidly growing, especially with regard to their treatment with second-generation antipsychotics. This article describes the treatment of special patient populations and summarizes the research that has been done in this field.

State of the art of drug treatment of schizophrenia and the future position of the novel/atypical antipsychotics

Neuroleptic medication is the most important part of the treatment regimen for schizophrenic patients. The efficacy of neuroleptics in the acute and long-term treatment of schizophrenia is very well proven and the effect size is comparatively high. After more than 40 years of clinical practice with the classical neuroleptics, several more or less generally accepted rules for the management of drug treatment in schizophrenia have been established. The paper aims to describe these standards, discussing, among other things, developments which have appeared in the last 10 to 20 years, e.g. the tendency to a lower daily dose during acute treatment and the tendency to alternative strategies during long-term treatment. The paper especially also takes into consideration the benefits of the novel/atypical antipsychotics as compared to the classical neuroleptics, which will change the current treatment standards under several aspects--a change which is already ongoing. The novel/atypical antipsychotics will be much better accepted by patients, thus leading to increased compliance, will be associated with a better quality of life and will possibly change the long-term outcome of schizophrenic patients in a very important manner. It should be considered that the so-called novel/atypical neuroleptics do not constitute a homogeneous group but are a group of individual drugs, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. As was the situation with the classical neuroleptics, the physician also has to choose the most adequate drug under consideration of the risk/benefit profile of each drug in relation to the disposition of the individual patient.

Pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia

The pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia remains a critical component in the short- and long-term management of this disease. Considerable progress has been made in delineating different domains of this illness, ranging from positive and negative symptoms to cognitive dysfunction and psychosocial vulnerabilities. Increasingly, treatments are being studied in relation to a variety of different outcome measures with functional ability and quality of life achieving appropriate emphasis. The introduction of a new generation of antipsychotic drugs has helped to raise optimism and expectations. Overall, second-generation drugs do provide clear advantages in terms of reducing adverse effects (particularly drug-induced Parkinsonism, anesthesia, and, hopefully, tardive dyskinesia). Advantages in alleviating refractory symptoms, negative symptoms, depression, and suicidal behavior are found in some reports; however, much remains to be done methodologically in establishing the relative merits of specific drugs in the multiple domains of interest.

A comparative review of new antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE

To review the preclinical and clinical properties of various established and putative antipsychotic medications, namely clozapine, risperidone, amisulpride, olanzapine, quetiapine, sertindole, and ziprasidone.

METHODS

This paper proposes a decision algorithm for comparing drugs used for psychotic disorders, based on biochemical profile, experimental pharmacology, postiron emission tomography (PET) scan results, and clinical efficacy on positive, negative, anxious, depressive, and cognitive symptoms. This "quotient" aims to compare the different available drugs, regardless of their development and registration status.

RESULTS

Antipsychotic drugs have been classified in many ways, mainly according to their chemical structure, clinical effects, receptor affinity, or side effects. Preclinical data have indicated that these drugs might be effective antipsychotic agents, causing fewer extrapyramidal side effects than most of the previously marketed drugs. However, the biological basis for the putative superiority of these drugs in treating psychosis has yet to be ascertained.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most antipsychotics have been shown to be at least equivalent to haloperidol on positive symptoms, they must be studied further to establish their absolute and relative efficacy on positive symptoms, negative and primary negative symptoms, cognition, psychotic anxiety, psychotic depression, suicidality, and quality of life. These drugs should be valuable in treating schizophrenia, but their merit in the long-term management of patients with schizophrenia still needs to be confirmed.

Guidelines for depot antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia. European Neuropsychopharmacology Consensus Conference in Siena, Italy

These guidelines for depot antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia were developed during a two-day consensus conference held on July 29 and 30, 1995 in Siena, Italy. Depot antipsychotic medications were developed in the 1960s as an attempt to improve the long-term treatment of schizophrenia (and potentially other disorders benefiting from long-term antipsychotic medication). Depot drugs as distinguishable from shorter acting intramuscularly administered agents can provide a therapeutic concentration of at least a seven day duration in one parenteral dose. The prevention of relapse in schizophrenia remains an enormous public health challenge worldwide and improvements in this area can have tremendous impact on morbidity, mortality and quality of life, as well as direct and indirect health care costs. Though there has been debate as to what extent depot (long-acting injectable) antipsychotics are associated with significantly fewer relapses and rehospitalizations, in our view when all of the data from individual trials and metaanalyses are taken together, the findings are extremely compelling in favor of depot drugs. However in many countries throughout the world fewer than 20% of individuals with schizophrenia receive these medications. The major advantage of depot antipsychotics over oral medication is facilitation of compliance in medication taking. Non-compliance is very common among patients with schizophrenia and is a frequent cause of relapse. In terms of adverse effects, there are not convincing data that depot drugs are associated with a significantly higher incidence of adverse effects than oral drugs. Therefore in our opinion any patient for whom long-term antipsychotic treatment is indicated should be considered for depot drugs. In choosing which drug the clinician should consider previous experience, personal patient preference, patients history of response (both therapeutic and adverse effects) and pharmacokinetic properties. In conclusion the use of depot antipsychotics has important advantages in facilitating relapse prevention. Certainly pharmacotherapy must be combined with other treatment modalities as needed, but the consistent administration of the former is often what enables the latter.

Review: treatment of schizophrenia. State of the art

As a result of the multifactorial etiopathology of schizophrenia, a treatment strategy combining drug therapy with psychosocial measures is indicated. Depending on the stage of the disease and on the individual condition of the patient, the accent is set alternatively more on one approach or on the other. However, under aspects of symptom reduction and relapse prophylaxis, the therapy with neuroleptics plays the most important role. In order to keep their side effects to a minimum during acute and long term treatment, there is nowadays a trend towards administration of the lowest possible dose. Under this aspect, the use of so called atypical neuroleptics should be taken into consideration. The treatment of negative symptoms, especially in the context of chronic residual syndrome, is still a problem which hasn't been solved to satisfaction. Beside the use of atypical neuroleptics, treatment with antidepressives should be tried. During the long term relapse prophylactic treatment, it is important that not only the criterion "reduction of the relapse rate" but also that of individual risk/benefit relation be considered. Concerning psychosocial therapies, especially focused behavioural therapy approaches, for example educational programs and specific family therapeutical intervention following the high-EE-concept, as well as training of social and cognitive competences have proved useful beside supportive psychotherapy and the whole range of sociotherapeutical measures. However they need further evaluation before they get integrated in routine treatment.